DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/2022. These drawings are accepted for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 17, the word “Form” in line 4 should be “From”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4-5 recites the limitation "the receiving space". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barr et al (US 8,561,226.
Regarding claim 1, Barr et al discloses a transfer assembly (Fig 2, element 10) including a support frame (Fig 2), set of rollers defining a base, coupled to the support frame to facilitate movement of the frame (rollers/wheels, Fig 2), a support surface removably coupled to the frame to support a patient (Fig 2, Col2 Line 35-45), movable with respect to a base between a transport position and a deployed position, wherein the support surface is detachable from the support frame in the deployed position (Support 14, Fig 3-4, Deployed Fig 6-8, Fig 1, removal of pins, 54 to Fig 6).
Regarding claims 2-4, Barr et al discloses the assembly above, further comprising a receiving space for receiving a destination surface, wherein the receiving space is located below or adjacent to a support surface when the surface is in the transport position, and wherein the support surface rests or is on the destination surface when it is deployed (Fig 1-3, MRI table 102, support 14 then in Fig 2, the table is shown open to receive the support except bottom frame (24), See col 4 Line 15-65). Additionally, Barr et al discloses a set of walls coupled to the support frame wherein the support surface is at least partially enclosed by the walls during transport (Fig 2, side railings 150), which is the receiving space.
Regarding claims 5 and 9, Barr et al discloses the assembly above, and includes the frame having a width and length where the receiving space is configured to receive a portion of a destination surface in a direction parallel with the support frame length, wherein the width of the frame is greater than the width of the destination surface (See Fig 3-5, and table in Fig 6-7, 102, with the receiving space wider than the width of the table). Finally, the support surface is not ferromagnetic and is radiolucent (See Fig 2, wood/plastic, 14; Col 3 line 1-15).
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 11-13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dean (US 2,565,761).
Regarding claim 1, Dean discloses and teaches a patient transfer assembly (Fig 1-3) including a support frame (chassis 14, platform 30, guides 30, Fig 1-2) a set of rollers which define a base and are coupled to the support frame (Fig 1-3, rollers 18, on chassis, 14) and a support surface which is coupled to the frame to support a patient which is removable and movable with respect to a base between a transport and deployed position (Fig 1, element 10, from 56/58).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 11-12, Dean discloses a support surface coupled to the frame (Fig 1, element 10 to 56/58, above including Col 4 Line 50-55 describing the connection/removal) with a hook element, the attachment to an intermediary support (the shafts 56/58) which is then coupled to the frame (platform 30) and movable between transport and deployed positions (Fig 1). Additionally, the support allows for vertical and horizontal movement, such that the movement of the support surface includes lowering the surface to a base (Fig 1-3, Col 2 Line 10-25, Col 4 Line 45-70, elements 10, 14, jack for vertical adjustment 26, 56/58) and includes horizontally displacing the support (Col 3 Line 10-20, Fig 1-3, movement along rails).
Regarding claim 13, Dean discloses a method including the transfer assembly of claim 1 as well as a receiving space for receiving the designation surface below or adjacent the support surface in the transport position (vertical support,jack 26) and wherein the support rests on the destination surface when deployed (Fig 1/3, 10, to 56/58). Dean also shows the maneuvering of the patient assembly to the surface to place it within the receiving space for the patient transfer assembly and the detaching of the support from the frame to remove it from the destination surface (movement of 14 away from bed with 18, Fig 1-3, Col 40-60).
Regarding claims 16, 17, 19, and 20, Dean discloses and teaches the coupling (Fig 1, element 10 to 56/58, above including Col 4 Line 50-55 describing the connection/removal) with a hook element, the attachment to an intermediary support (the shafts 56/58), as well as the disclosed elements of claims 11-12 above for vertical and horizonal displacement and positioning of the support surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barr et al (above, ‘226) in view of Davis (US 2008/0289102). Barr et al discloses what is listed above, but does not disclose the inclusion of an inflatable bladder or bladders to transition between inflated and deflated conditions . Attention here hereby directed to the teaching reference to Davis, which; in the same area of endeavor, discloses and teaches a transfer table (Fig 1) and support surface which has a set of bladders (Fig 1-4, 2 (inflatable and defeatable mattress) for permitting a transition between moves. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a soft supporting mattress which can inflate (10, 12, 8, 6, 4, Fig 1-4, for bladder and support elements) and allow for patient transfer.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean (above, ’761) in view of VanSteenburg et al (US 2001/0047543). Dean discloses the elements of claim 7 above, but fails to disclose the non-ferromagnetic support. Attention is briefly directed to the teaching reference to VanSteenburg et al in the area of patient transfer apparatuses (title) which teaches the use of non-ferromagnetic support frames (aluminum, Fig 5). It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized the support of VanSteenburg in order to provide increased maneuverability (0054, abs, VanSteenburg).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barr et al (above, ‘226 in view of Dean (above, ‘761). Barr et al discloses what is listed above with respect to claim 1, but fails to expressly disclose the movement of the support surface resting on the destination surface in the deployed position.
Attention is briefly directed to Dean, which discloses that the support rests on the destination surface when deployed (Fig 1/3, 10, to 56/58). Dean also shows the maneuvering of the patient assembly to the surface to place it within the receiving space for the patient transfer assembly and the detaching of the support from the frame to remove it from the destination surface (movement of 14 away from bed with 18, Fig 1-3, Col 40-60, see above Dean with respect to claims 1 and 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the positioning of Dean with the system of Barr, as the patent needs to be in the area of the diagnostic apparatus field of view for interrogation (Col 4 Line 64-67, Fig 1-3).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Barr discloses and teaches a set of walls coupled to the support frame wherein the support surface is at least partially enclosed by the walls during transport (Fig 2, side railings 150), which is in the receiving space (Fig 2, and 3-7) and that the frame has a width and length wherein the receiving space is configured to receive a portion of a destination surface in a direction parallel with the support frame length, wherein the width of the frame is greater than the width of the destination surface (See Fig 3-5, and table in Fig 6-7, 102, with the receiving space wider than the width of the table).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9968279, US 2018/0242879, US 2014/0364722 to Dumoulin and US 11988730 to Rappoport disclose and teach transfer table assemblies including supports, transfer apparatuses, dimensionality akin to the instant claims, and supporting/adjustment elements which allow for vertical and horizontal displacement, as well as MR-table positioning on transfer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M. LAMPRECHT whose telephone number is (571)272-3250. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571)270-1790. 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.
/JOEL LAMPRECHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798