+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) 1-10, 12-16, 25-26, and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 5,539,941 to Fuller in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0259389 to Hillenbrand et al.
Claims 1 and 12, Fuller discloses a method of positioning a patient lying on a sheet 11 that resides on a mattress comprising securing a first side edge of the sheet to a clamp 64, the clamp operatively connected to a pulling device (34,36,38,94,96,98,100) located above the mattress (col. 10-11 lines 51-68 1-15); and operating the pulling device to pull upwardly the clamp and the first longitudinal side edge of the sheet that is secured thereto, whereby upward movement of the first longitudinal side edge of the sheet causes turning the patient lying thereon to be positioned toward the second longitudinal side of the mattress that is opposite the first longitudinal side (col. 3-4 lines 65-68 & 1-16). Fuller 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 Fuller with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed the sheet to be held or retained to the bed of Fuller.
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.
Claim 3, Fuller discloses the method wherein the securing the removed first side edge of the sheet to the clamp further comprises compressing opposite sides of the sheet within a pair of engagement members located within the clamp, so as to not adversely affect the structural integrity of the sheet (fig. 4-6A)(col. 9 lines 59-65).
Claims 10, Fuller, 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, Fuller, 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 25, Fuller discloses a system comprising a sheet 11 residing on the mattress under the patient, a pulling device (34,36,38,94,96,98,100) located above the mattress (col. 10-11 lines 51-68 1-15); and a clamp 64 operatively connected to the pulling device and adapted to compressively engage opposite sides of the first side edge of the sheet to thereby secure the sheet of the clamp and enable the pulling device to be raised so as to pull in an upward direction the clamp and the sheet secured thereto, whereby the upward movement of the secured sheet causes the patient to be repositioned toward a second longitudinal side of the mattress opposite the first longitudinal side (col. 3-4 lines 65-68 & 1-16). Fuller is silent to the sheet having first and second side edges being retained by retainers 64 located along corresponding opposing longitudinal first and second sides of the mattress. 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 Fuller with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed the sheet to be held or retained to the bed of Fuller.
Claim 26, Fuller discloses the system wherein one of the bed and the pulling device is movable relative to the other.
Claim 28, Fuller discloses the system wherein the pulling device is mounted to a mobile frame (121B).
Claim 29, Fuller 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].
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 5,539,941 to Fuller in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0259389 to Hillenbrand et al., and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,737,781 to Votel.
Claim 27, Fuller discloses the system wherein the bed is wheel 14 supported, but is silent to the pulling device being mounted to a ceiling. Votel discloses a pulling device (718,754) mounted to a ceiling (fig. 43c & 50). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the ceiling mounted pulling devices disclosed in Votel with the bed of Fuller with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative means to pull the sheet on the bed of Fuller.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0150045 to Lloyd discloses system having a pulling device mounted to a ceiling.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,890,238 to Votel discloses a system having a clamp.
Conclusion
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, Justin C. Mikowski can be reached on (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.
/FREDRICK C CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673