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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on November 27, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant believes there is unity of invention between Groups I and II. This is not found persuasive because while Groups I and II share the technical feature of a harness comprising two slings in the form of loops, this feature is not a special technical feature as it is disclosed in WO 96/0272801 (Fig. 2, harness (7) with sling loops (8)) and USPAP 2015/0272801 (Fig. 1, harness (117) with sling loops (121)). Applicant argues that the claims disclose two suspension slings, and not at least two. This seems to indicate Applicant believes the claims require two, and only two, suspension slings, but this is not the case. Because Applicant uses the word “comprises” in the claims, this allows more than two suspension slings and requires at least two. If Applicant chose to use the phrase “consists of”, this would limit the claims to the limitations that followed, and only those limitations. Applicant argues that USPAP 2015/0272801 does not disclose the two slings are “each attached by one end to a point on the seat and a point on the backrest, so that each suspension fling forms a large sling loop”. This limitation is found in claim 14, but not in claim 1 and therefore is not a technical feature shared by both independent claims. Applicant argues that “Both groups of claims relate to the same special technical feature of having "two suspension slings (120 and 220) each attached by one end to one point of the seat bottom and one point of the seat back, such that each suspension sling forms a large sling loop" ”, but this particular limitation is not found in either of the independent claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 1, “Person” should read –A person--. In line 1 of each of claims 2-13, “Person” should read –The person--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-13 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.
With regard to claim 1, claim 1 discloses first and second lateral drive systems, each having at least two rollers, at least one of which is motorized. The Merriam webster on-line dictionary (m-w.com) defines motorized as either equipped with a motor or powered by a motor. Because Applicant does not make clear in the claim if each of the two lateral drive systems has their own motor or are powered by the same motor, the claim is indefinite. For purposes of examination, Examiner is choosing to use the definition of being equipped with a motor meaning that this interpretation requires at least two motors.
With regard to claims 2-13, in that claims 2-13 depend from claim 1, either directly or indirectly, claims 2-13 are similarly rejected.
With regard to claim 4, Applicant uses quotation marks three times in the claim, referring to the name of the first support with two rollers as the “’front support’“, the name of the second support with two rollers as the “’rear support’“ and referring to the pe where two axes intersect as a “’V’“. Because of the use of the quotation marks, it is not clear if these are required by the claim, rendering the claim indefinite.
With regard to claim 5, Applicant uses quotation marks two times in the claim, when referring to the name of the first roller mounted on a first support as the “’front support’” and when referring to the name of a second roller mounted on a second support as the “’rear support’”. Because of the use of the quotation marks, it is not clear if these are required by the claim, rendering the claim indefinite.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “greater than 0.4”, and the claim also recites “greater than 0.6”, “greater than 0.8”, “greater than 1”, and “greater than 2”, all of which are a narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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) 1, 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2568470 (Carminati et al.).
With regard to claim 1, insofar as claim 1 is definite, Carminati et al. discloses a person transfer device, characterised in that it comprises:
- a means for suspension from a ceiling rail (1, 2), arm or lifting module;
- a prehension device (Fig. 1) comprising a first lateral drive system comprising at least two rollers (26, 23, 40-43) of which at least one is motorized (by motor (4)), and a second lateral drive system comprising at least two rollers (33, 34, 44-47); and
- a person transport harness (Fig. 2) comprising a first large sling loop (35, 35’) supported by the first drive system, and a second large sling loop (36, 36’) supported by the second drive system; and
wherein the friction of the drive systems against the surface of the sling loops (35, 35’, 36, 36’) results in the rotation of at least one portion of the harness, such that the person transfer device allows a person (Fig. 1) installed in the harness to be tilted according to at least two predefined positions.
Carminati et al. discloses that the second lateral drive system has at least two rollers, one of which is motorized but does not disclose that the second lateral drive system has its own motor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide the second lateral drive system with a separate motor to motorize at least one of the at least two rollers, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378.
With regard to claim 2, insofar as claim 2 is definite, Carminati et al. discloses a person transfer device according to claim 1, wherein the first and second lateral drive systems can be actuated simultaneously and independently. Having two separate motors to drive the first and second lateral drive systems allows them to be actuated simultaneously and independently.
With regard to claim 7, insofar as claim 7 is definite, Carminati et al. discloses a person transfer device according to claim 1 wherein at least one lateral drive system comprises a driving belt (36) connected to at least one first roller (23), referred to as a driver roller, coupled to a motor (4), and to at least one second roller (40), referred to as a driven roller, driven by this belt (36).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Carminati et al. modification with regard to claim 1 and in further view of USPAP 2015/0272801 (Karlsson et al. hereinafter).
With regard to claim 8, insofar as claim 8 is definite, the Carminati et al. modification with regard to claim 7 discloses the person transfer device according to claim 7, which comprises at least one sling carrier (Fig. 2), but does not disclose wherein the carrier comprises a latch movable between an open position and a closed position to maintain the slings in position on the belt or on the rollers, such that these slings can only be detached when the movable latch is in the open position.
Karlsson et al. teaches a patient lift device using slings (121) with a latch (2373, 2673) movable between an open position and a closed position (Fig.’s 23-27) to maintain the slings (121) in position, such that these slings (121) can only be detached when the movable latch (2373, 2673) is in the open position (paragraph [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to further modify the apparatus of Carminati et al. by providing a latch as taught in Karlsson et al. for the purposes of preventing a patient from being dropped (paragraph [0063] of Karlsson et al.) resulting in wherein the carrier comprises a latch movable between an open position and a closed position to maintain the slings in position on the belt or on the rollers, such that these slings can only be detached when the movable latch is in the open position.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Carminati et al. modification with regard to claim 1 and in further view of USPAP 2020/0230005 (Hidler hereinafter).
With regard to claim 10, the Carminati et al. modification with regard to claim 1 discloses all of the limitations except for a strap and a motorised winder configured to raise or lower the person transfer device as a function of the winding of this belt, which acts as a suspension shaft connected to a ceiling rail or other overhead support.
Hidler teaches a patient mobility device with a strap (220) and a motorised winder (paragraph [0090]) configured to raise or lower the person transfer device as a function of the winding of this belt, which acts as a suspension shaft connected to a ceiling rail or other overhead support (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to further modify the apparatus of the Carminati et al. modification with regard to claim 1 by providing a strap and a motorised winder configured to raise or lower the person transfer device as a function of the winding of this belt, which acts as a suspension shaft connected to a ceiling rail or other overhead support as taught in Hidler for the purposes of allowing the patient to be raised to a standing position and extending the vertical travel of the system (paragraph [0011] of Hidler).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Carminati et al. modification with regard to claim 1 and in further view of USPAP 2012/0318587 (Alghazi hereinafter).
With regard to claim 13, the Carminati et al. modification with regard to claim 1 discloses all of the limitations except for at least one means for sensory stimulation, chosen from amongst a loudspeaker, a projector and an odour diffuser, making it possible to utilise therapeutic animations of chromotherapy, lighting effects, visual projections, sound effects or aromatherapy type.
Alghazi teaches a patient mobility device with at least one means for sensory stimulation, chosen from amongst a loudspeaker, a projector and an odour diffuser, making it possible to utilise therapeutic animations of chromotherapy, lighting effects, visual projections, sound effects or aromatherapy type (paragraph [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to further modify the apparatus of the Carminati et al. modification with regard to claim 1 by providing at least one means for sensory stimulation, chosen from amongst a loudspeaker, a projector and an odour diffuser as taught in Alghazi for the purposes of providing sounds and/or music to the patient (paragraph [0063] of Alghazi).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP’s 4,627,119, 4,530,122, 4,243,147, 3,123,224, 1,709,153, 10,610,432 and 6,049,923 as well as USPAP’s 2024/0261162, 2020/0345569, 2022/0104979, 2020/0312452, 2020/0085659 and 2014/0138995 each disclose patient mobility devices similar to that claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON R EASTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 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.
/AARON R EASTMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673