DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “a belt contact surface having a width W1”, as recited in the context of the roller that defines a belt contact surface, is being interpreted to define a contact surface spanning the width of overall rail.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
In claim 14, line 2, “a belt contact surface having a width W1”. The limitation is not shown on the figures 1 to 18.
In claim 19, line 1, “a mid-brace”. The limitation is not shown on the figures 1 to 18.
The feature (s) must be shown, or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered, and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brosnan et al. (US Pub. 20210196535 A1; hereinafter “Brosnan”).
Regarding claim 1, Brosnan discloses: a patient transport apparatus (100, figs. 1-18C) operable by a user for transporting a patient along stairs [0007, line 1-5], the patient transport apparatus (100) comprising:
a support structure (102, [0045]) including a rear support assembly (108) having a rear upright (114) defining a support channel (306, [0075]);
a seat section (104, [0045]) and a back section (106) coupled to the support structure (102, fig. 1) for supporting the patient (“support to the patient”, [0045, line 4-6]);
and a track assembly (154, fig. 1 and 7B, [0014 and 0052]) extending from the support structure (102), the track assembly (154, [0057]) including:
a rail (168) extending between a first rail end (168A) and a second rail end (168B), a roller (172) supported for rotation adjacent to the first rail end (168; [para. 0057 teaches: “the track assemblies 154 each generally comprise a rail 168 extending between a first rail end 168A”]), a motor (188, [0058]) supporting a pulley (drive pulley -174) for rotation adjacent to the second rail end (168B; [para. 0056 teaches: “adjacent to the second rail end 168B of each rail 168, a drive pulley 174 is supported for rotation about a drive axis DA”]), a belt (156, [0052, line 15-20]) supported in engagement with the roller (172) and the pulley (174) and arranged for movement relative (via the roller axis RA) to the rail (168) in response to torque (“rotational torque”, [0058, line 14-18]) generated by the motor (188; [para. 0056 teaches: “an axle 170 defining a roller axis RA is disposed adjacent to the first rail end 168A of each rail 168, and a roller 172 is supported for rotation about the roller axis RA (compare figs. 9A-9B). For each of the track assemblies 154, the belt 156 is disposed in engagement with the roller 172 and is arranged for movement relative to the rail 168 in response to rotation of the roller 172”; thus, roller and the pulley and arranged for movement relative to the rail in response to torque generated by the motor]), and
a lateral brace (lateral brace – “belt tensioner” cover 180, fig. 10) operatively attached (via axle 170) to the rail (168) and defining a brace configured to abut (abutment portion ‘P’ relative to axis RA; annotated fig. 3 below]) at least a portion of the belt (top portion of 156) to retain the belt in engagement (via 170, fig. 3) with the roller (172) for limiting lateral movement of the belt (156) relative to the rail (168) occurring in response to force acting (via limitation force sensor, [0061]) on the belt (156) between stairs and the roller (172) during operation of the motor (188; [see para. 0067-0068]).
PNG
media_image1.png
598
961
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 3 of Brosnan
Regarding claim 2, Brosnan further discloses that the lateral brace (180; fig. 10) is arranged closer to the first rail end (168A) than the second rail end (168B) [shown in fig. 10, lateral brace 180 is positioned closer to first rail end than the second rail end.]
Regarding claim 3, Brosnan further discloses that the belt (156) defines an outer belt surface (‘S’, annotated fig. 5 below) having a height (H, annotated fig. 5 below) and further defines a contact region (C, annotated fig. 5 below) arranged to abut the brace (‘B’) to limit lateral movement of the belt relative to the rail (168, fig. 5), with the contact region defined as a zone (‘Z’ annotated fig. 5 below) within the outer belt surface from about 15% to about 85% of the height (H).
It should be noted that drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). See MPEP 2125. Here, the relative positioning of the belt, brace, and rail in the reference figures necessarily results in a contact zone spanning a major intermediate portion of the belt height, falling withing the claimed 15%-85% range.
PNG
media_image2.png
722
1353
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 5 of Brosnan
Regarding claim 4, Brosnan further discloses that the outer belt surface (S, annotated fig. 5 above) also defines an upper region (upper region of S) above the contact region (Z), wherein the upper region remains spaced from the brace (180). See annotated fig. 5 above where the upper region of ‘S’ remains spaced from the brace.
Regarding claim 5, Brosnan further discloses that the brace (180) comprises a curved region (see annotated fig. 3 above) configured to retain (via 170) the belt (156) about the roller (172), and a linear region (‘R’, annotated fig. 3 above) configured to retain the belt (156, fig. 3) about the rail (168), with the linear region (R) spaced from the roller (172) between the first rail end (168A) and the second rail end (168B). See fig. 2, 3, 7A and 10.
Regarding claim 6, Brosnan discloses: a patient transport apparatus (100, figs. 1-18C) operable by a user for transporting a patient along stairs [0007, line 1-5], the patient transport apparatus (100) comprising:
a support structure (102, [0045]) including a rear support assembly (108) having a rear upright (114) defining a support channel (306, [0075]);
a seat section (104, [0045]) and a back section (106) coupled to the support structure (102, fig. 1) for supporting the patient (“support to the patient”, [0045, line 4-6]);
and a track assembly (154, fig. 1 and 7B, [0014 and 0052]) extending from the support structure (102, fig. 1-2), the track assembly (154) including:
a rail (168) extending between a first rail end (168A, fig. 3) and a second rail end (168B), a roller (172) supported for rotation adjacent to the first rail end (168; [para. 0057 teaches: “the track assemblies 154 each generally comprise a rail 168 extending between a first rail end 168A”]), a motor (188, [0058]) supporting a pulley (drive pulley -174) for rotation adjacent to the second rail end (168b; [para. 0056 teaches: “adjacent to the second rail end 168B of each rail 168, a drive pulley 174 is supported for rotation about a drive axis DA”]),
a belt (156, [0052, line 15-20]) supported in engagement with the roller (172) and the pulley (174) and arranged for movement relative (via the roller axis RA) to the rail (168) in response to torque (“rotational torque”, [0058, line 14-18]) generated by the motor (188; [para. 0056 teaches: “an axle 170 defining a roller axis RA is disposed adjacent to the first rail end 168A of each rail 168, and a roller 172 is supported for rotation about the roller axis RA (compare figs. 9A-9B). For each of the track assemblies 154, the belt 156 is disposed in engagement with the roller 172 and is arranged for movement relative to the rail 168 in response to rotation of the roller 172”; thus, roller and the pulley and arranged for movement relative to the rail in response to torque generated by the motor]), and
a lateral brace (lateral brace belt tensioner 180, fig. 10) operatively attached (via axle 170) to the rail (168) and defining a brace configured to abut (abutment portion ‘P’ relative to axis RA; annotated fig. 3 above]) at least a portion of the belt (top portion of 156) to retain the belt in engagement (via 170, fig. 3) with the roller (172) for limiting lateral movement of the belt (156) relative to the rail (168) occurring in response to force acting (via limitation force sensor, [0061]) on the belt (156) between stairs and the roller (172) during operation of the motor (188; [see para. 0067-0068]).
Regarding claim 7, Brosnan further discloses that the left and right braces (left and right braces 180) are spaced (via DA, fig. 3) from each other on opposite sides (fig. 3 shows opposite side) of the rail (168), with the belt (156) positioned between the left and right braces (left and right braces- 180).
Regarding claim 8, Brosnan further discloses that the lateral brace (180; fig. 10) is arranged closer to the first rail end (168A) than the second rail end (168B) [shown in fig. 10, lateral brace 180 is positioned closer to first rail end than the second rail end.]
Regarding claim 9, Brosnan further discloses that the belt (156) defines an outer belt surface (‘S’, annotated fig. 3 above) having a height (H, annotated fig. 5 above) and further defines a contact region (C, annotated fig. 5 above) arranged to abut the brace (180) to limit lateral movement of the belt (fig. 5) relative to the rail (168, fig. 5), with the contact region defined as a zone (‘Z’ annotated fig. 5 above) within the outer belt surface from about 15% to about 85% of the height (H).
It should be noted that drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). See MPEP 2125. Here, the relative positioning of the belt, brace, and rail in the reference figures necessarily results in a contact zone spanning a major intermediate portion of the belt height, falling withing the claimed 15-85% range.
Regarding claim 10, Brosnan further discloses that the outer belt surface (S, annotated fig. 5 above) also defines an upper region (upper region of S) above the contact region (Z), wherein the upper region remains spaced from the brace (180). See annotated fig. 5 above where the upper region of ‘S’ remains spaced from the brace.
Regarding claim 11, Brosnan further discloses that the left and right braces (180 at left 168 and right 168) independently comprise a curved region (‘curve’ region, annotated fig. 3 above) configured to retain (via 170, fig. 10) the belt (156, fig. 10) about the roller (172), and a linear region (‘linear region’, annotated fig. 3 above) configured to retain the belt about the rail (fig. 3), with the linear region spaced from the roller between the first rail end (168A) and the second rail end (168B). see figs. 7A and 7B.
Regarding claim 12, Brosnan further discloses that the curved region of the left brace (left 180), the curved region of the right brace (right 180), and the roller share a common axis (RA, fig. 10).
Regarding claim 14, Brosnan further discloses that the roller (172) defines a belt contact surface having a width W1 (see interpretation section and drawing objection above) and the belt defines a width W2 that is less than the width W1 (see annotated fig. 9B below, where W2 is less than W1).
It is well established that a claim limitation which merely specifies the relative sizes or proportions of parts – where such relationship is an inherent result of routing design choice or mechanical fit – does not confer patentable distinction unless a new or unexpected functional result is shown (In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459 (CCPA 1955); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d (CCPA 1966)). MPEP 2144.
In this case, configuring a roller contact (W1) to be wider than the belt (W2) is the normal engineering expedient to allow belt tolerances, edge clearance, or manufacturing variance. Such relationships are inherent in conventional roller-and-belt assemblies and would be expected by one of ordinary skill in the art without invention. Therefore, the limitation does not yield patentable subject matter over known patent-transport or conveyor-belt mechanism.
PNG
media_image3.png
864
1111
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 9B of Brosnan
Regarding claim 15, Brosnan further discloses that the rail (168) includes a stair-side oriented towards the stairs during operation (fig. 12C) and a non-contact side opposite the stair-side (fig. 12C), and wherein the linear region of the left brace and the linear region of the right brace are configured to abut the belt about the stair-side [ para. 0063 discloses: “the connecting pivot regions 232 also comprise link stops 248 that are shaped and arranged to abut the brace links 228 in the deployed position 154B (see fig. 7B)”; thus, the linear region of the left brace and the linear region of the right brace are configured to abut the belt about the stair-side.]
Regarding claim 16, Brosnan further discloses that the left and right braces (left and right 180, fig. 10) independently include a leading edge configured to abut the belt along the curved region and the linear region of each brace [see fig. 10 where brace leading edge that has curve, configured to abut along the curve region and the linear region of each brace], wherein the leading edges of the linear regions of the left and right braces are located along the stair-side of the rail [ fig. 7B shows along the stair side of the rail.]
Regarding claim 17, Brosnan further discloses that a leading edge of the curved region of the left brace and a leading edge of the curved region of the right brace are spaced from each other by a distance (D) that is greater than the width of the belt (W2). See annotated fig. 7B below where D is greater than W2.
PNG
media_image4.png
890
1111
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 7B of Brosnan
Regarding claim 18, Brosnan further discloses that the leading edge of the curved region of the left brace and the leading edge of the curved region of the right brace each independently taper laterally towards the belt. See annotated fig. 3 of Brosnan above where the leading edge of the curved region of the left brace and the leading edge of the curved region of the right brace each independently taper laterally towards the belt.
Regarding claim 20, Brosnan further discloses that the right and left braces (180) are mirror images of each other (shown in fig. 7B, each 180 is positioned left and right side of the rail wall 168 and are mirror image of each other).
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosnan in view of Larue (US PAT. 6644426 B1).
Regarding claim 19, Brosnan doesn’t appear to teach that a mid-brace (see drawing objection above) separate from the lateral brace; however,
Larue in another mobility device similar to Brosnan teaches that a mid-brace (72, fig. 3) separate from the lateral brace (104)[col. 3, line 30-35 teaches: “bracket 68 is mounted on a brace 72 connected to the central (mid) carriage 44”, see fig. 3 where 72 is positioned on the middle of the rail; thus brace 72 is a mid-brace separate from lateral brace]), the mid-brace (72) configured to abut at least a portion of the belt (fig. 3 shows the abutment next to the belt) to retain the belt in engagement with the roller (202) for limiting lateral movement of the belt (160) relative to the rail (left and right track mechanism 32 and 42; fig. 2) occurring in response to force (“driving force”, col. 5, line 40-45) acting on the belt (160) between stairs (fig. page 1) and the roller (202) during operation of the motor (electric motor 30, col 2, line 60-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a known patient transport apparatus, such as those disclosed by Brosnan with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to advantageously incorporate an additional support or guide element, such as mid-brace separate from the lateral brace, configured to abut at least a portion of the belt to maintain engagement with the roller and limit lateral movement .
The cited prior art collectively teaches belt-retaining members, mid-brace, guide rollers, or an intermediate bracket positioned to stabilize the guide belts under load condition during powered motion on stairs. Providing an additional mid-brace between existing lateral supports would have been a predictable design variation motivated by the well-known need to prevent belt wandering and ensure alignment during operation. Accordingly, the recited limitation constitutes an obvious structural refinement rather than a patentably distinct feature.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to teach all limitations of the following claims, particularly as follows:
Claim 13 recites: “each have a radius R2 that is greater than R1”.
Given that the prior art from Brosnan discloses the roller (172) that has a radius R1 and the curved region (annotated fig. 3 above) of the left brace (left 180) and the curved region of the right brace (annotated fig. 3 above for right 180); however, the claimed subject matter involves “each have a radius R2 that is greater than R1”; the prior art does not anticipate the claimed subject matter of patient transport apparatus having track brace assembly configuration. The above limitations are neither anticipated nor obvious. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20090230638 A1to Reed discloses: the present invention relates to a chair configured for transporting a subject (e.g., up or down an elevated surface (e.g., a stairway, a curb, a ramp, etc.)) and methods of using the same. In particular, the present invention provides a chair comprising a rail assembly, a pair of back legs and a pair of front legs, wherein the rail assembly is fastened to the back legs and wherein the back legs and front legs are interconnected via a pair of side rails and a seat assembly.
US 20030132585 A1 to Way discloses: the present invention is directed to a stair chair. The stair chair includes a seat assembly mounted to a main frame and configured to pivot about a first pivot axis. A rail assembly having two laterally spaced brackets provided at a lower end of the rail assembly is included.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST.
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, Neacsu Valentin can be reached on (571) 272-6265. 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.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611