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 .
Status of the Application
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 11/20/2024(2) has been acknowledged by the Office.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1—20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1—20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,730,650 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 & 12 are of this application are broader than and fully encompassed by independent claims 1 & 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,730,650 B2.
Specifically, claim 1 of the present application does not claim an actuator defining a cylinder supporting a piston coupled to a rod and arranged for movement along the cylinder, a fluid reservoir, and a pump driven by a motor to direct hydraulic fluid from the fluid reservoir to the cylinder. In addition, claim 1 of the present application does not recite a controller configured to drive the motor at a predetermined rate, the predetermined rate being substantially the same for patients of different weights supported on the litter….the controller being configured to maintain the predetermined rate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1—20 are rejected under a Double Patenting rejection as noted above, but would be allowable upon the filing of a proper Terminal Disclaimer to obviate the Double Patenting rejections over U.S. Patent No. 11,730,650 B2.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claims 1 & 12, the closest prior art of record U.S. Patent Application 2018/0303685 to Souke teaches a patient transport with a lift mechanism driven by a hydraulic circuit. The combination structure present in claim 1 was not found in U.S. Patent Application 18/811,920. Specifically, Souke does not teach, the limitation with respect to a controller configured to: determine a target parameter for the motor based on the signal generated by the sensor in combination with the controller configured to drive the motor at the target parameter to effect movement of the litter relative to the base in response to user engagement with the input control, and adjust operation of the motor while driving the motor based on changes occurring in the signal generated by the sensor to dampen hydraulic oscillation acting on the actuator.
The teachings of U.S. Patent Application 2017/0281440 A1 to Puvogel teaches a patient support including a controller which adjusts a motor relative to the weight of a user. However, teachings were silent with respect to a controller configured to: determine a target parameter for the motor based on the signal generated by the sensor in combination with the controller configured to drive the motor at the target parameter to effect movement of the litter relative to the base in response to user engagement with the input control, and adjust operation of the motor while driving the motor based on changes occurring in the signal generated by the sensor to dampen hydraulic oscillation acting on the actuator.
The teachings of U.S. Patent Application 2017/0065474 to Trepanier teaches a patient transport apparatus with a suspension system capable of damping oscillation by absorbing energy transferred through the support’s base wheels as the system travels over disturbances. The system further teaches a controller that receives signals drawn to brake sensors motion sensors, load sensing and surface sensors. Based on received inputs, the controller adjusts dampening of the system by actuating the spring or damper element (see para [0024]). The controller may raise and lower the patient support by adjusting motor (67) (see para [0051]). The teachings of Trepanier however, were silent with respect to the controller to a controller configured to: determine a target parameter for the motor based on the signal generated by the sensor in combination with the controller configured to drive the motor at the target parameter to effect movement of the litter relative to the base in response to user engagement with the input control, and adjust operation of the motor while driving the motor based on changes occurring in the signal generated by the sensor to dampen hydraulic oscillation acting on the actuator. While Trepanier teaches dampening oscillation via the spring damper system it does not teach adjusting a motor to while driving the motor to dampen hydraulic oscillation acting on the actuator.
Therefor upon exhausting the art, it is concluded by the examiner for those reasons stated above that in consideration with deficiencies of the prior art, that applicant’s invention would be considered non-obvious in light of the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Deborah T Gedeon whose telephone number is (571)272-8863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am to 4:30pm EST.
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 on 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.
/D.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3673 03/04/2006
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673