DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed March 18th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-28 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 103 Rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 15th, 2026 and are hereby withdrawn in light of their correction. Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 8-27 are found to be in allowance, however claim 28 remains rejected for reasons and combinations of record. It is noted for fullness of the record Examiner attempted to contact Applicant’s Representative’s attorney for an examiners amendment to address, but unfortunately timelines did not align and conference was not achieved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-9, and 12-26 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faucher et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20130086793); hereafter "Faucher", in view of Liang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20110304163); hereafter "Liang".
Regarding claim 28, Faucher discloses (FIGS. 6-7) a connection point assembly for a patient lifter spreader bar (As illustrated in FIGS. 6-7), the connection point assembly comprising a hook member (correspondent 114; FIGS. 6-7) defining a throat having a mouth (as eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 6-7), the mouth being formed between a distal portion of the hook member and a base portion of the hook member (as eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 6-7), a latch assembly operably coupled to the hook member at the mouth (latch member correspondent 102; as eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 6-7), the latch assembly comprising a latch (as eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 6-7), the latch assembly configurable between an open position wherein the latch does not obstruct the mouth (as set forth eminently in the [0040] “the spring 104 can bias the safety mechanism 102 to a closed position in which the safety mechanism contacts the main body 113 of the lifting bar 112 (FIG. 7). Providing the described safety mechanism 102 arrangement, including the spring 104…allowing for intentional detachment of the patient support 8 from the lifting bar 112”) and a closed position wherein the latch obstructs the mouth (as eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 6-7); wherein the latch comprises a latch base from which the latch extends (As eminently demonstrated in FIG. 6-7); wherein an edge of the latch base is exposed for manually rotating the latch base to deflect the latch (As eminently demonstrated in FIG. 6-7 of Faucher, the edge is exposed by the construction of the bifurcations); wherein the edge comprises a tactile surface (As eminently demonstrated in FIG. 6-7 of Faucher.).
However, Faucher does not explicitly disclose a visual indicator indicative of the open position and the closed position, wherein the visual indicator comprises a first visual indication and a second angularly offset visual indication and wherein the distal end portion of the hook member comprises a window and wherein the first visual indication is viewable through the window in the closed position and the second visual indication is viewable through the window in the open position or where the edge particularly incorporates grip protrusions.
Regardless, Liang teaches (FIGS. 15) a visual indicator indicative of the open position and the closed position (as illustrated in FIGS. 15 and conveyed through [0044]), wherein the visual indicator comprises a first visual indication (correspondent 160; FIG. 15) and a second {angularly} offset visual indication (correspondent 162; FIG. 15) and wherein the distal end portion of the hook member comprises a window (187; FIG. 15) and wherein the first visual indication is viewable through the window in the closed position (as illustrated in FIG. 15) and the second visual indication is viewable through the window in the open position (As illustrated in FIG. 15), and further the edge comprises a tactile surface having grip protrusion (As eminently demonstrated in FIG. 6-7 of Faucher).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated an angularly arranged/angularly offset first and second visual indicator for a pivoting member/protrusion and grip protrusions as Liang portrays (FIGS. 15) into the angularly pivoting protrusion/member of Faucher (102/104/106). Where the results would have been predictable as both Faucher and Liang are concerned with protruding cam members controlled by a spring for retention of elements. Where Liang has general applicability as being applied to a spring loaded cam locking member (Abstract), and where Faucher is a spring loaded cam locking member (as illustrated in FIG. 6). Where advantageously, Liang acknowledges “When cam 112 extends out of lock housing 102, cam indicator 162 overlaps with housing indicator window 187, so cam indicator 162 cam be seen from outside. When cam 112 is in the retracted position, the other part of cam indicator arm 160 overlaps with housing indicator window 187. Therefore, the locked position and the unlocked position can be told from the color in housing indicator window 187 from outside” [0044], thereby availing further clarity as to the state of the closure of Faucher in the same manner prescribed by Liang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pages 7-, filed March 18th, 2026 with respect to the previous 103 Rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 103 Rejections have been withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 8-27 are in condition for allowance for reasons set forth in the pertinent section hereafter.
Applicant's arguments filed March 18th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Particularly with regards to applicant’s allegations directed towards claim 28, wherein applicant argues that Faucher is not used manually or an edge exposed. Examiner is respectfully confused and disagrees with this characterization as Faucher clearly by the provided Figure by applicant utilized manually operated latches that clearly have an edge exposed and that may be manually rotated. Where it is also considered It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). However, Examiner considers that the exposed edges of Faucher would be operable, applicants do not specify a necessary friction required to engage the feature, only that an edge is provided and that it may be manually engaged, which Faucher possesses the necessary structure and thus could achieve the intended uses of such an edge about a rotation pin at 102 in FIG. 7. It is also further considered that Liang does present protrusions of a plurality of ridges that may operate as grip protrusions. However, applicant’s respectfully are not claiming a process and such using the invention and particularly engaging the grip protrusions, only that the grip protrusions are there, which appear to be a plurality of ridges and surface irregularities which Liang provides to one of it’s indicators which would appear to be exposed in part in the combination with Faucher.
Therefore, claim 28 is respectfully rejected under 103 with Faucher in view of Liang for reasons and rationales set forth herein and those elucidated in the pertinent sections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 8-27 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Particularly, Examiner agrees with applicant’s rationales concerning claim 1, and agrees it would likely necessitate impermissible hindsight bias to among all other limitations of the claim, additional necessitate that each window is attributed to each bifurcation, and that particularly each window is viewed parallel to the axis of rotation of the latch base. Where while Faucher does provide two bifurcations on either side of the latch elements, both incorporating Liang into Faucher and further modifying Liang’s construction of windows would likely arise to an issue of impermissible hindsight bias. While other art was determined, including Kaszewski (U.S. Pat. No. 1123886), that provided two viewing windows on either side of a prospective and rotational latching structure (FIGS. 1-2), and where the windows would be seemingly viewed in a direction parallel with the angle of rotation of the prospective latch (13; FIG. 1-2). However, Examiner considers that Kaszewski may be outside the consideration of a person of ordinary skill in the art, while a lock/latch with rotation, the aspect would likely not find common usage in the sling arm art and hospital settings for expediently and responsively retaining an element thereto, and there would be little rationale to incorporate a plurality of number indicators like those in Kaszewski into Faucher. Therefore, claim 1 is found to be in condition for allowance. Additionally, claims 2, 4-5, and 8-27 are likewise in condition for allowance as being dependent on an allowed claim and posing no further issues of their own.
Conclusion
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Justin Mikowski, can be reached on 571-272-8525. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights