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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-17 have been examined in this application. This communication is a RCE Non-Final Rejection in response to Applicant's “Amendments/Remarks” and claims filed 04/24/2026 and the RCE filed on 05/11/2026.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: ‘transporting means’ in Claims 1-17, which is noted to be interpreted as the entire caster assembly per Page 9 Lines 14-20 and Fig. 2b.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Albersmeyer et al., hereinafter 'Albersmeyer' (EP 1810652 B1).
In regards to Claim 1, Albersmeyer teaches: A brake assembly (24 - Fig. 6) of a transporting means (20- Fig. 1) for a patient handling apparatus (30 - Fig. 1, "In fact, because the stretcher 20 has the apparatus 300 for slowing the speed of the stretcher 20 during transport, less caregivers may be needed to transport patients, including obese patients, from one location to another in a healthcare facility than may otherwise be needed, especially if a ramp is encountered along the transport route"), said brake assembly comprising a brake actuator (302 - Fig. 7), wherein the brake assembly is adapted to control movements of a wheel (64 - Fig. 1) of at least one rear caster by activating the brake actuator ('As shown in Fig. 1, the brake handle 302 is sufficiently close to the handle post 70 to allow a caregiver to simultaneously grasp the handle post 70 and the handgrip portion 322 of the brake handle 302 and squeeze the handgrip portion 322 to pull the wire 374 in a direction indicated by arrow 406 (Fig. 4) to cause the lever 380, and the brake rod 152 coupled thereto, to rotate in the braking direction 230 through an angle of up to about 28 degrees. Rotation of the brake rod 152 in the braking direction 230 through an angle close to about 28 degrees moves the two contoured brake shoes 448, but not the two standard brake shoes 450, into engagement with the associated caster wheels 64 near the head end 32, as shown in Fig. 9, to impede their rotation, but not block their rotation. In the illustrative embodiment, the amount of force a typical caregiver can exert on the brake handle 302 does not permit the brake rod 152 to rotate more than about 28 degrees when the brake handle 302 is actuated.', see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Albersmeyer) and wherein said brake actuator is mounted to a lift base (22 – Fig. 1, noted ‘coupled to’ per Para 0057 – noting that the brake handle/brake actuator is mechanically connected to / mounted to / coupled to via components that extends to and is anchored within the lift base, wherein the brake actuator actuates a wheel braking mechanism which is mounted to a lift base – the mounting is of an indirect connection through one or more intermediate components without such mounting the handle and wheel would not function together to provide the braking function within the base) of the patient handling apparatus and connected to the at least one rear caster (64 – Fig. 8) via a caster neck (60 – Fig. 8) of the rear caster, said caster neck extending through a hole (110 – Fig. 6, see Para 0016 and annotated Fig. 6.1 from Albersmeyer) of the lift base (22 - Fig. 1, notably the stretcher does raise and lower and 'lift' with the use of the elevation adjustment assembly on the lower frame) such that the brake actuator is located on top of the lift base (302 is shown located vertically on top of the lift base, above the surface - Fig. 1) and the wheel of the at least one rear caster is located below the lift base (64 is shown to be located below the lift base 22, below the surface - Fig. 1), and wherein said brake actuator is adapted to control the at least one rear caster to be in three operating modes, wherein the three operating modes are a total lock mode (‘brake mode’, Para 0018: ‘[[caster wheel]] is neither free to swivel about its vertical axis, nor it is free to rotate about its horizontal axis’), a non-braking mode (‘neutral mode’, Para 0018: ‘[[caster wheel]] is free to swivel about its vertical axis and, in addition, is free to rotate about its horizontal axis’) and a directional lock mode (‘steer mode’, Para 0018: ‘[[caster wheel]] is free to rotate about its horizontal axis, but is not free to swivel about its vertical axis’ – Examiner notes that one direction is locked).
PNG
media_image1.png
393
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.1 from Albersmeyer
PNG
media_image2.png
575
951
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6.1 from Albersmeyer
In regards to Claim 2, Albersmeyer teaches: The brake assembly according to claim 1, wherein the brake assembly further comprises a brake element (448 - Fig. 10) adapted to engage with teeth (446 - Fig. 11) provided on an annular shoulder of the at least one rear caster (470 - Fig. 11) when the brake actuator is activated (Figs. 8-11, show the engagement of the teeth to the brake element).
In regards to Claim 4, Albersmeyer teaches: A transporting means for a patient handling apparatus (30 - Fig. 1), wherein the transporting means comprises at least one rear caster ('As shown in Fig. 1, the brake handle 302 is sufficiently close to the handle post 70 to allow a caregiver to simultaneously grasp the handle post 70 and the handgrip portion 322 of the brake handle 302 and squeeze the handgrip portion 322 to pull the wire 374 in a direction indicated by arrow 406 (Fig. 4) to cause the lever 380, and the brake rod 152 coupled thereto, to rotate in the braking direction 230 through an angle of up to about 28 degrees. Rotation of the brake rod 152 in the braking direction 230 through an angle close to about 28 degrees moves the two contoured brake shoes 448, but not the two standard brake shoes 450, into engagement with the associated caster wheels 64 near the head end 32, as shown in Fig. 9, to impede their rotation, but not block their rotation. In the illustrative embodiment, the amount of force a typical caregiver can exert on the brake handle 302 does not permit the brake rod 152 to rotate more than about 28 degrees when the brake handle 302 is actuated.') coupled to a brake assembly (24 - Fig. 6), wherein the brake assembly is adapted to control movements of a wheel (64 - Fig. 1) of the at least one rear caster by activating a brake actuator (302 - Fig. 7) of the brake assembly ('As shown in Fig. 1, the brake handle 302 is sufficiently close to the handle post 70 to allow a caregiver to simultaneously grasp the handle post 70 and the handgrip portion 322 of the brake handle 302 and squeeze the handgrip portion 322 to pull the wire 374 in a direction indicated by arrow 406 (Fig. 4) to cause the lever 380, and the brake rod 152 coupled thereto, to rotate in the braking direction 230 through an angle of up to about 28 degrees. Rotation of the brake rod 152 in the braking direction 230 through an angle close to about 28 degrees moves the two contoured brake shoes 448, but not the two standard brake shoes 450, into engagement with the associated caster wheels 64 near the head end 32, as shown in Fig. 9, to impede their rotation, but not block their rotation. In the illustrative embodiment, the amount of force a typical caregiver can exert on the brake handle 302 does not permit the brake rod 152 to rotate more than about 28 degrees when the brake handle 302 is actuated.') and wherein said brake actuator is mounted to a lift base (22 – Fig. 1, noted ‘coupled to’ per Para 0057 – noting that the brake handle/brake actuator is mechanically connected to / mounted to / coupled to via components that extends to and is anchored within the lift base, wherein the brake actuator actuates a wheel braking mechanism which is mounted to a lift base – the mounting is of an indirect connection through one or more intermediate components without such mounting the handle and wheel would not function together to provide the braking function within the base) of the patient handling apparatus and connected to at least one rear caster (64 – Fig. 8) via a caster neck of the rear caster (60 – Fig. 8), said caster neck extending through a hole (110 – Fig. 6, see Para 0016 and annotated Fig. 6.1 from Albersmeyer) of the lift base (22 - Fig. 1, notably the stretcher does raise and lower and 'lift' with the use of the elevation adjustment assembly on the lower frame) such that the brake actuator is located on top of the lift base (302 is shown located vertically on top of the lift base, above the surface - Fig. 1) and the wheel of the at least one rear caster is located below the lift base (64 is shown to be located below the lift base 22, below the surface - Fig. 1), and wherein said brake actuator is adapted to control the at least one rear caster to be in three operating modes, wherein the three operating modes are a total lock mode (‘brake mode’, Para 0018: ‘[[caster wheel]] is neither free to swivel about its vertical axis, nor it is free to rotate about its horizontal axis’), a non-braking mode (‘neutral mode’, Para 0018: ‘[[caster wheel]] is free to swivel about its vertical axis and, in addition, is free to rotate about its horizontal axis’) and a directional lock mode (‘steer mode’, Para 0018: ‘[[caster wheel]] is free to rotate about its horizontal axis, but is not free to swivel about its vertical axis’ – Examiner notes that one direction is locked).
In regards to Claim 5, Albersmeyer teaches: The transporting means according to claim 4, wherein the caster neck of the at least one rear caster extends through a lift base plate (22 - Fig. 1, notably the stretcher does raise and lower and 'lift' with the use of the elevation adjustment assembly on the lower frame) of the lift base of the patient handling apparatus such that the brake actuator of the brake assembly is located on top of the lift base plate (302 is shown located vertically on top of the lift base, above the surface - Fig. 1) and the wheel of the at least one rear caster is located below the lift base plate (64 is shown to be located below the lift base 22, below the surface - Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 6, Albersmeyer teaches: The transporting means according to claim 4, wherein the brake assembly further comprises a brake element (448 - Fig. 10) and the at least one rear caster is provided with teeth (446 - Fig. 11) provided on an annular shoulder of the at least one rear caster (470 - Fig. 11), wherein the brake element is adapted to engage with the teeth when the brake actuator is activated (Figs. 8-11, show the engagement of the teeth to the brake element).
In regards to Claim 8, Albersmeyer teaches: The transporting means according to claim 4,wherein the transporting means comprises two rear casters (see annotated Fig. 1.2 from Albersmeyer) and wherein at least one of the two rear casters is coupled to the brake assembly (300 is indirectly coupled through the wire 374 and further to the associated caster wheels through an indirect connection as shown in Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image3.png
393
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.2 from Albersmeyer
In regards to Claim 9, Albersmeyer teaches: The transporting means according to claim 8, wherein each of the two rear casters is coupled to the brake assembly (300 is indirectly coupled through the wire 374 and further to the associated caster wheels through an indirect connection as shown in Fig. 7).
In regards to Claim 12, Albersmeyer teaches: The transporting means according to claim 4,wherein said at least one rear caster is a swivel ('Each brake caster 24 has two modes, namely, a neutral mode and a brake mode. In the neutral mode, the caster wheels 64 are free to swivel about their respective vertical axes 420 (Fig. 8) and, in addition, are free to rotate about their respective horizontal axes 422 (Fig. 8). In the brake mode, however, the caster wheels 64 are neither free to swivel about their respective vertical axes 420, nor they are free to rotate about their respective horizontal axes 422.').
In regards to Claim 13, Albersmeyer teaches: The transporting means according to claim 4, wherein the at least one rear caster is movably mounted to the lift base by a fastening arrangement (110 - Fig. 6, Para: "The caster 24 has a stem 60, a yoke 62 carried by the stem 60 for pivoting movement about a generally vertical axis 420 and a wheel 64 carried by the yoke 62 for rotation about a generally horizontal axis 422 (Fig. 1). The stem 60 of the caster 24 is fixedly attached to the right angle bracket 110 (Fig. 2) of the lower frame 22. The stem 60 includes a plunger housing 424. The yoke 62 is mounted for swiveling movement relative to the plunger housing 424 via a bearing 426. The bearing 426 has an inner race coupled to the plunger housing 424 and an outer race coupled to the yoke 62 via a bearing housing 428. In some embodiments, the yoke 62 may not rotate relative to the stem 60 about the vertical axis 420.").
In regards to Claim 15, Albersmeyer teaches: The transporting means according to claim 4, wherein said transporting means further comprises at least one front caster (see annotated Fig. 1.3 from Albersmeyer).
PNG
media_image4.png
350
450
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.3 from Albersmeyer
In regards to Claim 16, Albersmeyer teaches: The transporting means according to claim 15, wherein said at least one front caster is adapted to be coupled to at least one leg extending from the lift base of the patient handling apparatus (see annotated Fig. 1.4 from Albersmeyer).
PNG
media_image5.png
343
479
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.4 from Albersmeyer
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Albersmeyer' (EP 1810652 B1) in view of Patmore et al., hereinafter 'Patmore' (EP 3572239 A1).
In regards to Claim 10, Albersmeyer teaches: The transporting means according to claim 4, but Albersmeyer does not explicitly teach, wherein the material of said at least one rear caster comprises polyamide.
Patmore teaches: wherein the material of said at least one rear caster comprises polyamide ("Referring to Figure 2, in one embodiment, each of the wheels 68 comprises a wheel hub 69 and an outer wheel portion 71 surrounding the wheel hub 69. The outer wheel portion 71 has an outer surface 73, at least part of which is arranged to contact the floor surface F when rolling along the floor surface F. The wheel hub 69 may also be referred to as a wheel center, wheel rim, or the like. The outer wheel portion 71 may also be referred to as a tire, tread, etc. In some embodiments, the outer wheel portion 71 comprises a first material and the wheel hub 69 comprises a second material, wherein the first material is different than the second material. The first material may be softer than the second material, and have a higher coefficient of friction (static and/or dynamic) to provide suitable frictional engagement during braking, described further below. The first material also provides the wheel 68 with suitable grip on the floor surface F. The first material comprises, consists essentially of, or consists of, the first material, which may be a polymer. In many embodiments, the first material is selected from elastomers, thermoplastic elastomers, thermoplastics, and combinations thereof. Other first materials are also contemplated. Various non-limiting examples of suitable elastomers include natural rubber (natural polyisoprene), synthetic polyisoprene, polybutadiene, chloroprene rubber, butyl rubber, halogenated butyl rubber, styrene-butadiene rubber, nitrile rubber, ethylene propylene rubber, ethylene propylene diene rubber, epichlorohydrin rubber, polyacrylic rubber, silicone rubber, fluorosilicone rubber, fluoroelastomer, perfluoroelastomer, polyether block amides, chlorosulfonated polyethylene, and ethylene-vinyl acetate. For example, in one specific non-limiting embodiment, the first material comprises polyamide.").
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Albersmeyer (EP 1810652 B1), which discloses the transporting means according to claim 4, with Patmore (EP 3572239 A1), which teaches that the material of at least one rear caster comprises polyamide, to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because the claimed elements — including the transporting means and the use of polyamide for the rear caster — were known in the prior art. Combining these elements by selecting polyamide as the caster material would have been a matter of routine optimization, using known methods of material selection, with a reasonable expectation of success, no change in the respective functions, and predictable results such as improved grip and durability.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Albersmeyer' (EP 1810652 B1) in view of Chung (US 20060131110 A1).
In regards to Claim 11, Albersmeyer teaches: The transporting means according to claim 4, but Albersmeyer does not explicitly teach, wherein the at least one rear caster comprises two wheels.
Chung teaches: wherein the at least one rear caster comprises two wheels (Fig. 1, of Chung shows two wheels next to each other).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Albersmeyer (EP 1810652 B1), which teaches the transporting means according to claim 4, with Chung (US 20060131110 A1), which teaches that the at least one rear caster comprises two wheels, to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because it was well known to configure rear casters with two wheels to improve stability and load distribution. Such combination could be achieved by known design techniques with a reasonable expectation of success, no alteration of individual component functions, and predictable performance outcomes.
In regards to Claim 14, Albersmeyer teaches: The transporting means according to claim 13, but Albersmeyer does not explicitly teach, wherein said fastening arrangement comprises threads provided on the caster neck and a nut.
Chung teaches: wherein said fastening arrangement comprises threads provided on the caster neck and a nut (211 shows threads around the lower portion of pin 21 - Fig. 2 and a nut 27 having inward threads - Fig. 2, Para 0031 and Para 0033).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Albersmeyer (EP 1810652 B1), which discloses the transporting means according to claim 13, with Chung (US 20060131110 A1), which teaches a fastening arrangement comprising threads on the caster neck and a nut, to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because threaded fastening arrangements were well-known in caster assemblies for secure attachment. This combination would have been made by conventional mechanical fastening methods, with predictable and reliable results, and without any change in the respective functions of the components.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Albersmeyer' (EP 1810652 B1) in view of Wilson (WO 2011163283 A2).
In regards to Claim 17, Albersmeyer does not explicitly teach: A patient handling apparatus for handling a patient, wherein the patient handling apparatus comprises a lifting device for lifting, raising and lowering the patient and wherein the lifting device comprises a lift base with a frame, a boom and a patient support device, the patient support device being movable relative the lift base, and wherein the patient handling apparatus further comprises the transporting means according to claim 4 for transporting the patient handling apparatus from one location to another.
Wilson teaches: A patient handling apparatus (10 - Fig. 1) for handling a patient (18 - Fig. 40, Para 0153), wherein the patient handling apparatus comprises a lifting device (186 - Fig. 5, Para 0166) for lifting, raising and lowering the patient and wherein the lifting device (Para 0166: "Lift Operation: When either the hand crank 186 or operating the power lift motor 95 is engaged with the hexagon shaft 98 the rotation of the hexagon shafts 98 and 135 cause the spline tubes to turn, which causes the large outer jackscrews 128 to turn, causing the lift 203 to raise or descend.") comprises a lift base (13 - Fig. 1, Para 0170) with a frame (17 - Fig. 1, Para 0153), a boom (203 - Fig. 44, Para 0168-0169 and further noting Figs. 48-50) and a patient support device (15 - Fig. 31, Para 0153), the patient support device being movable relative the lift base (774-77d - Fig. 31, Para 0157), and wherein the patient handling apparatus further comprises the transporting means according to claim 4 for transporting the patient handling apparatus from one location to another (notably Fig. 31, indicates the same form of transporting means '20' indicating a lower frame with wheels and frame structure to support unit overhead
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Albersmeyer (EP 1810652 B1), which discloses the transporting means according to claim 4, with Wilson (WO 2011163283 A2), which teaches a patient handling apparatus comprising a lifting device with a lift base, frame, boom, and a movable patient support device, to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these features because lifting devices with patient supports and transporting means are common components in patient handling systems. Combining these elements using known engineering and assembly techniques would have been routine, with a reasonable expectation of success, predictable outcomes, and no change in the respective functions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s Arguments:
Argument #1 (Regarding the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 1810652 to Albersmeyer et al. (hereafter "Albersmeyer)): In rejecting the above-noted feature in claims 3 and 7, the rejection equates the neutral mode in Albersmeyer (see para [0017] of Albersmeyer) to the claimed directional lock mode. The neutral mode in Albersmeyer is expressly described as allowing both swivel and rotation (see para. [0017]). It is respectfully asserted that the neutral mode in Albersmeyer does not correlate to the claimed directional lock mode nor discloses the features of the claimed directional lock mode. In the current application, the directional lock mode is described as "allow[ing] the wheel 14a of the caster 14 to rotate, but only in a locked direction' (see p. 8, II. 30-31). This disclosure is consistent with the very term itself (i.e., "directional lock mode"), which indicates that a direction of the at least one rear caster is locked. In contrast, nothing about the neutral mode in Albersmeyer indicates that there is a locked direction. In fact, the neutral mode in Albersmeyer is expressly described as allowing both swivel and rotation (see para. [0017]). Additionally, neither Albersmeyer nor the rejection identifies any direction that is locked when Albersmeyer is the neutral mode. In view of the above, it is respectfully asserted that the neutral mode in Albersmeyer is not equivalent to the claimed directional lock mode presented in the claims.
Argument #2: Additionally, the feature of the claimed directional lock mode is also not disclosed by any of Patmore, Chung and Wilson (nor are any of these references cited for such a feature). Accordingly, because at least one claimed feature is missing from the combination of Albersmeyer and Patmore, the combination of Albersmeyer and Chung, and the combination of Albersmeyer and Wilson, none of these combinations of references establish prima facie obviousness (see In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 180 USPQ 580 (CCPA 1974)(noting a prima facie case of obviousness is NOT established where the prior art references (or references when combined) do not teach or suggest all of the claim limitations)(emphasis added). Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of claims 10, 11, 14 and 17 is respectfully requested.
Examiner’s Response:
Response to Argument #1:
With regards to the Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. Firstly, the claim language incorporated from canceled Claim 3 into independent Claim 1, and, canceled Claim 7 into independent Claim 4 have each been addressed in the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection as anticipated by ‘Albersmeyer’ (EP 1810652 B1). Notably, the Examiner mapped the following of Albersmeyer to the instant invention (Para 0017-0018 | Figs. 7-11):
Three operating modes:
a total lock mode (‘brake mode’, Para 0018: ‘[[caster wheel]] is neither free to swivel about its vertical axis, nor it is free to rotate about its horizontal axis’),
a non-braking mode (‘neutral mode’, Para 0018: ‘[[caster wheel]] is free to swivel about its vertical axis and, in addition, is free to rotate about its horizontal axis’) and
a directional lock mode (‘steer mode’, Para 0018: ‘[[caster wheel]] is free to rotate about its horizontal axis, but is not free to swivel about its vertical axis’ – Examiner notes that one direction is locked).
As such, this interpretation has now been updated and shown in each of the independent claims filed.
The term 'total lock mode' as used in the present invention is reasonably interpreted as a configuration wherein the caster wheel is neither free to swivel about its vertical axis, nor free to rotate about its horizontal axis. This interpretation is supported by the structural mechanics of the total lock mechanism. When engaged in the total lock mode, the mechanism simultaneously (1) deploys a brake, preventing rotation about the horizontal axle, and (2) preventing the caster housing from pivoting about the vertical axis. Because both degrees of operational freedom are constrained, the caster assembly is effectively immobilized in both the rolling and steering directions.
A 'non-braking mode' reasonably encompasses a state wherein the caster wheel is free to swivel about its vertical axis and rotate about its horizontal axis, yet does not specifically require movement therefrom. A caster assembly inherently possesses these two degrees of freedom when unhindered. By placing the wheel in a 'non-braking mode,' the restrictive forces applied by the braking mechanism are removed, thereby permitting the caster wheel to freely perform its standard mechanical function: pivoting about its vertical swivel axis and rotating about its horizontal wheel axis.
The term 'directional lock mode' as used in the present invention is reasonably interpreted as having at least one direction where motion is locked. Specifically, the prior art defines a state where the apparatus is free to rotate about its horizontal axis, but is not free to swivel about its vertical axis. Commonly, a directional lock operates to prevent the apparatus from rotating or pivoting side-to-side, or other motion as defined. Conversely, the apparatus can also commonly remain completely free to rotate about its horizontal axis to allow forward and backward movement.
Response to Argument #2: The Examiner respectfully disagrees and the Applicant’s arguments #2 are substantively the same as Argument #1, merely restating in the context of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. Accordingly, the response to Argument #2is hereby incorporated by reference. Additionally, Albersmeyer teaches the amended limitations, including the three respective modes recited in the newly amended claims filed on 04/24/2026, and therefore renders the claims obvious for the same reasons discussed above. Therefore, for at least the reasons previously set forth, the claims remain unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Derenne et al. (US 20170119607 A1) teaches: Systems and methods for facilitating movement of a patient transport apparatus. The patient transport apparatus has a support structure and a patient support surface. Caster assemblies are coupled to the support structure to roll about a roll axis and swivel about a swivel axis. A control system is configured to control brake mechanisms, steer-lock mechanisms, and pre-swivel mechanisms of the caster assemblies based on one or more inputs. A brake mechanism coupled to said wheel and operable between a braked mode and an unbraked mode, said brake mechanism comprising a locking pin biased into one of said wheel grooves in said braked mode; a swivel-lock assembly disposed within said wheel support and configured to lock swiveling of said wheel about said swivel axis in said braked mode, wherein said swivel-lock assembly comprises a first swivel-lock member fixed in relation to said wheel support to rotate with said wheel support and a second swivel-lock member slidably coupled to said shaft and fixed from rotating relative to said shaft, wherein said swivel-lock members are configured to be placed in a meshing relationship to lock swiveling of said wheel about said swivel axis; and wherein said brake mechanism comprises a brake actuator, a brake lever coupled to said locking pin, and a plunger, said brake actuator being controllable to move said plunger so that said plunger abuts and depresses said brake lever thereby moving said locking pin out of engagement with said wheel groove in said unbraked mode, said brake actuator also being controllable to move said plunger so that said second swivel-lock member is separated from said first swivel-lock member to allow said wheel to swivel in said unbraked mode.
Vogel (US 20040163175 A1) teaches: A patient support including a propulsion device for moving the patient support. The patient support includes a propulsion system having a propulsion device operably coupled to an input system. The input system controls the speed and direction of the propulsion device such that a caregiver can direct the patient support to a desired location. A plurality of casters supporting the support frame, each caster being supported for swiveling movement and including a rotatable wheel, a brake configured for inhibiting rotation of the wheel in a brake mode of operation, and a steer lock for inhibiting swiveling movement of the caster in a steer mode of operation; a traction device coupled to the support frame; an actuator configured to move the traction device between a first position spaced apart from the floor and a second position in contact with the floor; an external power detector configured to determine if external power is supplied to the transport apparatus and provide a power indication signal in response thereto; a caster mode detector configured to detect at least one of the brake mode of operation and the steer mode of operation of the casters and to provide a caster signal indication signal in response thereto; an enable input device being operable to receive an enable command from a user and provide an enable signal in response to the enable command; and a controller coupled to the external power detector to receive the power indication signal therefrom, coupled to the caster mode detector to receive the caster indication signal therefrom, and coupled to the enable input device to receive the enable signal therefrom, the controller being operable to provide a control signal to the actuator in response to the power indication signal, the caster indication signal and the enable signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, 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.
MADISON MATTHEWS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/MADISON MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
06/01/2026
Prosecution Insights