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 1-17 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to Applicant' s “Amendments/Remarks” filed 10/08/2025. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 08/20/2025 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Drawings
The drawing objections made in the Non-Final Rejection on 07/15/2025 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the drawings filed on 10/08/2025.
Claim Objections
The claims objections made in the Non-Final Rejection on 07/15/2025 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims filed on 10/08/2025.
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) 1-9, 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).
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 3, Albersmeyer teaches: The brake assembly according to claim 1, wherein said brake actuator is adapted to control the at least one rear caster to be in three operating modes ('neutral mode', 'brake mode' and 'swivel mode'), wherein the three operating modes are a total lock mode ('brake mode' ), a non-braking mode ('swivel mode') and a directional lock mode ('neutral mode').
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).
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 7, Albersmeyer teaches: The transporting means according to claim 4,wherein said brake actuator is adapted to control the at least one caster to be in three operating modes ('neutral mode', 'brake mode' and 'swivel mode'), wherein the three operating modes are a braking mode ('brake mode' ), a non-braking mode ('swivel mode') and a directional lock mode ('neutral mode').
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 10/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s Arguments:
Argument #1 (Regarding Claims 1-9. 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 1810652 to Albersmeyer et al. (hereafter "Albersmeyer)): However, the stem 60 of caster 24, i.e., the "caster neck," of Albersmeyer does not extend through lower frame 22, i.e., the "lift base". Indeed, Fig 1 of Albersmeyer clearly shows that the stem 60 of caster 24, i.e., the "caster neck," is covered by the lower frame 22. Furthermore, Albersmeyer does not disclose or show details as to how the brake handle 302, i.e., the "brake actuator," is coupled to stem 60 of caster 24, i.e., the "caster neck." Thus, it is respectfully asserted that Albersmeyer does not disclose (i) a brake actuator that is mounted to a lift base of a patient handling apparatus and connected to at least one rear caster via a caster neck of the rear caster and does not disclose (ii) that the caster neck extends through a hole of the lift base such that the brake actuator is located on top of the lift base and the wheel of the at least one rear caster is located below the lift base as presented in amended independent claims 1 and 4.
Argument #2 (Regarding Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C.§ 103 as obvious over Albersmeyer in view of EP 3572239 to Patmore et al. (hereafter "Patmore")): Namely (and is shown above in discussing the anticipation rejection based on Albersmeyer). Albersmeyer does not disclose (i) a brake actuator that is mounted to a lift base of a patient handling apparatus and connected to at least one rear caster via a caster neck of the rear caster or (ii) that the caster neck extends through a hole of the lift base such that the brake actuator is located on top of the lift base and the wheel of the at least one rear caster is located below the lift base. Turning to Patmore, Patmore discloses a caster assembly 70 with a brake assembly 90. Patmore also discloses a neck 76 coupled to the stem 74 via a bearing 82. See para. [0017] and Figs. 1-4. However, Patmore does not disclose that a brake actuator is connected to at least one rear caster via a caster neck of the rear caster and Patmore does not disclose that the caster neck extends through a hole of the lift base such that the brake actuator is located on top of the lift base and the wheel of the at least one rear caster is located below the lift base. Indeed, as to this last feature, from Figs. 1 and 3-4, it is clear that the brake assembly 90 is below the base 34.
Argument #3 (Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Albersmeyer in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0131110 to Chung (hereafter "Chung")): Namely (and is shown above in discussing the anticipation rejection based on Albersmeyer). Albersmeyer does not disclose (i) a brake actuator that is mounted to a lift base of a patient handling apparatus and connected to at least one rear caster via a caster neck of the rear caster or (ii) that the caster neck extends through a hole of the lift base such that the brake actuator is located on top of the lift base and the wheel of the at least one rear caster is located below the lift base. Turning to Chung, Chung discloses a brake caster (see e.g., Fig. 1). Chung's brake caster includes a top plate 11 that carries the load of the hand cart (para. [0026]). It is clear from the arrangement of top plate 11, e.g., see mounting holes at the four corners, that the brake caster is mounted to the bottom side of any base of a patent handling device and thus, the entire brake caster of Chung is below any such base. Therefore, Chung does not disclose at least the feature of a caster neck extends through a hole of the lift base such that the brake actuator is located on top of the lift base and the wheel of the at least one rear caster is located below the lift base.
Argument #4 (Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Albersmeyer in view of WO 2011/163283 to Wilson (hereafter "Wilson"): Namely (and is shown above in discussing the anticipation rejection based on Albersmeyer). Albersmeyer does not disclose (i) a brake actuator that is mounted to a lift base of a patient handling apparatus and connected to at least one rear caster via a caster neck of the rear caster or (ii) that the caster neck extends through a hole of the lift base such that the brake actuator is located on top of the lift base and the wheel of the at least one rear caster is located below the lift base. Turning to Wilson, Wilson discloses a wheelchair lift-transfer device with caster wheels 27, 49 and 50 (see para. [0154] and Fig. 5 (mislabeled as 39 and 40)). Wilson discloses a brake assembly 70-1 (see para. [0191]), but this brake assembly appears to be associated with the lifting column and not with caster wheels 27, 49 and 50. It is respectfully asserted that, like Albersmeyer, Wilson does not disclose (i) a brake actuator that is mounted to a lift base of a patient handling apparatus and connected to at least one rear caster via a caster neck of the rear caster or (ii) that the caster neck extends through a hole of the lift base such that the brake actuator is located on top of the lift base and the wheel of the at least one rear caster is located below the lift base. As both Albersmeyer and Wilson are missing at least one same feature, the combination of Albersmeyer and Wilson is also missing at least this same one feature.
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 is broad and positional in nature and does not limit the manner in which the brake actuator is mounted to the lift base. Specifically there is no disclosure that the elements require direct attachment of the brake actuator and the lift base. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, ‘mounted to’ encompasses both direct and indirect mounting via intermediate components. The claim further recites that the brake actuator is connected to the rear caster via a caster neck, thus further emphasizing that the connection is in fact not a direct assembly to each other, but rather a structural or mechanical arrangement through the caster neck and associated components. For example, a bicycle brake lever is mounted to a handlebar, the brake pads are mounted to the wheel frame, the bicycle brake lever is not physically touching the wheel yet the braking system is mounted to the bicycle frame and the handlebar through the cable routing and frame-supported components. Thus the reinforcement that mounting is about support and structural relationship not the specific direct or indirect connection/position relative to each element.
With respect to the first bullet point noted in Page 9 of the Applicant’s Arguments, the brake actuator (302) is mounted to a lift base (22, noting mounted to encompasses indirect mounting through intervening structures – therefore the brake actuator is mounted to the lift base) of the patient handling apparatus (30) and connected to the at least one rear caster (64) via a caster neck (60, noting that the rear caster in Fig. 8 is connected to the brake actuator again through intermediate components allowing for the function of the braking to occur) of the rear caster. Notably, Para 005 and Figs. 7-9 discloses the connection between such elements and the indirect nature of coupling to provide the braking function between the handle and the wheel.
With respect to the second bullet point noted in Page 9 of the Applicant’s Arguments, said caster neck extending through a hole of the lift base (110, shown in annotated Fig. 6.1 from Albersmeyer) such that the brake actuator is located on top of the lift base (Fig. 1 shows relative positioning on top of lift base through indirect components) and the wheel of the at least one rear caster is located below the lift base (Fig. 1 shows relative positioning below of lift base through indirect components, noting that 110 is disclosed to a portion of the lift base 22, per Para 0016). The recitations of ‘located on top of the lift base’ and ‘located below the lift base’ are positional in nature, define relative spatial orientation, and do not impose any requirement regarding direct contact, attachment or distance between the components. The claim does not recite any particular mounting structure or mounting technique (e.g. bearings, threaded, pins, rods, welding or adhesive bonding), and therefore the mounting of Albersmeyer between elements are achieved through intermediate components and structural integration.
Finally, the following statement from the Applicant on Page 9 states the following: “As the brake actuator is located on top of the lift base and not mounted directly on top of the caster, the brake actuator is accessible to a user operating the patient handling device in a none-swivel are (see p. 7, II. 2-4). The location of the brake actuator close to the floor, where the lift base is placed, also makes it easier to be handled by the feet of the user and the user can user their hands to control the patient handling apparatus.”. The Applicant asserts with respect to Claims 1 and 4, that the brake actuator is mounted directly on top of the caster and they state functional advantages and modes of operation that are not recited in the claims. Yet, independent claims 1 and 4 do not require or include such ‘direct’ mounting, nor do the independent claims require that the brake actuator be accessible to a user in a non-swivel mode, operable by a user’s feet, or configured to permit hands-free control. Accordingly, such arguments are not persuasive as they do not distinguish the claimed subject matter from the applied prior art.
Response to Argument #2, #3 and #4: The Examiner respectfully disagrees and the Applicant’s arguments #2-4 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 positional and mounting relationships recited in the newly amended claims filed on 10/08/2025, 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.
Neihouser et al. (US 20220378635 A1) teaches: A patient transport apparatus includes a base, a patient support deck, a plurality of wheels, a plurality of brakes, and an electro-mechanical braking system. The electro-mechanical braking system includes a linkage and an electrical braking assembly. The linkage is operatively coupled to the brakes to place the brakes in a braked state, a released state, or other state. The electrical braking assembly includes an actuator assembly that moves the linkage via a driving member. A user interface includes an input control for user engagement. A brake control circuit includes a hold circuit to generate an enable signal with a predetermined voltage in response to the user engagement with the input control, maintain the enable signal for a predetermined period following user disengagement with the input control, and operate the actuator assembly with the enable signal to move the driving member within the predetermined period.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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