Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Addressing the amendment, the examiner has provided another reference that discloses the newly amended subject matter (see the rejection of claim 1).
Applicant further argues that the motivation to combine Kenalty and Flick is lacking. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the test isn’t whether Kenalty literally has “hinges” but whether a skilled artisian could reasonably integrate the feature to achieve a predictable result. There is nothing in Kenalty that doesn’t necessarily preclude combining a foldable or sectional rigid component beneath the mattress layer that would still allow partial roll-up while providing a sturdy bottom surface. Finally such a combination would result in improvement and storage or handling in related patient support devices. There is no evidence that the addition of hinges would destroy the core function of Kenalty rather it would add to more structure to it when it is stored, the hinges could be simple scorelines in the mattress or seams.
Applicant has argued that adding an omnidirectional wheel assembly would render Kenalty “unsatisfactory for its intended purpose”. Kenalty’s intended purpose is to facilitate movement of a patient on an evacuation mattress. Substituting a known omnidirectional wheel assembly for a conventional wheel merely provides a improved mode of performing the same function, that is the rolling motion of the mattress. Such a substitution would predictably enhance manueverability and control of the device particularly in confined enviernments such as stairwells and corridors, (as the applicant has shown in his remarks in the figures) and would not alter the underlying purpose or operation of Kenalty.
The rejections of claims 1 and 9 are sustained by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8615829 issued to Kenalty in view of U.S. Patent No. 7441290 issued to Flick further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20160081846 issued to Katzenstein further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20190143749 issued to Panter.
Regarding claim 1,
Kenalty discloses a bed (Kenalty: FIG. 1) comprising a … board (FIG. 4c (300)) and a foldable mattress (Kenalty: FIG. 1 (100)) … wherein each foldable board part has roller assemblies embedded in its bottom surface, the said roller assemblies being aligned to each other, the foldable board and the foldable mattress being slidable in a cross- sectional direction. (Kenalty: FIG. 3B shows how the rollers are on the bottom surface of (300)) … wherein each of the roller assemblies comprises a bracket (Kenalty: FIG. 3b (308)) housing a pin, (Kenalty: FIG. 3b (312)) bearings, and a roller, (Kenalty: FIG. 3B (306)) …
Kenalty does not appear to disclose a foldable board… the foldable board having foldable board parts hinged together and each the foldable mattress having equal number of foldable mattress parts hinged together, the foldable board parts and the foldable mattress parts are symmetrical and corresponding to each other… bearings, and wherein the roller is configured to rotate about the axis of the pin for allowing the foldable board to roll in the cross-sectional direction.
However, Flick discloses a foldable board (Flick: FIG. 5 (400))… the foldable board having foldable board parts hinged together and each the foldable mattress (Flick: FIG. 5 (10)) having equal number of foldable mattress parts hinged together, (Flick: FIG. 5 shows (22, 20, 27) hinged together via slits) the foldable board parts and the foldable mattress parts are symmetrical and corresponding to each other. (Flick: FIG. 5 the foldable board parts and mattress parts are symmetrical and correspond to one another.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kenalty directed to a rapid evacuation device or sled by making the spine boards and mattress sections hinged together and foldable as taught in Flick directed to mattress hinges that provide greater stability and lower shear. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide mattress hinges with “greater stability and lower shear”. (Flick: Title)
Kenalty in view of Flick does not appear to disclose the foldable mattress separatable from the foldable boards… bearings, and wherein the roller is configured to rotate about the axis of the pin for allowing the foldable board to roll in the cross-sectional direction.
However, Katzenstein discloses the foldable mattress separatable from the foldable boards. (Katzenstein: [0038] “The cushion elements 20a to 26a can be separated from the respective supporting panels 20c to 26c, or supporting frames, via detachable connections such that they can be easily cleaned and disinfected.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kenalty in view of Flick directed to a patient support by allowing the mattress to be removable as taught in Katzenstein directed to a patient support. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow the cushion elements to “be easily cleaned and disinfected.”
Kenalty does not appear to disclose bearings, and wherein the roller is configured to rotate about the axis of the pin for allowing the foldable board to roll in the cross-sectional direction.
However, Panter discloses bearings, and wherein the roller is configured to rotate about the axis of the pin for allowing the foldable board to roll in the cross-sectional direction. (Panter: FIGS. 20-24, see also [0081-0083] which describes ball bearings (108) and how the wheels are omnidirectional i.e. [0003] and [0006])
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kenalty in view of Flick in view of Katzenstein directed to a patient transfer by changing out the rollers to be omnidirectional as taught in Panter directed to article movement system since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of enhancing manuverability and control of the evactuation mattress of Kenalty during patient transport.
Regarding claim 11,
Kenalty in view of Flick in view of Katzenstein in view of Panter discloses the bed as claimed in claim 1, wherein a top surface of the foldable board supports a bottom surface of the foldable mattress. (Flick: FIG. 5, the examiner notes that the combination of references would allow for the foldable board to support the bottom surface of a foldable mattress.)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8615829 issued to Kenalty in view of U.S. Patent No. 7441290 issued to Flick further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20160081846 issued to Katzenstein further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20190143749 issued to Panter further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20190125603 issued to Mahjoubi.
Regarding claim 10,
Kenalty in view of Flick in view of Katzenstein in view of Panter discloses the bed as claimed in claim 1.
Kenalty in view of Flick in view of Katzenstein in view of Panter does not appear to disclose wherein the foldable board and the foldable mattress comprise four or more foldable parts.
However, Mahjoubi discloses wherein the foldable board and the foldable mattress comprise four or more foldable parts. (Mahjoubi: FIG. 3 (118, 124, 126, 128, 130) all may be interpreted as foldable parts of the mattress see [0091])
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kenalty in view of Flick in view of Katzenstein in view of Panter directed to a patient transfer device by adding more foldable parts as taught in Mahjoubi directed to a patient transfer device since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing enhanced maneuverability of a patient resting on a mattress during the transfer process. In addition, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8615829 issued to Kenalty in view of U.S. Patent No. 7441290 issued to Flick in view of U.S. Publication No. 20160081846 issued to Katzenstein further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20190143749 issued to Panter further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20200360203 issued to Cable.
Regarding claim 3,
Kenalty in view of Flick in view of Katzenstein in view of Panter discloses the bed as claimed in claim 1.
Kenalty in view of Flick in view of Katzenstein does not appear to disclose wherein the foldable mattress comprises foldable side supports.
However, Cable discloses wherein the mattress comprises of foldable side supports (Cable: FIG. 1 (116) folds see [0030] “The human stabilization platform 100 may include two head blocks 116 for positioning on each lateral side of the mattress 200 proximate to one longitudinal end to flank the head of the person 102.” And [0043] “. For example, when a person 102 is supported on the mattress 200 and the mattress 200 is lifted without the support of the litter 104 (see FIG. 1) utilizing the lifting handles 302, the lateral sides of the mattress 200 may curl upward and laterally inward toward the person 102”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kenalty in view of Flick in view of Katzenstein directed to a patient transfer device by making the sides foldable as taught in Cable directed to a stretcher since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing for the mattress to stabilize a user lying on top of the mattress.
Regarding claim 4,
Kenalty in view of Flick in view of Katzenstein in view of Panter in view of Cable discloses the bed as claimed in claim 3,wherein the foldable mattress comprises foldable head supports. (Flick: FIG. 5)
Regarding claim 5,
Kenalty in view of Flick in view of Katzenstein in view of Panter in view of Cable discloses the bed as claimed in claim 4, wherein safety belts (Kenalty: FIG. 1A)
Kenalty in view of Flick in view of Katzenstein in view of Panter does not appear to disclose safety belts are provided on the foldable board to securely hold to secure the foldable side supports and foldable head supports of the foldable mattress in their folded position.
However, Cable discloses safety belts are provided on the foldable board to securely hold to secure the foldable side supports and foldable head supports of the foldable mattress in their folded position. (Cable: FIG. 1 (120) see also [0033] “The head blocks 116 may be securable against the person's head to help reduce head motion during transport at least partially utilizing straps 120 extending from one lateral side of the litter 104, over the head blocks 116, back to the litter 104 on another, opposite lateral side thereof.” Wherein the straps may be interpreted as fasteners.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kenalty in view of Flick in view of Katzenstein directed to a patient transfer device by rearranging the straps to be connected to the spine boards as taught in Cable directed to a stretcher since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing for the straps to be connected to a sturdier surface.
Regarding claim 6,
Kenalty in view of Flick in view of Katzenstein in view of Panter in view of Cable discloses the bed as claimed in claim 4,wherein the foldable side supports and foldable head supports of the foldable mattress are configured to be fixed in their folded position by fasteners. (Kenalty: FIG. 1A the straps would otherwise be capable of fixing the supports in a folded position when combined with Cable.)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8615829 issued to Kenalty in view of U.S. Patent No. 7441290 issued to Flick in view of U.S. Publication No. 20160081846 issued to Katzenstein in view of U.S. Publication No. 20190143749 issued to Panter in view of U.S. Publication No. 20140075673 issued to Weedling.
Regarding claim 7,
Kenalty in view of Flick in view of Katzenstein in view of Panter discloses the bed as claimed in claim 1, wherein mattress belts securely hold secure together the foldable mattress (Kenalty: FIG. 1)
Kenalty in view of Flick in view of Katzenstein in view of does not appear to disclose the belts holding the foldable board.
However, Weedling discloses wherein the mattress belts securely hold together the mattress and the board. (Weedling: FIG. 4 (40) holds mattress (30) to (50) see [0034] “In yet another embodiment, the device 10 may be secured to the base member 50 using a plurality of straps 40 that are fastened to opposite edges 25 of the sheet member 20 and extend beneath the bottom surface 34 of the inflatable mattress 30. In use, the base member 50 would be inserted between the bottom surface 34 and the straps 40, and the base member 50 would be separately secured to an imaging device.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kenalty in view of Flick in view of Katzenstein in view of directed to a patient support transfer device by substituting the fastening method of the straps to hold down the mattress to the board as taught in Weedling directed to a patient support since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of preventing relative movement between the mattress and the bed board.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8615829 issued to Kenalty in view of U.S. Patent No. 7441290 issued to Flick in view of Katzenstein in view of Panter further in view of Spanish Publication No. 2491416 issued to Ballesteros.
Regarding claim 8,
Kenalty in view of Flick in view of Katzenstein discloses the bed as claimed in claim 1.
Kenalty in view of Flick in view of Katzenstein does not appear to disclose wherein locking belts securely hold secure together the bed to a cot or a stretcher.
However, Ballesteros discloses wherein the locking belts securely hold together the bed to the cot or the stretcher. (Ballesteros: page 12 2nd paragraph “a pictogram indicating how to close the jaws 15 securing the board 2 to the ambulance bench (indicating that, first, some straps of the bench or stretcher must be passed through the gap between the profile of the board 2 and the jaw 15, and then turn the handle of the jaw 15); and 40” which talks about securing board 2 via straps to a stretcher.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kenalty in view of Flick in view of Katzenstein directed to a patient support transfer device by adding straps to secure the foldable board when not in use as a transfer device as a safety precaution as taught in Ballesteros directed to a pediatric immobilizer since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of prevented the foldable board of Zheng in view of Hochman from moving relative to the frame of the cot or stretcher and added an additional safety measure.
Regarding claim 9,
Kenalty discloses a bed (Kenalty: FIG. 1) comprising a … board (FIG. 4c (300)) and a foldable mattress (Kenalty: FIG. 1 (100)) … wherein each foldable board part has roller assemblies embedded in its bottom surface, the said roller assemblies being aligned to each other, the foldable board and the foldable mattress being slidable in a cross- sectional direction. (Kenalty: FIG. 3B shows how the rollers are on the bottom surface of (300))
Kenalty does not appear to disclose a foldable board… the foldable board having foldable board parts hinged together and each the foldable mattress having equal number of foldable mattress parts hinged together, the foldable board parts and the foldable mattress parts are symmetrical and corresponding to each other… and the foldable board being rollable in a transverse direction relative to a longitudinal direction extending from the head side and to the leg side.
However, Flick discloses a foldable board (Flick: FIG. 5 (400))… the foldable board having foldable board parts hinged together and each the foldable mattress (Flick: FIG. 5 (10)) having equal number of foldable mattress parts hinged together, (Flick: FIG. 5 shows (22, 20, 27) hinged together via slits) the foldable board parts and the foldable mattress parts are symmetrical and corresponding to each other. (Flick: FIG. 5 the foldable board parts and mattress parts are symmetrical and correspond to one another.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kenalty directed to a rapid evacuation device or sled by making the spine boards and mattress sections hinged together and foldable as taught in Flick directed to mattress hinges that provide greater stability and lower shear. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide mattress hinges with “greater stability and lower shear”. (Flick: Title)
However, West discloses a ball joint with a spherical member (West: FIG. 5 (20)) that is omnidirectional.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kenalty in view of Flick directed to a patient support by changing out the rollers of Kenalty for that of West directed to a ball joint roller with a reasonable expectation of success because the substitution would have yielded the predicted result of allowed for the device of Kenalty to be moved in all directions thereby improving the device as it is navigated around sharp corners.
Conclusion
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 ADAM C ORTIZ whose telephone number is (303)297-4378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-3:30 pm.
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 C. 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.
/ADAM C ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673