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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-10 are pending in this application. This communication is the first action on its merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 11/29/2023 has been considered by the office.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show Two Adjustable Angle Wye 1” OD Tubes as described in the specification. Further, the drawings fail to explicitly label Two Adjustable Angle Wye 1” OD Tubes, support wire, locking hinges, and Three 7/8” Tubes. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites, “stretcher weather/privacy hood has a lower frame of the stretcher cover is fitted”. The claim language is unclear to the examiner what frame component is referring to. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite, “stretcher weather/privacy hood comprises wherein the lower frame is fitted”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites, “wherein a powder coating to the framework increases durability and the ability to match an existing stretcher’s color scheme”. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite, “wherein the frame comprises a powder coating configured to increase durability and . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "support wire" and “soft weblon cover”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "windows", “top and back panels”, “the stretcher cover”, and “transport personnel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the frame”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "openings”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "multiple sized attach points”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "base frame extensions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "two bifurcations of the frame”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the head sections of the upper and lower frames”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the framework”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1 and 3-5 contains the trademark/trade name Weblon. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the material of the cover and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 4 contains the trademark/trade name Velcro. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the attachment points of the cover and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 recites an identical limitation of claim 1, “has a soft Weblon cover” which does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1 which claim 3 depends upon. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zajac (US 8464379 B1) in view of Farmer (US 20040194723 A1), further in view of Alexander (US 20230076698 A1), further in view of Quinn (US 6496995 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Zajac discloses a stretcher weather/privacy hood (collapsable shade 200) comprising of Two Adjustable Angle Wye 1” OD Tubes (See objections above, it is unclear to the examiner what is being referenced by this claim limitation), Two Locking Support Hinges (pivot joints 260 and 27), Four Plastic Pipe Snap Connectors (See Fig. 1 and 3, security means 250), Three 7/8” Tubes (first arm 212, second arm 214, center arm 216), Support Wire, and Soft Weblon Cover (cover 240).
PNG
media_image1.png
290
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
416
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Zajac fails to explicitly disclose One Locking 7/8” O.D. Tube Hinge, Four Fabric Snaps, stainless tubes, and support wire.
However, Farmer teaches One Locking 7/8” O.D. Tube Hinge (cylindrical locking sleeve 100), and support wire (“canopy may be supported with substantially vertical poles, guy wires”; [0047]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zajac by adding the locking sleeve and support wire taught by Farmer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “releasably lock the sleeve in either the locked or unlocked position”; (Farmer, [0068]) and so “the canopy may be supported”; (Farmer, [0047]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Zajac in view of Farmer fails to explicitly teach Four Fabric Snaps, and stainless tubes.
However, Alexander teaches stainless tubes (“materials are aluminum, ABS plastic and stainless steel”; [0062]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zajac in view of Farmer by using stainless steel as taught by Alexander. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “a longer useful life”; (Alexander, [0062]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Zajac in view of Farmer in view of Alexander fails to explicitly teach Four Fabric Snaps.
However, Quinn teaches Four Fabric Snaps (See Fig. 9E, snaps 77, 79, 81, 83).
PNG
media_image3.png
298
446
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zajac in view of Farmer in view of Alexander by adding the fabric snaps taught by Quinn. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the fabric is “easily removable and interchangeable”; (Quinn, [Col. 1, Line 61]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 3, Zajac, as modified, teaches the stretcher weather/privacy hood (collapsable shade 200) of claim 1, wherein stretcher weather/privacy hood has a soft Weblon cover (cover 240).
Regarding Claim 6, Zajac, as modified, teaches the stretcher weather/privacy hood (collapsable shade 200) of claim 1, wherein the stretcher weather/privacy hood has multiple sized attach points (See Fig. 1 and 3, security means 250).
Regarding Claim 8, Zajac, as modified, teaches the stretcher weather/privacy hood (collapsable shade 200) of claim 1.
Zajac fails to explicitly teach wherein the stretcher weather/privacy hood has a lower frame of the stretcher cover is fitted with a release clamp that allows the two bifurcations of the frame to be separated.
However, Farmer teaches wherein the stretcher weather/privacy hood has a lower frame of the stretcher cover is fitted with a release clamp (cylindrical locking sleeve 100) that allows the two bifurcations of the frame to be separated.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zajac by adding the locking sleeve taught by Farmer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “releasably lock the sleeve in either the locked or unlocked position”; (Farmer, [0068]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 9, Zajac, as modified, teaches the stretcher weather/privacy hood (collapsable shade 200) of claim 1, wherein the head sections of the upper and lower frames are canted upward and forward respectively (See Fig. 1 and 3, first frame 210 and second frame 220 are canted forward and upward) to allow for additional protection without added mass.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zajac (US 8464379 B1) in view of Farmer (US 20040194723 A1), further in view of Alexander (US 20230076698 A1), further in view of Quinn (US 6496995 B1), further in view of Tarara (US 5511259 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Zajac, as modified, teaches the stretcher weather/privacy hood (collapsable shade 200) of claim 1.
Zajac in view of Farmer in view of Alexander in view of Quinn fails to explicitly teach wherein windows across the top and back panels of the stretcher cover that allow transport personnel to maintain a constant view of the patient.
However, Tarara teaches wherein windows across the top and back panels of the stretcher cover that allow transport personnel to maintain a constant view of the patient (See Fig. 3 and 5, central panel 14 is transparent).
PNG
media_image4.png
262
252
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
250
320
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zajac in view of Farmer in view of Alexander in view of Quinn by adding the transparent material taught by Tarara. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “medical personnel can view such individual”; (Tarara, [Abstract]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 4, Zajac, as modified, teaches the stretcher weather/privacy hood (collapsable shade 200) of claim 3.
Zajac in view of Farmer in view of Alexander in view of Quinn fails to explicitly teach wherein the Weblon cover attaches to the frame with Velcro.
However, Tarara teaches wherein the Weblon cover attaches to the frame with Velcro (See Fig. 5, plurality of tabs 60).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zajac in view of Farmer in view of Alexander in view of Quinn by adding the velcro taught by Tarara. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the canopy, being light in weight, can be quickly and easily removed”; (Tarara, [Col. 3, Lines 41-42]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zajac (US 8464379 B1) in view of Farmer (US 20040194723 A1), further in view of Alexander (US 20230076698 A1), further in view of Quinn (US 6496995 B1), further in view of Esses (US 9890553 B2).
Regarding Claim 5, Zajac, as modified, teaches the stretcher weather/privacy hood (collapsable shade 200) of claim 3.
Zajac in view of Farmer in view of Alexander in view of Quinn fails to explicitly teach wherein the Weblon material has openings to allow ventilation during transport.
However, Esses teaches wherein the Weblon material has openings to allow ventilation during transport (See Fig. 1, openings 70).
PNG
media_image6.png
478
512
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zajac in view of Farmer in view of Alexander in view of Quinn by adding the openings taught by Esses. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for increased comfort”; (Esses, [Col. 4, Line 36]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zajac (US 8464379 B1) in view of Farmer (US 20040194723 A1), further in view of Alexander (US 20230076698 A1), further in view of Quinn (US 6496995 B1), further in view of Pinto (BR 202019019220 U2).
Regarding Claim 7, Zajac, as modified, teaches the stretcher weather/privacy hood (collapsable shade 200) of claim 1.
Zajac in view of Farmer in view of Alexander in view of Quinn fails to explicitly teach wherein the stretcher weather/privacy hood has base frame extensions.
However, Pinto teaches wherein the stretcher weather/privacy hood has base frame extensions (See Fig. 1 and 4, fixing clips 1 extend inward of the frame leading to a base frame extension).
PNG
media_image7.png
476
478
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
572
474
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zajac in view of Farmer in view of Alexander in view of Quinn by adding the extensions as taught by Pinto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for complete patient protection”; (Pinto, [015]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zajac (US 8464379 B1) in view of Farmer (US 20040194723 A1), further in view of Alexander (US 20230076698 A1), further in view of Quinn (US 6496995 B1), further in view of Rowley (US 20140034101 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Zajac, as modified, teaches the stretcher weather/privacy hood (collapsable shade 200) of claim 1.
Zajac in view of Farmer in view of Alexander in view of Quinn fails to explicitly teach wherein a powder coating to the framework increases durability and the ability to match an existing stretcher’s color scheme.
However, Rowley teaches wherein a powder coating to the framework increases durability and the ability to match an existing stretcher’s color scheme (“articulated frame 26 preferably has a wear-resistant outer coating, such as a powder-coated finish”; [0062]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zajac in view of Farmer in view of Alexander in view of Quinn by adding the powder coating taught by Rowley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to be “wear-resistant”; (Rowley, [0062]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20120192905 A1: Boss discloses a chair canopy system retractable over a user wherein windows out the front and side allow a user and others the ability to see.
US 20200179193 A1: Guillermo discloses a protective cover for stretchers that extends from one side over a stretcher wherein the cover material is transparent.
US 6076206 A: Celaya discloses a collapsible canopy for a cot/stretcher utilizing C-clamps to attach to the cot/stretcher.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673