DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed December 15th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 21-40 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 103 Rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 18th, 2025 and are hereby withdrawn in light of their correction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21, 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (EP3064183); hereafter “Williams” in view of itself, Brulotte et al. (WIPO Pub. No. WO2016077923) and Galbraith (U.S Pat. No. 10039680); with Galbraith used as a teaching reference.
Regarding claim 21, Williams discloses (FIGS. 1-8) a method of preparing a horizontally laying subject for rotation (as portrayed through FIGS. 2-4), the method comprising: determining (held as inherent in light of the fact the act to move the subject as portrayed and disclosed is to also determine the subject for movement, and notes “a caregiver or other individual that will rotate the individual 200 will fold the sling 100 and push the sling 100 between the individual 200 and the supporting surface 206” [0025]) that a rotation of the subject in a first direction (the rotation demonstrated in FIG. 4); arranging a plurality of multi-use straps (120; FIG. 1) to extend in a lateral direction underneath the subject (AS illustrated between FIGS. 2-4) such that a midline of the subject is located off center from a centerline (128; FIG. 1) of the plurality of multi-use straps in a second direction opposite the first direction (As illustrated in FIGS. 2); connecting a first loop (right 124; FIG. 1) located at a first end of each one of the plurality of multi-use straps (As illustrated in FIG. 1-4) to couple to one or more overhead lifts ([0031]: ““The sling 100 is then coupled to the lift mechanism (not shown)”); and connecting a second loop (left 124; FIG. 1) located at a second end of each one of the plurality of multi-use straps (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-4) to {the one or more overhead lifts}, the second end opposite the first end (As illustrated in FIG. 1), wherein the first end of each one of the plurality of multi-use straps extends in the first direction and the second end of the plurality of multi-use straps extends in the second direction (As illustrated in FIG. 1-4).
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. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986), Particularly: determining that patient to be moved when the patient is so moved as portrayed in Williams necessitates a determination that the subject must be moved/rotated as set forth in [0025] that places the determination and execution upon a nurse to facilitate.
However, although Williams does disclose connection to a lift ([0031]) Williams does not explicitly disclose wherein both first and second loops of the multi-use straps are particularly used in concert with one or more sling bars.
Regardless, Brulotte teachces (FIGS. 1, 2, 3, and 7) a variety of sling bar arrangements with lifts thereof (as illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 3, and 7) wherein the straps/loops of the support arrangement (straps or sheets), may be coupled to the at least one sling bar (20; FIGS. 1-3, and 130/132; FIG. 7) of the lift mechanism (16; FIG. 1 and 3; alongside 116 and 118; FIG. 7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the known sling bar and lift coupling mechanisms of Brulotte into the arbitrary lift mechanisms of Williams by substitution. Where the results would have been predictable as both Williams and Brulotte are concerned with patient sling lift arrangements for addressing posture/rotational address from a bedding surface (Williams: FIG. 4, Brulotte: [8: 18-27]), and where Brulotte would continue to avail lifting the patient as Williams avails an equivalent slind, and likewise Williams will continue to avail lifting and adjusting the patient as Brulotte avails an equivalent repositioning of the patient. Where it is considered by Brulotte that “The input unit advantageously includes an input tilt command providing for a change in the operative lengths of the first and second strap elements relative to one another and thereby for a change in tilt, wherein the master unit adjusts the operative length of its associated strap element to produce the tilt. In an example embodiment, the slave unit does not change the operative length of its associated strap element during a tilt command. Thus, all control of tilt is carried out through a single one of the motor units” [4: 16-24], and that such control can offer further positional advantage with comfort and safety ensured [Abstract] “Patient comfort and safety are therefore ensured.”
However, Williams still does not explicitly disclose wherein each one of the plurality of multi- use straps being separate from each of others of the plurality of multi-use straps such that each one of the plurality of multi-use straps is independently removable from underneath the subject.
Regardless, Williams discloses the claimed invention except for the straps being separate (separable) and independently removable from underneath the subject. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the straps separable by at a minimum removing the webbing (130) as Williams considers ([0022]), since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177,179. Where there is a lack of criticality provided for the claimed feature, where applicant’s own disclosure does not discuss the separate/independently removable nature of the straps but only that they are presented as separate within FIGS. 5A/5B, 6A/6B, and 9E-9F. Where the results would have been predictable as Williams itself says the straps on the back may effectively be separate of one another through [0021]-[0022] “The webbing 130… While the slings 100 are described and depicted herein as comprising reinforcing webbing, it should be understood that this webbing is optional and that, in some embodiments, the slings 100 are formed without webbing, such as when at least the central support section 102 of the sling is formed from a pliable material” and where Galbraith demonstrates two straps in use to a sheet but are clearly and eminently separated and may independently be associated and removed from under the subject (12/14; FIG. 2). Where Williams acknowledges “The central support section 102 may be folded one or more additional times to reduce the surface area of the sling 100 in contact with the individual 200 and the supporting surface 206” [0026] that would functionally and reasonably remove the strap from underneath and away from the subject.
It is considered for the purposes of conciseness that the embodiments of FIGS. 1, 2, 3, and 7 of Brulotte are equivalently combinable by substitution into Williams as providing the arbitrary overhead lift and requisite sling bar thereof, and embodiments thereof are immediate alternatives to each other that would be combinable by synonymous and identical rationale.
Regarding claim 23, Williams in view of itself, Brulotte, and Galbraith discloses (Brulotte: FIGS. 1-3, and 7) the method of claim 21, wherein connecting the first loop of each one of the plurality of multi-use straps to the one or more sling bars and connecting the second loop of each one of the plurality of multi-use straps to the one or more sling bars comprises connecting the first loop of each one of the plurality of multi-use straps to a first retention component of the one or more sling bars (Brulotte: as portrayed in FIG. 7’s embodiment correspondent the right half retention component section of the whole sling arm; correspondent combinate unitary (right half) 132/134/130) and connecting the second loop of each one of the plurality of multi-use straps to a second retention component of the one or more sling bars (as portrayed in FIG. 7’s embodiment correspondent the left half retention component section of the whole sling arm; correspondent combinate unitary (left half) 132/134/130).
Regarding claim 24, Williams in view of itself, Brulotte, and Galbraith discloses (Williams: FIG. 1-4; Brulotte: FIGS. 1-3, and 7) the method of claim 21, wherein arranging the plurality of multi-use straps comprises arranging a multi-use strap of the plurality of multi-use straps such that an upper edge of the multi-use strap is longitudinally positioned at a location between a shoulder and an armpit of the subject. Where as set forth in [0010], the arrangements establish the straps 104 to be within the range of the top of the shoulder and the bottom of the scapula (effectively the bottom of the armpit anatomically) and is between (amongst) them.
Regarding claim 25, Williams in view of itself, Brulotte, and Galbraith discloses (Williams: FIG. 1-4; Brulotte: FIGS. 1-3, and 7) the method of claim 21, wherein arranging the plurality of multi-use straps comprises arranging a multi-use strap of the plurality of multi-use straps such that an upper edge of the multi-use strap is longitudinally positioned at a location that is from 1 cm to 15 cm in an inferior direction from a top of a shoulder of the subject. Where [0010] establishes: “the first height H1 is approximately equal to an average distance between the bottom of the scapula and the top of the shoulder of an individual. For example, in embodiments, the superior support section 104 may extend from the first side 106 of the central support section 102 to a first height H1 from about 10 cm to about 30 cm” wherein the distance is considered to be identified within the range of applicant’s claimed range (10 cm); where it has been previously held In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05(I) is relevant.
Regarding claim 26, Williams in view of itself, Brulotte, and Galbraith discloses (Williams: FIG. 1-4; Brulotte: FIGS. 1-3, and 7) the method of claim 21, wherein arranging the plurality of multi-use straps comprises arranging a multi-use strap such that an upper edge of the multi-use strap is longitudinally positioned at a location between a waist and a knee of the subject. Where Williams establishes in [0013], “height H2 of the inferior support section 108 can vary depending on the particular embodiment, and can extend from approximately below a hip or a gluteal sulcus of an individual positioned on the central portion 102 of the sling 100 to an area near the middle of a thigh, a knee…”.
Regarding claim 27, Williams in view of itself, Brulotte, and Galbraith discloses (Williams: FIG. 1-4; Brulotte: FIGS. 1-3, and 7) the method of claim 21, wherein arranging the plurality of multi-use straps comprises arranging a multi-use strap such that an upper edge of the multi-use strap is longitudinally positioned at a location that corresponds to a greater trochanter of the subject. Where Williams establishes in [0010] that the top of one such strap is arranged originating at the gluteal sulcus. A body that corresponds to a location of the greater trochanter of a person (the gluteal sulcus is contoured to be approximately tangent the greater trochanter).
Claim(s) 28-30, 33-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (EP3064183); hereafter “Williams” in view of Brulotte et al. (WIPO Pub. No. WO2016077923) and Galbraith (U.S Pat. No. 10039680); with Galbraith used as a teaching reference.
Regarding claim 28, Williams discloses (FIGS. 1-8) a method of preparing a horizontally laying subject for rotation (as portrayed through FIGS. 2-4), the method comprising: determining (held as inherent in light of the fact the act to move the subject as portrayed and disclosed is to also determine the subject for movement, and notes “a caregiver or other individual that will rotate the individual 200 will fold the sling 100 and push the sling 100 between the individual 200 and the supporting surface 206” [0025]) that a rotation of the subject in a first direction (the rotation demonstrated in FIG. 4); arranging a lifting sheet (correspondent 120 and 122; FIG. 1) to extend in a lateral direction underneath the subject (As illustrated between FIGS. 2-4) such that a midline of the subject is located off center from a centerline (128; FIG. 1) of the lifting sheet in a second direction opposite the first direction (As illustrated in FIGS. 2), the lifting sheet comprising a first side edge (correspondent right side of 122; FIG. 1) extending laterally toward the first direction and a second side edge (correspondent left side of 122; FIG. 1) extending laterally toward the second direction, the first side edge comprising a plurality of first loops (right 120; FIG. 1) and the second side edge comprising a plurality of second loops (left 120; FIG. 1); connecting at least two of the plurality of first loops (right 124; FIG. 1) to couple to one or more overhead lifts ([0031]: ““The sling 100 is then coupled to the lift mechanism (not shown)”); and connecting at least two of the plurality of second loops (left 124; FIG. 1) {to the one or more overhead lifts}.
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. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986), Particularly: determining that patient to be moved when the patient is so moved as portrayed in Williams necessitates a determination that the subject must be moved/rotated as set forth in [0025] that places the determination and execution upon a nurse to facilitate.
However, although Williams does disclose connection to a lift ([0031]) Williams does not explicitly disclose wherein both first and second loops of the multi-use straps are particularly used in concert with one or more sling bars.
Regardless, Brulotte teachces (FIGS. 1, 2, 3, and 7) a variety of sling bar arrangements with lifts thereof (as illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 3, and 7) wherein the straps/loops of the support arrangement (straps or sheets), may be coupled to the at least one sling bar (20; FIGS. 1-3, and 130/132; FIG. 7) of the lift mechanism (16; FIG. 1 and 3; alongside 116 and 118; FIG. 7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the known sling bar and lift coupling mechanisms of Brulotte into the arbitrary lift mechanisms of Williams by substitution. Where the results would have been predictable as both Williams and Brulotte are concerned with patient sling lift arrangements for addressing posture/rotational address from a bedding surface (Williams: FIG. 4, Brulotte: [8: 18-27]), and where Brulotte would continue to avail lifting the patient as Williams avails an equivalent slind, and likewise Williams will continue to avail lifting and adjusting the patient as Brulotte avails an equivalent repositioning of the patient. Where it is considered by Brulotte that “The input unit advantageously includes an input tilt command providing for a change in the operative lengths of the first and second strap elements relative to one another and thereby for a change in tilt, wherein the master unit adjusts the operative length of its associated strap element to produce the tilt. In an example embodiment, the slave unit does not change the operative length of its associated strap element during a tilt command. Thus, all control of tilt is carried out through a single one of the motor units” [4: 16-24], and that such control can offer further positional advantage with comfort and safety ensured [Abstract] “Patient comfort and safety are therefore ensured.”
However, Williams does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of first loops having a plurality of first openings and each of the plurality of second loops having a plurality of second openings; selecting one of the plurality of first openings for at least two of the plurality of first loops that provides for the off center location of the subject relative to the centerline of the lifting sheet being maintained and for the rotation of the subject in the first direction; selecting one of the plurality of second openings for at least two of the plurality of second loops that provides for the off center location of the subject relative to the centerline of the lifting sheet being maintained and for the rotation of the subject in the first direction; connecting the selected ones of the plurality of first openings and connecting the selected ones of the plurality of second openings.
Regardless, Galbraith teaches (FIGS. 2, 6, 7, and 9) a lifting article with a plurality of straps (the many element 20’s; FIG. 2) with a plurality of first loops (30A-30C and 36A-36C) and a plurality of second loops (40A-40C and 46A-46C); each of the plurality of first loops having a plurality of first openings (elements A-C of 30 and 36; FIG. 2) and each of the plurality of second loops having a plurality of second openings (elements A-C OR 40 and 46; FIG. 2); selecting one of the plurality of first openings for at least two of the plurality of first loops that provides for the off center location of the subject relative to the centerline of the lifting sheet being maintained and for the rotation of the subject in the first direction; selecting one of the plurality of second openings for at least two of the plurality of second loops that provides for the off center location of the subject relative to the centerline of the lifting sheet being maintained and for the rotation of the subject in the first direction; connecting the selected ones of the plurality of first openings and connecting the selected ones of the plurality of second openings. Where Galbraith expresses in [4:41-54] “The loops 30, 40 and 70, 80 of the handling sheets 10, 50 come in three sizes and orientations (A, B, C) relative to the sheets 10, 50 to providing a choice for the healthcare practitioner.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the multiple loops of Galbraith (FIG. 2) into the straps of Williams (As illustrated in FIG. 1-5). Where the results would have been predictable as both Galbraith and Williams are concerned with patient orientation adjusting/tilting sheets and straps. Where as expressed in Galbraith explicitly, “loops 30, 40 and 70, 80 of the handling sheets 10, 50 come in three sizes and orientations (A, B, C) relative to the sheets 10, 50 to providing a choice for the healthcare practitioner” [4:41-54], which would improve choices availed to the practitioner in care.
Furthermore, 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. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986), Particularly: utilizing any particular loops for operation in Williams in view of Galbraith necessitates a selection of the particular loops where such in Williams would provide the location of being off center of the subject, as illustrated in both FIG. 4 of Williams and FIGS. 6, 7, and 9 in Galbraith; and wherein selection and execution is placed upon a nurse to facilitate.
Regarding claim 29, Williams in view of Brulotte, and Galbraith discloses (Williams: FIG. 1-4; Brulotte: FIGS. 1-3, and 7) the method of claim 28, wherein the horizontally laying subject is laying in a prone position (As clarified in Williams [0033]: “where the individual 200 is being rotated in a counterclockwise direction from a supine to a prone position”, providing both laying in a supine and a prone position by transition therebetween).
Regarding claim 30, Williams in view of Brulotte, and Galbraith discloses (Williams: FIG. 1-4; Brulotte: FIGS. 1-3, and 7) the method of claim 28, wherein the horizontally laying subject is laying in a supine position (As clarified in Williams [0033]: “where the individual 200 is being rotated in a counterclockwise direction from a supine to a prone position”, providing both laying in a supine and a prone position by transition therebetween).
Regarding claim 33, Williams in view of Brulotte, and Galbraith discloses (Williams: FIG. 1-4; Brulotte: FIGS. 1-3, and 7) the method of claim 28, wherein connecting the selected ones of the plurality of first openings of the at least two of the plurality of first loops to the one or more sling bars and connecting the selected ones of the plurality of second openings of the at least two of the plurality of second loops to the one or more sling bars comprises connecting the selected ones ofthe plurality of first openings of the at least two of the plurality of first loops to a first retention component of the one or more sling bars (Brulotte: as portrayed in FIG. 7’s embodiment correspondent the right half retention component section of the whole sling arm; correspondent combinate unitary (right half) 132/134/130) and connecting the selected ones of the plurality of second openings of the at least two of the plurality of second loops to a second retention component of the one or more sling bars (Brulotte: as portrayed in FIG. 7’s embodiment correspondent the left half retention component section of the whole sling arm; correspondent combinate unitary (left half) 132/134/130).
Regarding claim 34, Williams in view of Brulotte, and Galbraith discloses (Williams: FIG. 1-4; Brulotte: FIGS. 1-3, and 7) the method of claim 28, wherein the one or more sling bars are a first sling bar (Brulotte: correspondent 130; FIG. 7) and a second sling bar (Brulotte: 132; FIG. 7), the first sling bar coupled to a first overhead lift (116; FIG. 7) of the one or more overhead lifts and the second sling bar coupled to a second overhead lift (118; FIG. 7) of the one or more overhead lifts.
Regarding claim 35, Williams in view of Brulotte, and Galbraith discloses (Williams: FIG. 1-4; Brulotte: FIGS. 1-3, and 7) the method of claim 28, wherein arranging the lifting sheet comprises arranging the lifting sheet such that a first loop of the plurality of first loops and a second loop of the plurality of second loops are positioned longitudinally at a location between a shoulder and an armpit of the subject. Where as set forth in [0010], the arrangements establish the straps 104 to be within the range of the top of the shoulder and the bottom of the scapula (effectively the bottom of the armpit anatomically) and is between (amongst) them.
Regarding claim 36, Williams in view of Brulotte, and Galbraith discloses (Williams: FIG. 1-4; Brulotte: FIGS. 1-3, and 7) the method of claim 28, wherein arranging the lifting sheet comprises arranging the lifting sheet such that a first loop of the plurality of first loops and a second loop of the plurality of second loops are longitudinally positioned at a location that is from 1 cm to 15 cm in an inferior direction from a top of a shoulder of the subject. Where [0010] establishes: “the first height H1 is approximately equal to an average distance between the bottom of the scapula and the top of the shoulder of an individual. For example, in embodiments, the superior support section 104 may extend from the first side 106 of the central support section 102 to a first height H1 from about 10 cm to about 30 cm” wherein the distance is considered to be identified within the range of applicant’s claimed range (10 cm); where it has been previously held In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05(I) is relevant.
Regarding claim 37, Williams in view of Brulotte, and Galbraith discloses (Williams: FIG. 1-4; Brulotte: FIGS. 1-3, and 7) the method of claim 28, wherein arranging the lifting sheet comprises arranging the lifting sheet such that a first loop of the plurality of first loops and a second loop of the plurality of second loops are positioned longitudinally at a location between a waist and a knee of the subject. Where Williams establishes in [0013], “height H2 of the inferior support section 108 can vary depending on the particular embodiment, and can extend from approximately below a hip or a gluteal sulcus of an individual positioned on the central portion 102 of the sling 100 to an area near the middle of a thigh, a knee…”.
Regarding claim 38, Williams in view of Brulotte, and Galbraith discloses (Williams: FIG. 1-4; Brulotte: FIGS. 1-3, and 7) the method of claim 28, wherein arranging the lifting sheet comprises arranging the lifting sheet such that a first loop of the plurality of first loops and a second loop of the plurality of second loops are longitudinally positioned at a location that corresponds to a greater trochanter of the subject. Where Williams establishes in [0010] that the top of one such strap is arranged originating at the gluteal sulcus. A body that corresponds to a location of the greater trochanter of a person (the gluteal sulcus is contoured to be approximately tangent the greater trochanter).
Regarding claim 39, Williams in view of Brulotte, and Galbraith discloses (Williams: FIG. 1-4; Brulotte: FIGS. 1-3, and 7) the method of claim 28, further comprising lowering the one or more sling bars to a connection height. Where Brulotte establishes in [8: 18-27] “For instance, the straps 18 can be lengthened to lower the spreader bars 20 towards a patient reclining on a bed and then wound into the motor units 16 to raise the spreader bars 20” While Williams establishes in [0025] that the device is first slid under the patient, then attached, and thus the lift would necessitate lowering (per Brulotte: [8:18-27] to reach a connection height to thereafter be lifted in the operation as Williams necessitates [0025] and [0031] “The sling 100 is then coupled to the lift mechanism (not shown)” in order to be lifted the lift itself must be in some form lowered due to the construction of William’s loop attachments and reliance on the lift mechanism, a lift mechanism that is completely retracted would be incapable of further retraction and thus lifting as Williams and Brulotte require, particularly of the type incorporated by Brulotte.
Regarding claim 40, Williams in view of Brulotte, and Galbraith discloses (Williams: FIG. 1-4; Brulotte: FIGS. 1-3, and 7) the method of claim 28, wherein the one or more sling bars is a single sling bar (Brulotte: the integral centerline bar of 134; FIG. 7) having a length, the method further comprising aligning the single sling bar such that the length of the single sling bar is substantially parallel to a sagittal plane of the subject (As illustrated in FIG. 7 of Brulotte, the center sling bar (134) is arranged in a centerline that would be substantially parallel to a sagittal plane of the subject).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of itself, Brulotte, and Galbraith in further view of Blevins (U.S. Pub. No. 20050193488).
Regarding claim 22, Williams in view of itself, Brulotte, and Galbraith discloses (Williams: FIG. 1-4; Brulotte: FIGS. 1-3, and 7) the method of claim 21.
However, Williams does not explicitly disclose further comprising: raising a support surface upon which the subject is laying to a working height; and lowering one or more side rails prior to arranging.
Regardless, Blevins teaches (FIGS. 43-45) a patient bed that can both raise the platform and lower the side rail in the pursuit of moving and repositioning the individual (as illustrated in FIGS. 43-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the procedure of raising the support surface and lowering the side rails as Blevins considers as both Blevins and Williams (and Brulotte) are concerned with patient repositioning devices and bedding assemblies thereof. Where advantageously it’s considered that raising the platform and lowering the side rail avails the caretakers better access and ability to assess the individual’s present array of adjoint equipment (tubes, intravenous, etc), and reduces the torque and fatigue of the caretakers by increasing the distance from the ground that such caretakers needn’t stoop or bend or put toque into their backs, thereby improving ease of use and improving capability to assess the patient prior reposition or transition.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Brulotte, and Galbraith in further view of Blevins (U.S. Pub. No. 20050193488).
Regarding claim 31, Williams in view of Brulotte, and Galbraith discloses (Williams: FIG. 1-4; Brulotte: FIGS. 1-3, and 7) the method of claim 28.
However, Williams does not explicitly disclose further comprising: raising a support surface upon which the subject is laying to a working height; and lowering one or more side rails prior to arranging.
Regardless, Blevins teaches (FIGS. 43-45) a patient bed that can both raise the platform and lower the side rail in the pursuit of moving and repositioning the individual (as illustrated in FIGS. 43-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the procedure of raising the support surface and lowering the side rails as Blevins considers as both Blevins and Williams (and Brulotte) are concerned with patient repositioning devices and bedding assemblies thereof. Where advantageously it’s considered that raising the platform and lowering the side rail avails the caretakers better access and ability to assess the individual’s present array of adjoint equipment (tubes, intravenous, etc), and reduces the torque and fatigue of the caretakers by increasing the distance from the ground that such caretakers needn’t stoop or bend or put toque into their backs, thereby improving ease of use and improving capability to assess the patient prior reposition or transition.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Brulotte, and Galbraith in further view of itself and Kalafut et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20040171923)l; hereafter “Kalafut”, with Kalafut used as a teaching reference.
Regarding claim 32, Williams in view of Brulotte, and Galbraith discloses (Williams: FIG. 1-4; Brulotte: FIGS. 1-3, and 7) the method of claim 28.
However, Williams does not explicitly disclose further comprising moving one or more of tubing, leads, lines, and braces prior to arranging.
Regardless, Williams (in view of Brulotte) discloses the claimed invention except for moving one or more of tubing, leads, lines, and braces prior to arranging.. It would have been an obvious matter of design and practice to have moved one or more of tubing, leads, lines, and braces prior to arranging, Where it is considered that the matter would be of common sense to move and adjust lines, tubes, and leads prior to arranging (the act of lifting or moving or rotating the individual) to preventing them from tangling up with the loops and sling bodies that would otherwise impair the orientational intentions of the sling lift in operation. Where it is additionally considered in Kalafut that “Gaining access to the vessel of a patient is often a necessary part of a medical diagnosis or treatment” and that “When patients are significantly ill, obese, or have veins damaged by cancer drugs or repeated accesses, it can take tens of minutes and multiple attempts by several hospital personnel to successfully place the IV needle or catheter. This increases the morbidity for the patient and cost to the medical institution” [0003]. Therefore. it would be of reasonably common sense to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a medical setting as the art prescribes to move the tubing, leads, lines and such prior arranging and moving the patient to better prevent morbidity to the patient, improve efficiency of time by not inadvertently impugning or having to redo the lines, leads, or tubes which can damage and impair further attempts as Kalafut considers possible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pages 7-10), filed December 15th, 2025, with respect to 103 Rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 Rejections of September 18th, 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-40 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.
Particularly, the Rejection now relies upon Williams in view of Brulotte and Galbraith (And itself among others) to anticipate or make obvious the claimed features of applicant’s invention.
Therefore the claims remain rejected under 103 grounds but newly under Williams in view of Brulotte and Galbraith (And itself among others) where Galbraith is particularly considered to address the alleged deficiencies of applicant’s invention respectively.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673 /JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights