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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted that the remarks / arguments do not address the drawing objection in the prior action.
The arguments amount to a statement that the new claim is patentable over the prior art of Spahn. This is not found persuasive for the reasons set forth below. See the rejection below. Paragraph [0018] which applicant suggests teaches away does not teach away. Rather, it discusses the disadvantages of the prior art relative to the reference invention. With regard to applicant’s argument as to [0062] and [0065], those are the intended use of a particular loop and do not in any way limit the use for another purpose; see the rejection below.
With regard to claims 9 and 10, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Nevertheless, the features are not patentable; see the rejection below for details.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the straps overlaying each other, the plurality of stitch elements joining the straps, the junctions which define passages therebetween, and the belt clip must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The claimed overlaying feature is only described verbatim and without additional details in paragraph 0005 and does not appear to be in the drawings. The same is true for stitching, see paragraph 0032. The same is true for junctions; see paragraph 0005. The belt clip is only described in [0039] as an exemplary possible object to which the apparatus attaches, and not that it is part of the apparatus at all. Regardless, it also is not shown in the drawing.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim requires a belt clip as part of the patient transport device. The belt clip is only described in [0039] as an exemplary possible object to which the apparatus attaches, and not that it is part of the apparatus at all. Further, there is nothing in the original disclosure which provides support for the strap holder connector comprising a belt clip.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 9 and 10 each recite the limitation "the second strap hand." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spahn et al. (PG Pub No. 20180193213 and hereinafter “Spahn”).
Re Claim 2
Spahn discloses:
A patient transport device (40) comprising:
a pair of straps overlaying each other (straps 42; see figs. 10-11); and
a plurality of stich elements joining the straps to each other at junctions (see figs. 10-11 and see paragraphs 0062 – 0063) defining passages therebetween (see figs. 10-11, e.g. at 58, 60, and 62), wherein the pair of straps overlaying each other comprises a longitudinal strap member having a length (see figs. 10-11), a strap first end (at 44 or at 52 in figs. 10-11), and a strap second end (at 46), a plurality of loop members disposed along the longitudinal strap member between the strap first end and the strap second hand (see figs. 10-11), wherein each of the plurality of loop members comprises an opening (see figs. 10-11), wherein each opening of the plurality of loop members is oriented in a direction that is perpendicular to the length of the strap (see figs. 10-11), … wherein the loop members of the strap first end and the strap second end are configured to receive a shoulder (figs. 10-11 and note that the description in the corresponding section of the specification refers to the handles in these figures; note further that the open loops are plainly configured to receive hands, but also shoulders as the only difference is how far up the appendage the apparatus is placed and human bodies come in a variety of sizes such that a shoulder would be readily received), and the loop members therebetween are configured to receive a hand (figs. 10-11 and above).
Spahn does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the openings in the loop members at the strap first end and the strap second and are larger than the openings of the loop members therebetween.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to change the size of the loop members as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Spahn such that the openings in the loop members at the strap first end and the strap second and are larger than the openings of the loop members therebetween as a matter of design choice. To the extent necessary, it is noted that the modification would have been obvious for the purpose of facilitating storage (folding within a loop for a smaller footprint / overall size), to accommodate larger bodies, and/or for aesthetic purposes.
Re Claim 3
Spahn as modified above discloses:
wherein the plurality of loop members are aligned in a single file such that the loop members do not overlap (fig. 10).
Re Claim 4
Spahn as modified above discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of loop members is directly attached to at least one adjacent loop member (fig. 10).
Re Claim 5
Spahn as modified above discloses:
wherein the plurality of loop members are integrated with each other such that the plurality of loop members form a single unit (fig. 10).
Re Claim 6
Spahn as modified above discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of loop members comprises a circular loop having an opening (fig. 10).
Re Claim 7
Spahn as modified above discloses all claim elements, see above, except:
wherein the strap member is made of a seat belt webbing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Spahn to have the strap member made of a seat belt webbing, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Such a modification would have been obvious for the purpose of having a material which has a high strength, high durability, and/or which is comfortable and familiar to a user.
Re Claim 8
Spahn as modified above discloses all claim elements, see above, except:
wherein the strap member is woven from high tensile polyester filament yarn.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Spahn to have woven from high tensile polyester filament yarn, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Such a modification would have been obvious for the purpose of having a material which has a high strength, high durability, and/or which is comfortable and familiar to a user.
Alternatively, having the strap member woven from high tensile polyester filament yarn could be considered a method of forming the strap member. The method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Re Claim 9
Spahn as modified above discloses all claim elements, see above, except:
wherein each of the loop members at the strap first end and the strap second hand is between 14 and 16 inches, and the loop members therebetween are between 5 and 9 inches.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to modify Spahn such that each of the loop members at the strap first end and the strap second hand is between 14 and 16 inches, and the loop members therebetween are between 5 and 9 inches, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). To the extent necessary, such a modification would have been obvious for the purpose of accommodating the user’s appendage size and/or for comfort in use, recognizing that ends often need additional space due to potential stretch.
Re Claim 10
Spahn as modified above discloses all claim elements, see above, except:
wherein each of the loop members at the strap first end and the strap second hand is 15 inches, and the loop members therebetween are 8 inches.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to modify Spahn such that each of the loop members at the strap first end and the strap second hand is 15 inches, and the loop members therebetween are 8 inches, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). To the extent necessary, such a modification would have been obvious for the purpose of accommodating the user’s appendage size and/or for comfort in use, recognizing that ends often need additional space due to potential stretch.
Re Claim 11
Spahn as modified above discloses:
further comprising a strap holder (54 in combination with 48).
Re Claim 12
Spahn as modified above discloses:
wherein the strap holder comprises a holder strap (54) that curves such that a first holder strap fastening member contacts a second holder strap fastening member (one of the stitches 56 and another of the stitches 56; see figs. 10-11).
Re Claim 13
Spahn as modified above discloses:
further comprising a strap holder connector (yet another of stitches 56 or 48; see figs. 10-11).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spahn et al. (PG Pub No. 20180193213 and hereinafter “Spahn”) in view of Official Notice.
Re Claim 14
Spahn as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the strap holder connector comprises a belt clip.
Examiner hereby takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to utilize belt clips (e.g. as an attachment, which would include a strap holder connector) for the purpose of facilitating transport and/or securing of an apparatus or an element of an apparatus. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Spahn such that the strap holder connector comprises a belt clip for the purpose(s) articulated above.
Re Claims 15-16
Spahn as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
further comprising a pouch that is configured to hold the strap member.
wherein the pouch comprises a closing element such that the pouch has an open configuration and closing configuration.
Examiner hereby takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to have an apparatus further comprise a pouch that is configured to hold an element or the apparatus (e.g. the strap member), with the pouch comprising a closing element such that the pouch has an open and closing configuration as is customary and common with pouches for the purpose of facilitating transport and/or securing of an apparatus or an element of an apparatus. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Spahn to include the limitations above for the purpose(s) articulated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SOSNOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7944. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM and 9 PM through 11:59 PM Monday through Friday, generally.
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.
/DAVID E. SOSNOWSKI/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673