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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of word count exceeding 150 words (e.g. 285 words). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 19-21, 23-27, and 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chiu (U.S. Pub. No. 20210212874).
Regarding claim 19, Chiu discloses (FIGS. 1-10) a hoisting device for a patient lift apparatus, comprising: first and second lifting straps (correspondent right and left 413; FIG. 1-5) configured to selectively lift or lower a patient (Abstract: “healthcare lifting vehicle”); first and second winding spools (correspondent right and left 411; FIG. 5) configured to allow winding or unwinding of the first and second lifting straps (as conveyed in FIG. 4-5), respectively; and a driving arrangement (correspondent 40, 20/21/22/41/42; FIGS. 2-3) configured to drive the first and second winding spools so as to selectively wind or unwind the first and second lifting straps (As conveyed through FIGS. 1-5, and clarified in [0039]: “first motor 21 and the second motor 22 of the drive mechanism 20 drive the first conveying mechanism 41 and the second conveying mechanism 42 of the conveying mechanism 40 by the reduction gear sets 23 respectively”), wherein the driving arrangement comprises a first electric motor (21; FIG. 2) in driving connection with the first winding spool (as clarified in [0039]; as illustrated in FIGS. 2-5) and a second electric motor (22; FIG. 3) in driving connection with the second winding spool (as clarified in [0039]; as illustrated in FIGS. 3-5), the first and second electric motors being operable in synchronism to wind or unwind the first and second lifting straps (clarified in [0025]: “the first motor 21 and the second motor 22 are electrically coupled to a control unit 60 to achieve a synchronous operation”), wherein the hoisting device further comprises a first guide roller (right 4122; FIG. 2) whose circumferential surface contacts a first side of the first lifting strap (as illustrated in FIG. 2) and a second guide roller (left 4122; FIG. 2; clarified in [0030] that explains the features of one conveying mechanism (41) are repeated for second conveying mechanism and constituent parts thereof (42)) whose circumferential surface contacts a first side of the second lifting strap (As illustrated in FIG. 2), wherein each of the first and second guide rollers is supported by a one-way bearing (clarified in [0039]: “one-way rotary wheel 4122”) configured such that each of the first and second guide rollers is forcibly driven into rotation upon unwinding of the associated lifting strap from the associated winding spool and is free to rotate in an opposite direction upon winding of the associated lifting strap onto the associated winding spool (as eminently clarified in [0039]: “After each reel 411 is driven to rotate clockwise, each of the conveyor belts 413 is released, and each idler gear 414 drives the driven wheel 4121 and the one-way rotary wheel 4122 of each transfer gear 412 to rotate, and the rotation of the one-way rotary wheel 4122 assists the conveyor belt 413 in the conveying process. During the ascending operation, each motor 21, 22 is rotated in a reverse direction, and after each reel 411 is driven to rotate counterclockwise, each of the conveyor belts 413 is rewound, and each idler gear 414 drives the driven wheel 4121 of each transfer gear 412 to rotate”), and wherein each of the first and second guide rollers is forcibly driven into rotation upon unwinding of the associated lifting strap from the associated winding spool (as clarified in [0039]) such that a tangential speed of the circumferential surface of each of the first and second guide rollers is greater than an effective tangential speed at which the associated lifting strap is unwound from the associated winding spool (as clarified in [0029]: “he reel 411 drives the driven wheel 4121 to rotate through the idler gear 414. Now, the driven wheel 4121 and the one-way rotary wheel 4122 are detached from each other, so that the conveyor belt 413 situated between the reel 411 and the transfer gear 412 maintains a tight state”; the arrangement achieving the functional limitation/arrangements of rendering the belt in a tight state as applicant’s arrangements would achieve).
Regarding claim 20, Chiu discloses (FIGS. 1-10) the hoisting device according to claim 19, wherein each of the first and second guide rollers is forcibly driven into rotation by the associated electric motor via a geartrain (as clarified in [0039]: “reduction gear sets 23 respectively”, as illustrated in FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Chiu discloses (FIGS. 1-10) the hoisting device according to claim 20, wherein each geartrain includes a toothed wheel (as eminently demonstrated in FIG. 2 and 8) coupled to the associated winding spool (parallel and adjoined thereto as eminently demonstrated in FIG. 2 and 8), a gear wheel (gear of 4121; FIG. 2 and 8) coupled to the one-way bearing of the associated guide roller (As illustrated in FIG. 2 and 8 and clarified in [0039], and an intermediate pinion wheel (414; FIG. 2 and 8) meshing with the toothed wheel and with the gear wheel (As illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 8).
Regarding claim 23, Chiu discloses (FIGS. 1-10) the hoisting device according to claim 19, further comprising a first spring-loaded idle roller (right 312/30/31; FIG. 1-2) whose circumferential surface contacts a side of the first lifting strap, opposite to the first side (As illustrated in FIG. 2), and a second spring-loaded idle roller (left 312/30/32; FIG. 1-2, clarified in [0027]: “the connection and effect of the second preloading mechanism 32 with the base frame 10 and the screw 33 are substantially the same as those of the first preloading mechanism 31, their description will be repeated.”) whose circumferential surface contacts a side of the second lifting strap opposite to the first side (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-2, 4-5), wherein each of the first and second spring-loaded idle rollers is urged towards the associated guide roller to press the associated lifting strap against the associated guide roller (as illustrated in FIG. 1-5, clarified in [0040]: “each pressure wheel 311 is pulled by the elastic member 315, so that each pressure wheel 311 approaches in a direction towards the transfer gear 412, and operates together with the transfer gear 412 to clamp the conveyor belt 413 and maintain the conveyor belt 413 in a tight state”).
Regarding claim 24, Chiu discloses (FIGS. 1-10) the hoisting device according to claim 19, further comprising a third guide roller (right 50; FIG. 5) whose circumferential surface contacts the first lifting strap (as illustrated in FIG. 5) and a fourth guide roller (left 50; FIG. 5, clarified in [0032]: “components of the second guide assembly 52 are the same as those of the first guide assembly 51…therefore their description will not be repeated.”) whose circumferential surface contacts the second lifting strap (as illustrated in FIG. 5), wherein each of the third and fourth guide rollers is journaled in an associated bushing through which the associated lifting strap is guided (as eminently illustrated in FIG. 5), the bushing being allowed to move away from a default position (as conveyed in [0031]), within a limited range of movement (As conveyed in FIG. 5 as within 511), in case of a slackening of the associated lifting strap to cause activation of an associated microswitch (513; FIG. 5, [0031]: “micro switch 513”) designed to signal that the associated electric motor should be turned off (as clarified in [0031]: “after the belt guide seat 511 touches the micro switch 513, the micro switch 513 sends an electrical signal to the controller 60 (as shown in FIG. 7), and then the controller 60 drives the drive mechanism 20 to stop its operation”).
Regarding claim 25, Chiu discloses (FIGS. 1-10) the hoisting device according to claim 19, wherein each of the first and second electric motors drives the associated winding spool through a worm gear (it is considered that Chiu eminently comprises an identical worm gear junction box (between 20 and 23; FIG. 2), identical to applicant’s own worm gear junction box (TA) feature of FIG. 11, and therefore comprises a worm gear).
Regarding claim 26, Chiu discloses (FIGS. 1-10) the hoisting device according to claim 19, wherein each of the first and second winding spools is coupled to a pair of axially spaced-apart toothed wheels (correspondent outer gear wheels of 41; FIG. 8) cooperating with a 4 driving pinion (correspondent 23/231; FIG. 8) driven by the associated electric motor (As illustrated in FIG. 1-2 and 8), each winding spool being positioned between the pair of axially spaced-apart toothed wheels (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-2 and 8).
Regarding claim 27, Chiu discloses (FIGS. 1-10) the hoisting device according to claim 19, wherein each of the first and second winding spools further comprises a centrifugal brake element (as clarified in [0045]; demonstrated in FIGS. 6-10) configured to stop undesired swift unwinding of each lifting strap (as clarified in [0045]: “brake pad 83 cannot be hold by the tension spring 82 but thrown off to the outside (as shown in FIG. 10), then the brake pad 83 will rotate together with the reel 411 in a counterclockwise direction, until the brake pad 83 touches the engaging column 81, and then the reel 411 cannot be rotated anymore, so as to achieve the braking effect.”).
Regarding claim 32, Chiu discloses (FIGS. 1-10) the hoisting device according to claim 19, further comprising a battery supplying power to the hoisting device (63; FIG. 1-4, clarified in [0037]: “an emergency power supply unit 63 installed on a side of the front plate 11a of the base frame 10 and electrically coupled to the control unit 60”)
Regarding claim 33, Chiu discloses (FIGS. 1-10) the hoisting device according to claim 32, wherein the battery is a rechargeable battery (As illustrated in FIG. 1 and clarified in [0037].
Regarding claim 34, Chiu discloses (FIGS. 1-10) the patient lift apparatus comprising a hoisting device according to claim 19 (as stated in [Abstract]: “healthcare lifting vehicle, and further clarified in [0033]: “provided for coupling the lifting vehicle to a rail of a ceiling (not shown in the figure)”).
Regarding claim 35, Chiu discloses (FIGS. 1-10) the patient lift apparatus according to claim 34, wherein the patient lift apparatus further comprises a static support structure (clarified in [0033] “provided for coupling the lifting vehicle to a rail of a ceiling (not shown in the figure)”) and a pivotable transfer structure (rod 55; FIG. 1) that is pivotably supported by a bearing portion of the static support structure (as clarified in [0033]) so as to pivot about a substantially vertical pivot axis (As clarified in [0033] and conveyed through FIG. 1-3), the hoisting device being provided at a radial outward end portion of the pivotable transfer structure (outward ends of 55 connected to the upper rail as per [0033]).
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.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu in view of Trimble et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20190192365); hereafter “Trimble”.
Regarding claim 21, Chiu discloses (FIGS. 1-10) the hoisting device according to claim 19, wherein a ratio of the tangential speed of the circumferential surface of each of the first and second guide rollers to the effective tangential speed at which the associated lifting strap is unwound from the associated winding spool is greater than 1 (as capable of the pinion gear 414 in FIG. 2, and as clarified in [0029] and [0039] and [0010]: “The driven wheel and the one-way rotary wheel are detachably coupled to each other, so that the conveyor belt situated between the reel and the transfer gear is maintained at a tight state”).
However, Chiu does not explicitly disclose wherein the ratio is particularly greater than 1 and up to the order of 2 to 2.5.
Regardless, Trimble teaches (FIG. 6b) a gear assembly for a patient supporting device (FIG. 6b) that utilizes a pinion and drive wheel ratio greater than 1:1 and up to the order of 2 to 2.5 ([0035]: “The ratio is generally greater than 1:1 such that the pinion gear 78 rotates faster than the drive gear 80. Other ratios are possible, such as 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, etc.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the known gear ratio of Trimble ([0035]) for the arbitrary gear ratio of Chiu (as produced through FIGS. 1-2 and 8 through idler gear 414). Where the results would have been predictable as both Chiu and Trimble are concerned with patient supporting apparatuses that operate with geartrains (Chiu: FIG. 1-5, 8/Trimble: FIGS. 6B). Where Trimble similarly considers that the pinion gear must rotate faster than the driving gear analogous to Chiu ([0039]), and that “The ratio is generally greater than 1:1 such that the pinion gear 78 rotates faster than the drive gear 80. Other ratios are possible, such as 1:1, 2:1”. Where it is considered “2:1” (drive to pinion) or 1:2 (pinion to drive) would achieve the same features of accelerating the pinion and one-way bearing roller to rotate faster than the drive gear to achieve the desired state clarified in [0029] of Chiu (“the reel 411 drives the driven wheel 4121 to rotate through the idler gear 414” and “maintains a tight state”), where a ratio of 1:2 is provided as known to such gearing mechanisms in patient support systems through Trimble.
Claim(s) 28-31, and 36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu in view of Andersson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20150107020); hereafter “Andersson”.
Regarding claim 28, Chiu discloses (FIGS. 1-10) the hoisting device according to claim 19.
However, while Chiu does discloses a form of weight measuring ([0035]) Chiu does not explicitly disclose such means further comprising a strain gauge load cell configured to measure load applied on the hoisting device, which strain gauge load cell is positioned in a spacing located between the first and second winding spools.
Regardless, Andersson teaches (FIGS. 1-6) a hoisting device (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-6) comprises a strain gauge load cell (78; FIGS. 2-4) configured to measure load applied on the hoisting device, which strain gauge load cell is positioned in a spacing located between the winding spools (of at least first 48, and second correspondent drum of lift strap 168; FIG. 5, clarified in [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the strain gauge load cell of Andersson (As illustrated in FIGS. 2-4) into Chiu (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-10). Where the results would have been predictable as both Andersson and Chiu are concerned with patient lifting devices that may deploy and retract lifting straps. Where advantageously, “Sensors such as strain gauges are mounted on the S beams to generate signals that correspond to the weight carried” [0062] and “the scale 12 includes a processor 90 and integrated program code capable of taking the tension or compression output signal from the strain gauge 78 on the load cell 34 and calculating the weight of the tensile load that is being applied thereto” [0044] and would provide “weighing patients that are not capable of standing by themselves on a scale, as with patients confined to wheelchairs, or bariatric patients who have had weight loss surgery” [0003].
Regarding claim 29, Chiu in view of Andersson discloses (Andersson: FIGS. 1-6) the hoisting device according to claim 28, wherein the strain gauge load cell is designed to provide a measurement of the weight of the patient being lifted by the hoisting device (As set forth in [0003]/[0044]/[0062]).
Regarding claim 30, Chiu in view of Andersson discloses (Andersson: FIGS. 1-6) the hoisting device according to claim 28, further comprising a display (Andersson: 12; FIG. 2) to provide an indication of the load measured by the strain gauge load cell (as set forth in [0062]/[0044]/[0003]).
Regarding claim 31, Chiu in view of Andersson discloses (Andersson: FIGS. 1-6) the hoisting device according to claim 28, wherein the strain gauge load cell is interposed between a structural frame of the hoisting device and a mounting element used to hang the hoisting device on a corresponding support of the patient lift apparatus (As portrayed in FIGS. 1-5 of Andersson, the load is located in the housing (the structural frame), connected to both the mounting element used to hang the element (a top and bottom attaching element as portrayed in FIGS. 1-5).
Regarding claim 36, Chiu discloses (FIGS. 1-10) a hoisting device for a patient lift apparatus, comprising: first and second lifting straps (correspondent right and left 413; FIG. 1-5) configured to selectively lift or lower a patient (Abstract: “healthcare lifting vehicle”); first and second winding spools (correspondent right and left 411; FIG. 5) configured to allow winding or unwinding of the first and second lifting straps (as conveyed in FIG. 4-5), respectively; and a driving arrangement (correspondent 40, 20/21/22/41/42; FIGS. 2-3) configured to drive the first and second winding spools so as to selectively wind or unwind the first and second lifting straps (As conveyed through FIGS. 1-5, and clarified in [0039]: “first motor 21 and the second motor 22 of the drive mechanism 20 drive the first conveying mechanism 41 and the second conveying mechanism 42 of the conveying mechanism 40 by the reduction gear sets 23 respectively”), wherein the driving arrangement comprises a first electric motor (21; FIG. 2) in driving connection with the first winding spool (as clarified in [0039]; as illustrated in FIGS. 2-5) and a second electric motor (22; FIG. 3) in driving connection with the second winding spool (as clarified in [0039]; as illustrated in FIGS. 3-5), the first and second electric motors being operable in synchronism to wind or unwind the first and second lifting straps (clarified in [0025]: “the first motor 21 and the second motor 22 are electrically coupled to a control unit 60 to achieve a synchronous operation”).
However, while Chiu does discloses a form of weight measuring ([0035]) Chiu does not explicitly disclose such means of the hoisting device further comprising a strain gauge load cell configured to measure load applied on the hoisting device, which strain gauge load cell is positioned in a spacing located between the first and second winding spools.
Regardless, Andersson teaches (FIGS. 1-6) a hoisting device (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-6) comprises a strain gauge load cell (78; FIGS. 2-4) configured to measure load applied on the hoisting device, which strain gauge load cell is positioned in a spacing located between the winding spools (of at least first 48, and second correspondent drum of lift strap 168; FIG. 5, clarified in [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the strain gauge load cell of Andersson (As illustrated in FIGS. 2-4) into Chiu (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-10). Where the results would have been predictable as both Andersson and Chiu are concerned with patient lifting devices that may deploy and retract lifting straps. Where advantageously, “Sensors such as strain gauges are mounted on the S beams to generate signals that correspond to the weight carried” [0062] and “the scale 12 includes a processor 90 and integrated program code capable of taking the tension or compression output signal from the strain gauge 78 on the load cell 34 and calculating the weight of the tensile load that is being applied thereto” [0044] and would provide “weighing patients that are not capable of standing by themselves on a scale, as with patients confined to wheelchairs, or bariatric patients who have had weight loss surgery” [0003].
Regarding claim 37, Chiu in view of Andersson discloses (Andersson: FIGS. 1-6) the hoisting device according to claim 36, wherein the strain gauge load cell is designed to provide a measurement of the weight of the patient being lifted by the hoisting device (As set forth in [0003]/[0044]/[0062]).
Regarding claim 38, Chiu in view of Andersson discloses (Andersson: FIGS. 1-6) the hoisting device according to claim 36, further comprising a display (Andersson: 12; FIG. 2) to provide an indication of the load measured by the strain gauge load cell (as set forth in [0062]/[0044]/[0003]).
Regarding claim 39, Chiu in view of Andersson discloses (Andersson: FIGS. 1-6) the hoisting device according to claim 36, wherein the strain gauge load cell is interposed between a structural frame of the hoisting device and a mounting element used to hang the hoisting device on a corresponding support of the patient lift apparatus (As portrayed in FIGS. 1-5 of Andersson, the load is located in the housing (the structural frame), connected to both the mounting element used to hang the element (a top and bottom attaching element as portrayed in FIGS. 1-5).
Claim(s) 36-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyhr et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20090077737); hereafter "Dyhr", in view of Rouse e al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20050044629); hereafter "Rouse", and Andersson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20150107020); hereafter "Andersson".
Regarding claim 36, Dhyr discloses (FIGS. 1-5 and 13-14) a hoisting device for a patient lift apparatus (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5 and 13-14, comprising: first and second lifting straps (correspondent 14/16; FIG. 2) configured to selectively lift or lower a patient (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5); first and second winding spools (correspondent 60/62; FIG. 2-3) configured to allow winding or unwinding of the first and second lifting straps (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5), respectively; and a driving arrangement (correspondent to 50/48; FIG. 2 and 3) configured to drive the first and second winding spools so as to selectively wind or unwind the first and second lifting straps (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5), wherein the driving arrangement comprises a first electric motor (correspondent 48; in connection to 50; FIG.S. 2-3) in driving connection with the first winding spool (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5).
However, Dyhr does not explicitly disclose a second electric motor in driving connection with the second winding spool, the first and second electric motors being operable in synchronism to wind or unwind the first and second lifting straps.
Regardless, Rouse teaches (FIGS. 1-11 and 16-18) a lifting arrangement with both a first motor in connection with a first winding spool a second electric motor in driving connection with the second winding spool (abstract: “The hoist assembly includes a second motor coupled to a second linearly moving pulley by a second linkage”), the first and second electric motors being operable in synchronism to wind or unwind the first and second lifting straps (wherein the lines are capable of being operated in sync with each other by engaging both simultaneously in the invention of Rouse; as demonstrated in FIGS. 16-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the second motor control of Rouse into Dyhr where the results would have been predictable as Rouse and Andersson both use two lifting straps/cables and both are concerned with patient lift assemblies. Where advantageously, the use of a second motor would divide the mechanical load of the motor as is eminently known in engineering, and simultaneously avail both simultaneous/synchronous operation and independent operation as Rouse further avails (claim 8: “wherein the movements of the first and second linkages may be controlled independently of each other so as to achieve a plurality of lifting orientations”) and thereby achieve a similar plurality of lifting orientations alongside the synchronization.
However, Dyhr still does not explicitly disclose wherein the hoisting device further comprises a strain gauge load cell configured to measure load applied on the hoisting device, which strain gauge load cell is positioned in a spacing located between the first and second winding spools.
Regardless, Andersson teaches (FIGS. 1-6) a hoisting device (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-6) comprises a strain gauge load cell (78; FIGS. 2-4) configured to measure load applied on the hoisting device, which strain gauge load cell is positioned in a spacing located between the winding spools (of at least first 48, and second correspondent drum of lift strap 168; FIG. 5, clarified in [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the strain gauge load cell of Andersson (As illustrated in FIGS. 2-4) into Dyhr (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-5). Where the results would have been predictable as both Andersson and Dyhr are concerned with patient lifting devices that may deploy and retract lifting straps. Where advantageously, “Sensors such as strain gauges are mounted on the S beams to generate signals that correspond to the weight carried” [0062] and “the scale 12 includes a processor 90 and integrated program code capable of taking the tension or compression output signal from the strain gauge 78 on the load cell 34 and calculating the weight of the tensile load that is being applied thereto” [0044] and would provide “weighing patients that are not capable of standing by themselves on a scale, as with patients confined to wheelchairs, or bariatric patients who have had weight loss surgery” [0003].
Regarding claim 37, Dyhr in view of Rouse and Andersson discloses (Andersson: FIGS. 1-6) the hoisting device according to claim 36, wherein the strain gauge load cell is designed to provide a measurement of the weight of the patient being lifted by the hoisting device (As set forth in [0003]/[0044]/[0062]).
Regarding claim 38, Dyhr in view of Rouse and Andersson discloses (Andersson: FIGS. 1-6) the hoisting device according to claim 36, further comprising a display (Andersson: 12; FIG. 2) to provide an indication of the load measured by the strain gauge load cell (as set forth in [0062]/[0044]/[0003]).
Regarding claim 39, Dyhr in view of Rouse and Andersson discloses (Andersson: FIGS. 1-6) the hoisting device according to claim 36, wherein the strain gauge load cell is interposed between a structural frame of the hoisting device and a mounting element used to hang the hoisting device on a corresponding support of the patient lift apparatus (As portrayed in FIGS. 1-5 of Andersson, the load is located in the housing (the structural frame), connected to both the mounting element used to hang the element (a top and bottom attaching element as portrayed in FIGS. 1-5).
Regarding claim 40, Dyhr in view of Rouse and Andersson discloses (Andersson: FIGS. 1-6) the hoisting device according to claim 36, further comprising a battery supplying power to the hoisting device (Dyhr: Abstract: “The housing further includes a power supply unit for the delivery of electrical power to the electrical motor from a battery power supply”).
Regarding claim 41, Dyhr in view of Rouse and Andersson discloses (Dyhr: FIGS. 1-5) the hoisting device according to claim 40, wherein the battery is a rechargeable battery (Dyhr: [0017] “the power supply unit is constituted by a battery supply including one or more rechargeable batteries”).
Regarding claim 42, Dyhr in view of Rouse and Andersson discloses (Dyhr: FIGS. 1-5) a patient lift apparatus comprising a hoisting device according to claim 36 (Dyhr: as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5). It is noted that for the purposes of examination, the preamble is being treated as being of patentable weight to distinguish over 36, but incorporation of a/the patient lift in the claim is respectfully recommended.
Regarding claim 43, Dyhr in view of Rouse and Andersson discloses (Dyhr: FIGS. 1-5) the patient lift apparatus according to claim 42.
However, Dyhr still does not explicitly disclose wherein the patient lift apparatus further comprises a static support structure and a pivotable transfer structure that is pivotably supported by a bearing portion of the static support structure so as to pivot about a substantially vertical pivot axis, the hoisting device being provided at a radial outward end portion of the pivotable transfer structure
Regardless, Rouse further teaches (FIGS.1 and 4) wherein the patient lift apparatus further comprises a static support structure (base correspondent 33/36; FIGS. 1 and 4) and a pivotable transfer structure (correspondent lift arm of 35 and orthogonal boom thereof; FIGS. 1-4) that is pivotably supported by a bearing portion of the static support structure so as to pivot about a substantially vertical pivot axis (As eminently demonstrated in FIG. 4), the hoisting device being provided at a radial outward end portion of the pivotable transfer structure (as illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the lift and rotating arm of Rouse into the assembly of Dyhr. Where the results would have been predictable as both Rouse and Dyhr are concerned with patient lifts. Where advantageously Rouse acknowledges “rotating arm assembly 25 is shown in two positions, as is hoist assembly 24. These positions are only nonlimiting examples to illustrate a range of motion between at least two separate locations-such as between bed 42 and a wheelchair (not shown) that may be positioned alongside bed 42”. Therefore incorporation thereof would improve the range of operability that Dyhr can avail over a static overhead rail arrangement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references cited on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) were considered pertinent because they address the state of the art concerning patient lifts, gear assemblies, and backdrive mitigating systems.
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 at 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
/AMBER R ANDERSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678