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 .
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 "the one or more fasteners are also configured to removably engage corresponding fasteners disposed on an ambulance floor for constraining the patient transport apparatus and the patient relative to the ambulance floor." (claim 14) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because speculative applications (e.g. "for use with a bariatric patient" and "arranged to be grasped by one of a plurality of caregivers positioned around lateral sides of the patient transport apparatus for applying lifting force to lift the patient transport apparatus and the bariatric patient"). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
With regards to claim 2, the limitations “the at least one jack includes at least three jacks” “wherein at least one of the at least three jacks is arranged between the head end and the lateral axis” “at least one of the at least three jacks is arranged between the foot end and the lateral axis” “at least one of the at least three jacks is arranged on a first lateral side of the longitudinal axis” and “at least one of the at least three jacks is arranged on a second lateral side of the longitudinal axis, opposite the first lateral side” are recited. There is confusion as to the effective scope of the claim and possible interpretations as applicant’s claim considers firstly an at least one jack as an at least three jacks; while this itself doesn’t pose any issue, thereafter, applicant recites “at least one jack of the at least three jacks” four separate times seemingly to separate jacks. It’s unclear if applicant’s construction is supposed to perhaps overlap one of the three jacks but it’s unclear which one, and on the other hand introduces what seems like a collection of at least three, but in fact appears to necessitate “at least four”. Further clarity and explanation are respectfully requested and otherwise for the purposes of examination, claim 2 is construed as possessing “at least four jacks”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Klipstein et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 2262288).
Regarding claim 1, Klipstein discloses (FIGS. 1-5) a patient transport apparatus for use with a patient ([1:1-5]: “hospital bed”), the patient transport apparatus comprising: a litter frame including a patient support deck for supporting the patient (as is known present to a hospital bed, previously expressed in [1:1-5]); a plurality of wheels (20; FIG. 1) coupled to the litter frame for supporting movement of the patient transport apparatus over a floor surface (As conveyed through [1:1-5]; and at least one jack (57/58/48/30/38; FIGS. 1-2, and 5) coupled to the litter frame to move the litter frame and the plurality of wheels between a plurality of vertical configurations relative to the floor surface (As illustrated between FIGS.3 and 5), each jack including a mounting portion correspondent to 49 and 10; FIGS. 3-5) coupled to the litter frame (as illustrated demonstrably in FIG. 1 and as conveyed through [1:1-5]), and a foot (57/58; FIG. 5) operatively attached to the mounting portion and configured for movement relative to the mounting portion (as illustrated between FIGS. 3 and 5) to provide a respective contact point with the floor surface (As eminently demonstrated in FIG. 5); wherein the plurality of vertical configurations includes a lifted configuration (as illustrated in FIG. 5) where the foot of each jack is moved away from the litter frame such that the plurality of wheels are spaced out of contact with the floor surface and the at least one jack supports the patient transport apparatus relative to the floor surface (as eminently illustrated in FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Klipstein discloses (FIGS. 1-5) the patient transport apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one jack includes at least three jacks (as illustrated in FIGS. 1, 3, and 5); and wherein the litter frame defines a longitudinal axis extending between a head end and a foot end and a lateral axis transverse to the longitudinal axis (As is known for the configuration of known hospital beds, pertinent [1:1-5]); and wherein at least one of the at least three jacks is arranged between the head end and the lateral axis (as illustrated and conveyed in FIGS. 1, 3, and 5), at least one of the at least three jacks is arranged between the foot end and the lateral axis (as illustrated and conveyed in FIGS. 1, 3, and 5), at least one of the at least three jacks is arranged on a first lateral side of the longitudinal axis (as illustrated and conveyed in FIGS. 1, 3, and 5), and at least one of the at least three jacks is arranged on a second lateral side of the longitudinal axis, opposite the first lateral side (as illustrated and conveyed in FIGS. 1, 3, and 5, where the four are cardinally arranged and would be synonymously so with correspondence to [1:1-5]).
Regarding claim 3, Klipstein discloses (FIGS. 1-5) the patient transport apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of vertical configurations further includes a spaced configuration where the foot of each jack is spaced out of contact with the floor surface such that the plurality of wheels support movement of the patient transport apparatus over the floor surface.
Regarding claim 4, Klipstein discloses (FIGS. 1-5) the patient transport apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of vertical configurations further includes a stabilization configuration where the plurality of wheels remain in contact with the floor surface and the foot of each jack contacts the floor surface to provide additional stability to the patient transport apparatus (as conveyed in FIGS. 1, 3, and 5, wherein the jack can extend between retracted and protruded and thus must be capable of achieving a state of the jack being coincident in extent/level with the wheel).
Regarding claim 5, Klipstein discloses (FIGS. 1-5) the patient transport apparatus of claim 1, wherein each jack further includes a motor (correspondent at least 38, alongside 30/48/56; where Merriam Webster considers a “motor” to encompass “one that imparts motion”, Merriam Webster: “motor”, definition 1, where indeed the pressure cell and pump of 38 and correspondent structures thereof form the operation of a rudimentary ‘motor’) operatively attached to the foot for moving the foot relative to the mounting portion to move the litter frame and the plurality of wheels between the plurality of vertical configurations relative to the floor surface (as illustrated between FIGS. 1, 3, and 5).
Regarding claim 6, Klipstein discloses (FIGS. 1-5) the patient transport apparatus of claim 1, wherein each jack further includes a manual actuator (particularly 38) operatively attached to the foot for moving the foot relative to the mounting portion to move the litter frame and the plurality of wheels between the plurality of vertical configurations relative to the floor surface (as illustrated between FIGS. 1, 3, and 5, where the hand pump of 38 would indeed form a ‘manual actuator’).
Regarding claim 7, Klipstein discloses (FIGS. 1-5) the patient transport apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a hydraulic circuit (as illustrated between FIGS. 1, 3, and 5, along 30) having a pump driven by a motor (Correspondent 38/P/33 and constituent components thereof; FIG. 2); and wherein each jack further includes a hydraulic actuator (as illustrated between FIGS. 1, 3, and 5) disposed in fluid communication with the hydraulic circuit and operatively attached to the foot for moving the foot relative to the mounting portion to move the litter frame and the plurality of wheels between the plurality of vertical configurations relative to the floor surface (as illustrated between FIGS. 1, 3, and 5; and clarified in [2:18-26] “Such operation is effected by introducing fluid, such as air or oil 26, into the cylinder 13”).
Regarding claim 8, Klipstein discloses (FIGS. 1-5) the patient transport apparatus of claim 1, wherein the mounting portion of each jack is pivotably coupled to the litter frame such that each jack is configured for pivotal movement relative to the litter frame between a plurality of jack configurations (wherein the profile of the jacks are circular which would give them capability to rotate pivotally relative to the litter frame).
Claim(s) 11-13, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Votel (U.S. Pat. No. 6341393). FIGS. 22, 27-28, and 122-123
Regarding claim 11, Votel discloses (FIGS. 18, 21-22, 27-28, and 122-123) a patient transport system for use with a patient (as illustrated in FIGS. 18, 21-22, 27-28, and 122-123), the patient transport system comprising: a patient transport apparatus including a support structure (correspondent to 308 and 306 and constituent components thereof in FIGS. 18/21-22) including a patient support deck underneath 386; FIG. 18) for supporting the patient; and a plurality of flexible caregiver interfaces (wings 380/382; FIGS. 27-28) arranged for respective use by a plurality of caregivers, each of the plurality of flexible caregiver interfaces including a coupling end (correspondent 384/334; FIG. 27/28) operatively attached to the support structure (through grasps 325; FIG. 22) and an interface end (382; FIG. 27-28), the plurality of flexible caregiver interfaces each defining a respective plurality of grab points (334; FIG. 22) arranged to be grasped (As illustrated in FIG. 22) by one of the plurality of caregivers positioned around lateral sides of the patient transport apparatus for applying lifting force to lift the patient transport apparatus and the patient, wherein each of the plurality of flexible caregiver interfaces are configured for movement between: a stowed configuration (such as that illustrated in FIG. 122/123) where the interface end of the flexible caregiver interface is secured adjacent to the support structure (As conveyed by the connections of 325/334; FIGS. 22 and 27/28), and a deployed configuration (As illustrated in FIGS. 27-28, and 21) where the interface end of the flexible caregiver interface is spaced from the support structure (As is attainable by unfurling as evidenced in FIGS. 21-22, and 27-28) to arrange the plurality of grab points for engagement by one of the respective plurality of caregivers for applying lifting force to lift the patient transport apparatus and the patient. Where it is considered that It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Where particularly being ‘arranged for respective use by a plurality of caregivers’ and “arranged to be grasped by one of the plurality of caregivers positioned around lateral sides of the patient transport apparatus for applying lifting force to lift the patient support apparatus and the patient respectfully are considered to fall within an intended use of the invention and do not themselves appear to pose any structural limitations thereof.
Regarding claim 12, Votel discloses (FIGS. 22, 27-28, and 122-123) the patient transport system of claim 11, wherein the coupling end of each flexible caregiver interface is removably coupled to the support structure (as illustrated in FIG. 22).
Regarding claim 13, Votel discloses (FIGS. 22, 27-28, and 122-123) the patient transport system of claim 12, wherein the coupling end of each flexible caregiver interface includes one or more fasteners (correspondent hole and peg fastenings as illustrated in FIG. 22) configured to removably engage corresponding fasteners disposed on the support structure to removably couple each flexible caregiver interface to the support structure (as illustrated in FIG. 22).
Regarding claim 19, Votel discloses (FIGS. 22, 27-28, and 122-123) the patient transport system of claim 11, wherein each of the plurality of flexible caregiver interfaces are configured to extend around the patient (as illustrated in FIG. 27/28) such that each of the plurality of flexible caregiver interface is configured to engage the patient to locate and secure the patient relative to the patient support deck (as illustrated in FIG. 27/28); wherein each of the plurality of flexible caregiver interfaces further includes a coupler (334) operatively attached to the interface end ; and wherein each coupler is configured to engage a corresponding receiver operatively attached to the support structure of the patient transport apparatus such that each of the plurality of flexible caregiver interface is configured to engage the patient to locate and secure the patient relative to the patient support deck (as illustrated in FIG. 27/28, as both locating the patient and the couplers engaging each other which are operatively attached to the interface end and operatively attached to the support structure).
Regarding claim 20, Votel discloses (FIGS. 22, 27-28, and 122-123) the patient transport system of claim 11, wherein the plurality of flexible caregiver interfaces includes a first flexible caregiver interface (correspondent left wing 380/382; FIG. 27/28) arranged on a first lateral side of the patient transport apparatus and a second flexible caregiver interface (correspondent right wing 380/382; FIG. 27/28) arranged on a second lateral side of the patient transport apparatus (as illustrated in FIGS. 27-28), opposite the first lateral side (as illustrated in FIGS. 27-28); and wherein the first flexible caregiver interface further includes a coupler (382; FIGS. 27-28) operatively attached to the interface end of the first flexible caregiver interface (as illustrated in FIGS. 27-28), the coupler configured to engage a corresponding receiver operatively attached to the interface end of the second flexible caregiver interface (as illustrated in FIGS. 27-28) such that the first flexible caregiver interface and the second flexible caregiver interface are configured to collectively extend around patient and engage the patient to locate and secure the patient relative to the patient support deck (as illustrated in FIGS. 27-28).
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) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klipstein in view of Votel.
Regarding claim 9, Klipstein discloses (FIGS. 1-5) the patient transport apparatus of claim 1,
However, Klipstein does not explicitly disclose further comprising a plurality of flexible caregiver interfaces arranged for respective use by a plurality of caregivers, each of the plurality of flexible caregiver interfaces including a coupling end operatively attached to the litter frame and an interface end, the plurality of flexible caregiver interfaces each defining a respective plurality of grab points arranged to be grasped by one of the plurality of caregivers positioned around lateral sides of the patient transport apparatus for applying lifting force to lift the patient transport apparatus and the patient.
Regardless, Votel teaches a patient support device (FIGS. 21-22/27-28/122-123), that further comprises a plurality of flexible caregiver interfaces (correspondent wings 380/382; FIG. 27/28) arranged for respective use by a plurality of caregivers, each of the plurality of flexible caregiver interfaces including a coupling end (correspondent about 384/334; FIGS. 27/28) operatively attached to the litter frame (as illustrated in FIG. 21) and an interface end (correspondent 382; FIGS. 27-28), the plurality of flexible caregiver interfaces each defining a respective plurality of grab points (334; FIG. 21) arranged to be grasped by one of the plurality of caregivers positioned around lateral sides of the patient transport apparatus for applying lifting force to lift the patient transport apparatus and the patient. Where it is considered that It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Where particularly being ‘arranged for respective use by a plurality of caregivers’ and “arranged to be grasped by one of the plurality of caregivers positioned around lateral sides of the patient transport apparatus for applying lifting force to lift the patient support apparatus and the patient respectfully are considered to fall within an intended use of the invention and do not themselves appear to pose any structural limitations thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated or combined the flexible caregiver interfaces of Votel (FIGS. 21-22, 27-28, and 122-123) into Klipstein . Where the results would have predictable as both Klipstein and Votel are concerned with patient moving devices (Klipstein: [1:1-5] “hospital bed”, and Votel is a “Patient Transfer and Repositioning System” used with hospital beds (clarified in one such instance as “installed onto a hospital bed” [9:31-32]). It is considered that Votel would continue to avail the patient transfer and repositioning features of Votel with Klipstein being a synonymous hospital bed, and Klipstein would continue to avail stabilizing the legs of a hospital bed. Where Votel further explicitly acknowledges “The adoption of these transfer devices will likely reduce the wide incidence of back injuries in health care workers” [4:14-16]
Regarding claim 10, Klipstein in view of Votel discloses (Votel: FIGS. 22, 27-28, and 122-123) the patient transport apparatus of claim 9, wherein each of the plurality of flexible caregiver interfaces are configured for movement between: a stowed configuration where the interface end of the flexible caregiver interface is secured adjacent to the litter frame (as illustrated in FIG. 122/123, the flexible caregiver interfaces may be rolled about frame member 1306/2142/2140), and a deployed configuration where the interface end (382; FIGS. 27-28) of the flexible caregiver interface is spaced from the litter frame to arrange the plurality of grab points (334; FIG. 27/28) for engagement by one of the respective plurality of caregivers for applying lifting force to lift the patient transport apparatus and the patient (engaging grasps 325 in FIG. 22). Where it is considered that It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Where particularly being ‘arranged for respective use by a plurality of caregivers’ and “arranged to be grasped by one of the plurality of caregivers positioned around lateral sides of the patient transport apparatus for applying lifting force to lift the patient support apparatus and the patient respectfully are considered to fall within an intended use of the invention and do not themselves appear to pose any structural limitations thereof.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Votel in view of Zumbrum (U.S. Pub. No. 20130133317).
Regarding claim 14, Votel discloses (FIGS. 22, 27-28, and 122-123) the patient transport system of claim 13.
However, while Votel does possess a fastener (382; FIGS. 22/27-28), Votel does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more fasteners are also configured to removably engage corresponding fasteners disposed on an ambulance floor for constraining the patient transport apparatus and the patient relative to the ambulance floor.
Regardless, Zumbrum teaches (FIGS. 1-4) a stretcher (10/12; FIGS. 1-4) with fastener means and complementing means thereof (14 and 26; FIGS. 2-4) to secure the stretcher to the floor of an ambulance (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated synonymous floor fastening means and complementary means thereof to secure the stretcher to the floor of an ambulance, where Votel already provides fasteners 382 (FIG. 27-28). Where the results would have been predictable as both Votel and Zumbrum are concerned with patient receptacles/resting surfaces, where further Zumbrum acknowledges “The rough and/or bumpy ride patients may experience while reposed on a stretcher in the back of an ambulance can actually be a health and/or safety hazard. For example, where a patient having a cervical spinal fracture is being transported, a rough ambulance ride could actually make the injury worse. Accordingly, it would be desirable to provide a shock-absorbing platform on the ambulance floor upon which to place a stretcher. In this arrangement, the shock-absorbing platform would provide a smoother, less bumpy ride, to the patient traveling on the stretcher. An ambulance shock-absorbing platform for stretcher could also reduce the chances of further injury to the patient caused by a rough and/or bumpy ambulance ride” [0006-0007]. It is considered that by incorporating the floor complementary means in Hodgetts renders the assembly of Votel further safer for use in transit.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Votel in view of Hodgetts (U.S. Pat. No. 6591435).
Regarding claim 15, Votel discloses (FIGS. 22, 27-28, and 122-123) the patient transport system of claim 11.
However, Votel does not explicitly disclose further comprising a plurality of containers operatively attached to the support structure of the patient transport apparatus, each container configured to receive one of the plurality of flexible caregiver interfaces in the stowed configuration.
Regardless, Hodgetts teaches (FIGS. 1 and 5-8) a patient sheeting device (FIGS. 1 and 5-8) and further comprising a container operatively attached to the support structure of the patient transport apparatus, each container configured to receive one of the plurality of flexible caregiver interfaces in the stowed configuration (As illustrated in FIGS. 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the storage unit of Hodgetts into each section (1202; FIGS. 87-90) or otherwise both sides of Votel (FIGS. 2) to avail expedient and responsive retrieval at either side thereby availing both storage to keep the sheet/additional sheets at the ready if the primary sheet is insulted/soiled and expedient deployment regardless of which side the receptacles are on. Where the results would have been predictable as both Votel and Hodgetts are concerned with patient sheeting apparatuses and applications thereof.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Votel in view of Wang (Chinese Pub. No. CN213788084U).
Regarding claim 16, Votel discloses (FIGS. 22, 27-28, and 122-123) the patient transport system of claim 11, alongside wherein the {sheet} defines grab points arranged to be grasped by one or more care givers (either through the extent ends of 382 as demonstrated in FIGS. 27-28, alongside the frame member 1306/2142/2140 in FIGS. 122-123; or the graspable points of 334/384; FIG. 27-28).
However, Votel does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the flexible caregiver interfaces includes a net comprised of webbing and extending between the coupling end and the interface end, the net defining the respective plurality of grab points arranged to be grasped by one of the plurality of caregivers positioned around lateral sides of the patient transport apparatus for applying lifting force to lift the patient transport apparatus and the patient.
Regardless, Wang teaches (FIGS. 1 and 3) a patient encompassing element (FIGS. 1 and 3), and wherein the flexible caregiver interfaces includes a net (as illustrated in FIG. 1 and 3, and identified in the Title “Medical Restriction Net), comprised of webbing (as illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 3 with interwoven webs provided) and extending between the coupling end (correspondent 11) and the interface/other end (at least head opening 17, and along bottom surface of 1), the net defining the respective plurality of grab points arranged (As illustrated in FIG. 1 and 3) to be grasped by one of the plurality of caregivers positioned around lateral sides of the patient transport apparatus for applying lifting force to lift the patient transport apparatus and the patient. Where it is considered that It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987), where it is considered for a caregiver to ‘grasp’ and to apply lifting force to lift the transport apparatus and the patient is an intended use of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the webbing of Wang (As illustrated in FIG. 1 and 3) into the material choice of Votel (As illustrated in FIGS. 22, 27-28, and 122-123). Where the results would have been predictable as both Votel and Wang are concerned with medical based fabrics and retaining devices (Wang: FIGS. 3, Votel: FIG. 28). Where Wang further expresses advantageously “it also can real-time observe the patient condition through the net body; the infusion tube can directly pass through the net body without being interfered; and the infusion condition can be observed.” (page 3, first paragraph) thereby improving observation of a patient for which the sheets of Votel are being used for.
Regarding claim 17, Votel in view of Wang discloses (FIGS. Votel: FIGS. 122-123) the patient transport system of claim 16, wherein each flexible caregiver interface further includes a frame member (1306/2142/2140; FIGS. 122-123) extending along the interface end of the net to inhibit the net from buckling along the interface end (as conveyed through FIGS. 122 and 123).
Regarding claim 18, Votel in view of Wang discloses (FIGS. 122/123) the patient transport system of claim 17, wherein the net is configured to be wrapped around the frame member (As illustrated in FIGS. 122/123) to move the flexible caregiver interface to the stowed configuration (As conveyed in FIGS. 122/123).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references cited on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) were considered pertinent because they address the state of the art concerning planting foot constructions such as Kramer (U.S. Pub. No. 20070080030) FIG. 1), alongside orthogonally pivoting actuated columns of plating like columns in bedding, such as Cockel et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4843665) FIGS. 11 and 15, and configurations of bedding and litter arrangements.
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