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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4-10, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0053698 to Minning et al., in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,210,887 to Kershaw, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0259389 to Hillenbrand et al.
Claims 1 and 12, Minning discloses a method of positioning a patient lying on a sheet defined by a patient receiver 16 that resides on a mattress comprising securing a first side edge of the sheet to a clamp defined by a gripper 24 [0005], the gripper operatively connected to a pulling device (240,710,810) mounted above the mattress (fig. 3 & 5-6); and operating the pulling device causes the patient’s position to be adjusted [0005]. Minning as stated discloses adjusting the patient’s position, but is silent to turning the patient. Kershaw discloses turning a patient lying upon a sheet toward the second longitudinal side of the mattress that is opposite the first longitudinal side by applying a lifting force to raise one side edge of the sheet to turn the patient [Abstract](col. 2-3 lines 59-68 & 1-14). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine turning method disclosed in Kershaw with the patient positioner of Minning with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have minimize the potential for injury of discomfort to a bedridden patient and facilitate cleaning of a patient, changing of bed linens, movement of the patient’s limbs, and prevent bedsores (col. 2 lines 5-24). Minning is silent to removing a first longitudinal side edge of the sheet from retainers. Hillenbrand discloses a sheet having opposing longitudinal side edges that are retained by retainers 116 located along corresponding opposing first and second longitudinal sides of the mattress and removing a first longitudinal side edge of a sheet from retainers 116. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine retainers disclosed in Hillenbrand with the bed of Minning with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed the sheet to be held or retained to the bed of Minning.
Claims 2, 4-9, and 14-16, With regards to the Applicant's recitations "wherein the sheet has a tensile strength greater than a sheet that contains cotton", "wherein the pulling device is mounted to a ceiling above the mattress, "wherein the pulling device is mounted to a mobile frame, "wherein the clamp includes first and second handles pivotally coupled to each other and configured to move between a first position and a second position, wherein the first and second handles are biased to the first position and in the first position the pair of engagement members compress opposite sides of the sheet, "when the first and second handles are in the second position the pair of engagement members do not compress opposite sides of the sheet", "the clamp includes a spring to bias the first and second handles to the first position", "the clamp includes a strap configured to operatively connect the clamp to the pulling device", "the sheet has a tensile strength greater than a sheet that contains cotton", "the mattress has a first length and the sheet as a second length that is at least 50% longer that the first length" "the first side edge of the sheet includes a corded hem and the clamp is configured to grasp the sheet at the corded hem", determination of patentability is based on the process itself. The patentability of a method does not depend on the structural limitations as recited above. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device.
Claims 10, Minning, as modified, discloses the method further comprising releasing the first longitudinal side edge of the sheet from the clamp and then placing the unsecured first side edge back within the retainers on the first longitudinal side of the mattress.
Claim 13, Minning, as modified, discloses the method further comprising causing the pulling device to lower the clamp and thus lowering the sheet; releasing the first side edge of the sheet from the clamp; and connecting the first side edge of the sheet to the first set of retainers.
Claim(s) 3 and 25-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0053698 to Minning et al., in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,210,887 to Kershaw, U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0259389 to Hillenbrand et al., and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,539,941 to Fuller.
Claims 3 and 25, Minning discloses all of the method limitations as stated above, but is silent to securing the first side edge by compressing opposite sides of the sheet with a pair of engagement members. Fuller discloses compressing opposite sides of a sheet within a pair of engagement members located within a clamp (fig. 4-6A)(col. 9 lines 59-65). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine engagement members disclosed in Fuller with the bed of Minning with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided and equivalent and alternative means to grip and secure the bed sheet of Minning.
Claim 26, Minning discloses the system wherein one of the bed and the pulling device is movable relative to the other.
Claim 27, Minning discloses the system wherein the bed is wheel 38 supported, and the pulling device (638,812) mounted to a ceiling 40 (fig. 11 & 13-14).
Claim 28, Minning discloses the system wherein the pulling device is mounted to a mobile frame 1012 (fig. 19)[0066].
Claim 29, Minning, as modified, discloses the system wherein Hillibrand further comprising a housing 214 located at a head end of the bed and operatively connected to a head end of the sheet and adapted to pull the sheet longitudinally along the mattress while the first and second side edges thereof are retained by the retainers of the longitudinal sides of the mattress, the sheet having a length that is greater than the length of the mattress [0010][0067][0068].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10, 12-16, and 25-29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,458,113 to Milam disclosers a method of moving a patient.
EP 3,424,478 A1 to Samson et al. discloses a patient turning system that applies an upward lifting force to a longitudinal side of a patient sheet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDRICK C CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached on (571) 270-3654. 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.
/FREDRICK C CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights