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 § 112
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.
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.
Claim 1 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claiming both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. The portion of the claim beginning with “the controller being configured to: operate the wheel drive system to rotate the wheel in response to rotation of the throttle based on changes in the signal generated by the throttle sensor;…(continued to end of claim)” is written in a manner that appears to recite or attempting to recite method steps. See MPEP 2173.05 (p).
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to "[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data" was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited "an input means" and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear "whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means."); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).
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, and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heimbrock (US6330926B1) in view of Lenkman (US8752659B1) in further view of Vogel (US20040159473A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Heimbrock, as modified, teaches A patient transport apparatus comprising: a support structure (Heimbrock: FIG. 1 [Col. 4 62] frame 22); a wheel coupled to the support structure to influence motion of the patient transport apparatus over a floor surface (Heimbrock: FIG. 3 [Col. 6 54] wheel 110); a wheel drive system coupled to the wheel to rotate the wheel relative to the support structure at a rotational speed (Heimbrock: FIG. 3 [Col. 6 53-54] linkage assembly 100 wheel110); a throttle assembly including a handle configured to be gripped by a user (Heimbrock: FIG. 1 [Col. 11 7-9] rotary switch assembly 254 is coupled to a distal end 86 of handle post 84), a throttle arranged for user-selected rotation relative to the handle from a neutral throttle position to a plurality of throttle positions between a maximum forward throttle position and a maximum backward throttle position (Heimbrock: FIG. 1 [Col. 11 7-9] rotary switch assembly 254 is coupled to a distal end 86 of the handle post 84), a throttle sensor configured to generate a signal representing a rotational position of the throttle relative to the handle (Heimbrock: FIG. 1 [Col. 11 6-9] wheel 110 to propel the stretcher 20 along the floor 62 in response to the operation of the rotary switch assembly 254 on the handle post 84), and a biasing element interposed between the throttle (Heimbrock: FIG. 11 [Col. 12 36] spring 294)and the handle to urge the throttle toward the neutral throttle position (Heimbrock: FIG. 13 [Col. 12 38-42] spring 294 biases the camming surfaces 286 of the inner sleeve 288 into engagement with the camming surfaces 284 of the control shaft 272 to, in turn, bias the thumb wheel 274 to automatically return to a neutral position); and a controller operably coupled to the wheel drive system and the throttle assembly, the controller being configured to (Heimbrock: FIG. 1 [Col. 11 8-11] A rotary switch assembly 254 is coupled to a distal end 86 of the handle post 84 of the first push bar 80 for controlling the speed and direction of the variable speed, bidirectional drive motor 202): operate the wheel drive system to rotate the wheel in response to rotation of the throttle based on changes in the signal generated by the throttle sensor (Heimbrock: FIG. 1 [Col. 11 8-11] A rotary switch assembly 254 is coupled to a distal end 86 of the handle post 84 of the first push bar 80 for controlling the speed and direction of the variable speed, bidirectional drive motor 202);
Heimbrock does not teach monitor for a stuck throttle condition defined by the signal generated by the throttle sensor indicating that the throttle has persisted for a first predetermined period, in one of the plurality of throttle positions other than the maximum forward throttle position, the maximum backward throttle position, and the neutral throttle position; and at least partially limit operation of the wheel drive system in response to detecting the stuck throttle condition based on the signal generated by the throttle sensor.
Lenkman teaches monitor for a stuck throttle condition defined by the signal generated by the throttle sensor indicating that the throttle has persisted (Lenkman: [Col. 4 62-64] if the difference on an iteration does not rise above the threshold value within the period of the reset shutdown timer, a signal by processor 16 turning the system off).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heimbrock in view of Lenkman directed to include a reset shut down time that monitors patient transport handle signal. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to communicate a neutral signal to the controller and maintain a power drive inactivated (Lenkman: [Col. 4 62-64]).
Heimbrock and Lenkman does not teach for a first predetermined period, in one of the plurality of throttle positions other than the maximum forward throttle position, the maximum backward throttle position, and the neutral throttle position; and at least partially limit operation of the wheel drive system in response to detecting the stuck throttle condition based on the signal generated by the throttle sensor.
Vogel teaches for a first predetermined period, in one of the plurality of throttle positions other than the maximum forward throttle position, the maximum backward throttle position, and the neutral throttle position (Vogel: FIG. [0124] forward direction acceleration shall not exceed 1 mile per hour per second for the first three seconds and reverse direction acceleration shall not exceed 0.5 miles per hour per second for the first three seconds); and at least partially limit operation of the wheel drive system in response to detecting the stuck throttle condition based on the signal generated by the throttle sensor (Vogel: [0124] speed controller 36 limits both the maximum forward and reverse acceleration of the patient support 10 in order to promote safety of the user).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heimbrock in view of Vogel, in further view of Vogel directed to include intermediate speed settings for a carrier. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent initial maximum speeds of a patient carrier for the safety of a user (Vogel: [0124]).
Regarding claim 2,
Heimbrock, as modified, teaches The patient transport apparatus of claim 1, wherein said wheel drive system includes an actuator coupled to the support structure (Heimbrock: FIG. 14 [Col. 11 49-52] controller 256 activates the actuator 220) and the wheel to move the wheel between a deployed position engaging the floor surface and a retracted position spaced from the floor surface (Heimbrock: FIG. 3 [Col. 6 53-59] linkage assembly 100 has (i) a neutral position (shown in FIGS. 3 and 7) in which the wheel 110 is raised above the floor 62 a first distance, (ii) a brake position in which the wheel 110 is raised above the floor 62 a second higher distance, and (iii) steer position in which the wheel 110 is engaging the floor 62); and wherein the controller is further configured to operate the actuator (Heimbrock: FIG. 14 [Col. 11 49-50] controller 256 activates the actuator 220) to move the wheel towards the retracted position in response to detecting the stuck throttle condition (Heimbrock: FIG. 3 [Col. 6 53-54] linkage assembly 100 has (i) a neutral position in which the wheel 110 is raised above the floor 62 a first distance).
Regarding claim 11,
Heimbrock, as modified, teaches The patient transport apparatus of claim 1.
Heimbrock, as modified, does not teach wherein the stuck throttle condition is further defined by the signal generated by the throttle sensor indicating that the throttle has persisted, for a second predetermined period larger than the first predetermined period, in the maximum forward throttle position.
Lenkman teaches wherein the stuck throttle condition is further defined by the signal generated by the throttle sensor indicating that the throttle has persisted, for a second predetermined period larger than the first predetermined period, in the maximum forward throttle position (Lenkman: FIG. 9 [Col. 4 53-55] decision block 110, the difference between the maximum voltage and the minimum voltage is determined after a sample period, for example 1 minute).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heimbrock in view of Lenkman directed to include a processing of voltage signals of a carrier to determine between a maximum and minimum voltage signal. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to continuously monitor and time a drive wheel of a carrier (Lenkman: [Col. 5 8-11]).
Regarding claim 12,
Heimbrock, as modified, teaches The patient transport apparatus of claim 11.
Heimbrock, as modified, does not teach wherein a ratio of the second predetermined period to the first predetermined period is at least 60:1.
Lenkman teaches wherein a ratio of the second predetermined period to the first predetermined period is at least 60:1 (Lenkman: FIG. 9 [Col. 4 53-55] decision block 110, the difference between the maximum voltage and the minimum voltage is determined after a sample period, for example 1 minute).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heimbrock in view of Lenkman directed to include a processing of voltage signals of a carrier to determine between a maximum and minimum voltage signal. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to continuously monitor a drive wheel of a carrier within a minute (Lenkman: [Col. 5 8-11]).
Regarding claim 13,
Heimbrock, as modified, teaches The patient transport apparatus of claim 1.
Heimbrock, as modified, does not teach wherein the stuck throttle condition is further defined by the signal generated by the throttle sensor indicating that the throttle has persisted, for a third predetermined period larger than the first predetermined period, in the maximum backward throttle position.
Lenkman teaches wherein the stuck throttle condition is further defined by the signal generated by the throttle sensor indicating that the throttle has persisted, for a third predetermined period larger than the first predetermined period, in the maximum backward throttle position (Lenkman: FIG. 9 [Col. 4 53-55] decision block 110, the difference between the maximum voltage and the minimum voltage is determined after a sample period, for example 1 minute).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heimbrock in view of Lenkman directed to include a processing of voltage signals of a carrier to determine between a maximum and minimum voltage signal. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to continuously monitor and time a drive wheel of a carrier (Lenkman: [Col. 4 53-55]).
Regarding claim 14,
Heimbrock, as modified, teaches The patient transport apparatus of claim 13.
Heimbrock, as modified, does not teach wherein a ratio of the third predetermined period to the first predetermined period is at least 60:1.
Lenkman teaches wherein a ratio of the third predetermined period to the first predetermined period is at least 60:1 (Lenkman: FIG. 9 [Col. 4 53-55] decision block 110, the difference between the maximum voltage and the minimum voltage is determined after a sample period, for example 1 minute).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heimbrock in view of Lenkman directed to include a processing of voltage signals to determine if shutdown in necessary for a motor of a carrier. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to continuously monitor a drive wheel of a carrier within a minute (Lenkman: [Col. 5 8-11]).
Regarding claim 15,
Heimbrock, as modified, teaches The patient transport apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to, during an absence of detection of the stuck throttle condition, operate the wheel drive system to: rotate the wheel at a maximum forward rotational speed in response to the throttle being in the maximum forward throttle position determined based on the signal generated by the throttle sensor; and rotate the wheel at a maximum backward rotational speed in response to the throttle being in the maximum backward throttle position determined based on the signal generated by the throttle sensor. (Heimbrock: FIG. 1 [Col. 2 18-22] drive assembly includes a forward mode in which the drive assembly is configured so that the wheel is driven in a forward direction, and a reverse mode in which the drive assembly is configured so that the wheel is driven in a reverse direction); and rotate the wheel at a maximum backward rotational speed in response to the throttle being in the maximum backward throttle position determined based on the signal generated by the throttle sensor (Heimbrock: FIG. 1 [Col. 2 18-22] drive assembly includes a forward mode in which the drive assembly is configured so that the wheel is driven in a forward direction, and a reverse mode in which the drive assembly is configured so that the wheel is driven in a reverse direction).
Regarding claim 16,
Heimbrock, as modified, teaches The patient transport apparatus of claim 15.
Heimbrock, as modified, does not teach wherein the controller is further configured to prevent the wheel from rotating at the maximum forward rotational speed in response to detecting the stuck throttle condition based on the signal generated by the throttle sensor.
Vogel teaches wherein the controller is further configured to prevent the wheel from rotating at the maximum forward rotational speed in response to detecting the stuck throttle condition based on the signal generated by the throttle sensor (Vogel: [0124] speed controller 36 limits both the maximum forward and reverse acceleration of the patient support 10 in order to promote safety of the user and reduce damage to floor 24).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heimbrock in view of Vogel, in further view of Vogel directed to include intermediate speed settings for a carrier. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent initial maximum speeds of a patient carrier for the safety of a user (Vogel: [0124]).
Regarding claim 17,
Heimbrock, as modified, teaches The patient transport apparatus of claim 1, wherein the throttle is arranged for movement relative to the handle from the neutral throttle position to: one or more intermediate forward positions between the neutral throttle position and the maximum forward throttle position (Heimbrock: FIG. 14 [Col. 11 60-65] rotary switch assembly 254 is rotated to a forward position for forward motion of the stretcher … speed of the variable speed drive motor 202 is determined by the extent of rotation of the rotary switch assembly 254), and one or more intermediate backward positions between the neutral throttle position and the maximum backward throttle position (Heimbrock: FIG. 14 [Col. 11 60-65] rotary switch assembly 254 is rotated to a reverse position for reverse motion of the stretcher 20. The speed of the variable speed drive motor 202 is determined by the extent of rotation of the rotary switch assembly 254).
Regarding claim 18,
Heimbrock, as modified, teaches The patient transport apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: operate the wheel drive system to rotate the wheel in response to rotation of the throttle such that movement of the throttle from the neutral throttle position toward the maximum forward throttle position increases the rotational speed of the wheel in a forward direction (Heimbrock: FIG. 14 [Col. 11 60-65] rotary switch assembly 254 is rotated to a forward position for forward motion of the stretcher … speed of the variable speed drive motor 202 is determined by the extent of rotation of the rotary switch assembly 254), operate the wheel drive system to rotate the wheel in response to rotation of the throttle such that that movement of the throttle from the neutral throttle position toward the maximum backward throttle position adjusts increases the rotational speed of the wheel in a backward direction (Heimbrock: FIG. 14 [Col. 11 60-65] rotary switch assembly 254 is rotated to a reverse position for reverse motion of the stretcher 20. The speed of the variable speed drive motor 202 is determined by the extent of rotation of the rotary switch assembly 254).
Claim(s) 3-10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heimbrock (US6330926B1) in view of Lenkman (US8752659B1) in further view of Vogel (US20040159473A1) in further view Zerhusen (US20200375829A1).
Regarding claim 3,
Heimbrock, as modified, teaches The patient transport apparatus of claim 2.
Heimbrock, as modified, does not teach wherein the throttle assembly further includes a user interface sensor coupled to the handle to sense a contact of the handle by the user and to generate a user engagement signal responsive to the contact.
Zerhusen teaches wherein the throttle assembly further includes a user interface sensor coupled to the handle to sense a contact of the handle by the user and to generate a user engagement signal responsive to the contact (Zerhusen: FIG. 1 [0023] vertical transport handle 14 includes a grip 16 having at least one grip sensor 18 coupled to the grip 16 at a vertical position on the vertical transport handle).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heimbrock, as modified, in view of Zerhusen directed to include a grip sensor on a transport handle. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine the amount of force applied to a transport handle (Zerhusen: [0023]).
Regarding claim 4,
Heimbrock, as modified, teaches The patient transport apparatus of claim 3.
Heimbrock, as modified, does not teach wherein the controller is further configured to monitor for the stuck throttle condition in response to the user engagement signal indicating that the user has contacted the handle.
Zerhusen teaches wherein the controller is further configured to monitor for the stuck throttle condition in response to the user engagement signal indicating that the user has contacted the handle (Zerhusen: FIG. 1 [0023] grip 16 having at least one grip sensor 18 coupled to the grip 16 at a vertical position on the vertical transport handle 14).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heimbrock, as modified, in view of Zerhusen directed to include a grip sensor on a transport handle. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine the amount of force applied to a transport handle (Zerhusen: [0023]).
Regarding claim 5,
Heimbrock, as modified, teaches The patient transport apparatus of claim 3.
Heimbrock, as modified, does not teach wherein the controller is further configured to, during an absence of detection of the stuck throttle condition, operate the actuator to move the wheel towards the deployed position in response to the user engagement signal indicating that the user has contacted the handle.
Zerhusen teaches wherein the controller is further configured to, during an absence of detection of the stuck throttle condition, operate the actuator to move the wheel towards the deployed position in response to the user engagement signal indicating that the user has contacted the handle (Zerhusen: FIG. 2 [0028] grip sensor 18 may be provided in the grip 16 and may be in communication with the controller 20).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heimbrock, as modified, in view of Zerhusen directed to include a grip sensor on a transport handle. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine the amount of force applied to a transport handle (Zerhusen: [0023]).
Regarding claim 6,
Heimbrock, as modified, teaches The patient transport apparatus of claim 3.
Heimbrock, as modified, does not teach wherein the controller is further configured to define a deadband range of throttle positions encompassing the neutral throttle position.
Zerhusen teaches wherein the controller is further configured to define a deadband range of throttle positions encompassing the neutral throttle position (Zerhusen: FIG. 1 [0044] center position that can perform an OFF or NEUTRAL function where a signal is not sent to the controller 20 to activate the power drive mode ).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heimbrock, as modified, in view of Zerhusen directed to include a neutral function to maintain an inactivated power drive mode in a patient transport. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to communicate a neutral signal to the controller and maintain a power drive inactivated (Zerhusen: [0044]).
Regarding claim 7,
Heimbrock, as modified, teaches The patient transport apparatus of claim 6.
Heimbrock, as modified, does not teach wherein the stuck throttle condition is further defined by the signal generated by the throttle sensor indicating that the throttle has persisted, in one of the throttle positions outside of the deadband range of throttle positions.
Lenkman teaches wherein the stuck throttle condition is further defined by the signal generated by the throttle sensor indicating that the throttle has persisted (Lenkman: FIG. 9 [Col. 4 55-28] the difference between the maximum and minimum voltage is above a predetermined threshold value, motor 46 must be active and a reset shutdown time is reset), for the first predetermined period (Lenkman: FIG. 8 [Col. 3 65-67] operation returns to start 76 to begin again on a predetermined periodic basis such as once a second), in one of the throttle positions outside of the deadband range of throttle positions (Lenkman: FIG. 9 [Col. 4 55-28] the difference between the maximum and minimum voltage is above a predetermined threshold value, motor 46 must be active and a reset shutdown time is reset).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heimbrock in view of Lenkman directed to include a processing of voltage signals to determine if shutdown in necessary for a motor of a carrier. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to continuously monitor and time a drive wheel of a carrier (Lenkman: [Col. 5 8-11]).
Regarding claim 8,
Heimbrock, as modified, teaches The patient transport apparatus of claim 6.
Heimbrock, as modified, does not teach wherein the controller is further configured to, during an absence of detection of the stuck throttle condition, operate the actuator to move the wheel towards the deployed position in response to the user engagement signal indicating that the user has contacted the handle and in response to the signal generated by the throttle sensor indicating that the throttle is positioned within the deadband range of throttle positions.
Vogel teaches wherein the controller is further configured to, during an absence of detection of the stuck throttle condition (Vogel: [0093] responds to a voltage input range from roughly 0.3 VDC (for full reverse motor drive) to roughly 4.7 VDC (for full forward motor drive) with roughly a 2.3-2.7 VDC input null reference/deadband (corresponding to zero motor speed)), operate the actuator to move the wheel towards the deployed position in response to the user engagement signal indicating that the user has contacted the handle and in response to the signal generated by the throttle sensor indicating that the throttle is positioned within the deadband range of throttle positions (Vogel: [0093] responds to a voltage input range from roughly 0.3 VDC (for full reverse motor drive) to roughly 4.7 VDC (for full forward motor drive) with roughly a 2.3-2.7 VDC input null reference/deadband (corresponding to zero motor speed)).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heimbrock in view of Vogel, in further view of Vogel directed to include intermediate speed settings for a carrier between neutral, maximum forward, and maximum backward. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide variable speed settings for a patient support wheel (Vogel: [0093]).
Regarding claim 9,
Heimbrock, as modified, teaches The patient transport apparatus of claim 6.
Heimbrock, as modified, does not teach wherein the deadband range of throttle positions includes: a forward deadband throttle position defined between the neutral throttle position and the maximum forward throttle position; and a rearward deadband throttle position defined between the neutral throttle position and the maximum backward throttle position.
Vogel teaches wherein the deadband range of throttle positions includes: a forward deadband throttle position defined between the neutral throttle position and the maximum forward throttle position (Vogel: [0093] responds to a voltage input range from roughly 0.3 VDC (for full reverse motor drive) to roughly 4.7 VDC (for full forward motor drive) with roughly a 2.3-2.7 VDC input null reference/deadband (corresponding to zero motor speed)); and a rearward deadband throttle position defined between the neutral throttle position and the maximum backward throttle position (Vogel: [0093] responds to a voltage input range from roughly 0.3 VDC (for full reverse motor drive) to roughly 4.7 VDC (for full forward motor drive) with roughly a 2.3-2.7 VDC input null reference/deadband (corresponding to zero motor speed)).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heimbrock in view of Vogel, in further view of Vogel directed to include intermediate speed settings for a carrier between neutral, maximum forward, and maximum backward. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide variable speed settings for a patient support wheel (Vogel: [0093]).
Regarding claim 10,
Heimbrock, as modified, teaches The patient transport apparatus of claim 9.
Heimbrock, as modified, does not teach wherein the forward deadband throttle position is spaced at 5 degrees from the neutral throttle position (Vogel: [0093] 2.3-2.7 VDC input null reference/deadband); and wherein the rearward deadband throttle position is spaced at 10 degrees from the forward deadband throttle position.
Vogel teaches wherein the forward deadband throttle position is spaced at 5 degrees from the neutral throttle position (Vogel: [0093] 2.3-2.7 VDC input null reference/deadband); and wherein the rearward deadband throttle position is spaced at 10 degrees from the forward deadband throttle position (Vogel: [0093] responds to a voltage input range from roughly 0.3 VDC (for full reverse motor drive) to roughly 4.7 VDC (for full forward motor drive) with roughly a 2.3-2.7 VDC input null reference/deadband (corresponding to zero motor speed)).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heimbrock in view of Vogel, in further view of Vogel directed to include intermediate speed settings for a carrier between neutral, maximum forward, and maximum backward. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide variable speed settings for a patient support wheel (Vogel: [0093]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEANE E. TEJADA whose telephone number is (571)272-3553. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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.
/JOSEANE E. TEJADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
2/22/2026