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
Claims 1-2, 7-9, 19-20, 22, 24-25, 30, 37-38, 41-42, 44-45, 52-53 and 55 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 9/30/2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 24-25, 52-53, and 55 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to Claim 1, there is a lack of clarity throughout the claim related to ‘the stretcher’ and ‘the three or four aircraft seats’, due to both elements initially being recited with more specificity. As such, the Examiner suggests that all elements thereof include the following ‘a/the portable aircraft stretcher’ and ‘a/the three or four side-by-side commercial aircraft seats’. All dependent claims are suggested to be amended.
In regards to Claim 24, the following limitation is spelt wrong and is suggested to be amended to the following ‘stretching’ -> ‘stretcher’
In regards to Claim 25, there is an inclusion of a possessive noun, and the following is suggested to provide clarity to the claim, ‘the person's head’ -> ‘a head of the person’
In regards to Claim 52, there is a lack of clarity throughout the claim related to ‘the stretcher’ and ‘aircraft’, due to both elements initially being recited with more specificity. As such, the Examiner suggests that all elements thereof include the following ‘a/the aircraft stretcher’ and ‘a/the commercial aircraft’
In regards to Claim 52, 53 and 55, there is a lack of clarity throughout the claim related to ‘the stretcher’ due to the elements initially being recited with more specificity. As such, the Examiner suggests that all elements thereof include the following ‘a/the aircraft stretcher’.
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.
Claim(s) 44-45, 52-53, and 55 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.
The term “low-friction” in claim 44 and claim 45 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-friction” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim requires “a low-friction slide board,” but provides no numerical coefficient of friction, material property, surface finish, or comparative benchmark against which the level of friction should be measured. The disclosure likewise fails to establish an objective threshold that would distinguish a “low-friction” slide board from slide boards that are not low-friction. Because frictional characteristics vary widely depending on material, coating, load, contact area, and orientation, and no standard is provided, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty what degree of friction qualifies as “low,” rendering the term indefinite.
Claim(s) 45 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (claim 44).
The term “approximately” in claim 52 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim recites “rotating the stretcher approximately 90°,” but does not specify how much deviation from 90° is permitted, whether ±5°, ±10°, or a wider range remains within the claimed scope, or whether the required rotation is functionally tied to interaction with aircraft seating, slide board geometry, or clearance constraints. The specification does not supply a tolerance or operating range that would allow a skilled artisan to determine when a rotation is “approximately 90°” versus when it falls outside the scope. Without an objective standard, a person of ordinary skill cannot ascertain with reasonable certainty the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claim(s) 53 and 55 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (claim 52).
Claim 52 recites the limitation "slide board". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, due to Claim 52’s dependency to Claim 1, neither recite with primary antecedent basis the element of ‘a slide board’. Based on examination, the Examiner is unsure if there was supposed to be dependency back to Claim 44/45 OR if the intention was to recite the element with primary antecedent basis. For the purposes of examination the Examiner has interpreted the claim to be dependent upon Claim 44.
Claim(s) 53 and 55 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (claim 52).
The term “desired” in claim 55 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “desired” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim requires “sliding the fulcrum portion along the slide board to a desired position,” but the claim does not identify any objective criteria for determining what constitutes the “desired” position, nor does it require that the desired position be tied to a functional parameter, operational threshold, or mechanical relationship. The specification likewise does not articulate how a user selects the position, what characteristics define that position, or how a skilled artisan would determine whether a position meets the “desired” requirement. As the term depends on subjective, user-defined preference rather than an objective standard, the claim scope cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
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) 1, 2, 7, 9, 22 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egan (US 20130328361 A2) in view of Micheau (FR 2798842 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Egan teaches: A portable aircraft stretcher (80 - Fig. 2) for supporting a person (Para 0010: "The system includes a stowable stretcher that removably cooperates with the couch to support a patient in a prone and secured orientation within the aircraft cabin.") on an aircraft (37 - Fig. 1, Para 0020), the stretcher configured for location in a port-starboard orientation (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Egan) across three or four side-by-side commercial aircraft seats (34 - Fig. 1 shows 'three' side-by-side commercial aircraft seats) and the stretcher including: a seat (106 - Fig. 5) and a backrest (108 - Fig. 5), the backrest having a reclined orientation for supporting the person in a reclined position across and above the three or four aircraft seats (Para 0027: "As used herein, a prone position is intended to encompass any desired passenger position wherein the passenger can attain a more horizontal position than a seated or reclined but still generally seated orientation", further noting Figs. 3-5); a support member extending downwardly from the backrest for supporting the backrest (120 - Fig. 3); a harness for securing the person to the stretcher (110, 112, 114, 116, 118 - Fig. 5, Para 0029: "One or more straps 110, 112, 114, 116, 118 are secured to stretcher 80."); [[and one or more connection points configured to engage with at least one aircraft seatbelt of the three or four aircraft seats for securing the stretcher to the aircraft seats.]]
Egan does not explicitly teach: and one or more connection points configured to engage with at least one aircraft seatbelt of the three or four aircraft seats for securing the stretcher to the aircraft seats.
Micheau teaches: and one or more connection points (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Micheau) configured to engage with at least one aircraft seatbelt of the three or four aircraft seats for securing the stretcher to the aircraft seats (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Micheau).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Egan, directed to an aircraft stretcher system for supporting and securing a patient, by adding aircraft-seatbelt-engaging connection points as taught in Micheau, directed to stretcher frames equipped with belt-compatible attachment locations, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of providing standard seatbelt-based securement of the stretcher to aircraft seats.
PNG
media_image1.png
332
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.1 from Egan
PNG
media_image2.png
442
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.1 from Micheau
In regards to Claim 2, Egan in view of Micheau teaches: The portable aircraft stretcher according to claim 1, Micheau further teaches, wherein at least one of the one or more connection points is configured to connect the harness with at least one of the aircraft seatbelts (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Micheau).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Egan by configuring one of the connection points to directly connect the harness to an aircraft seatbelt as taught in Micheau, since harness-to-belt coupling structures were known in the prior art and could have been combined using known methods with no change in function, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification would have yielded the predicted result of integrating the harness with the aircraft seatbelt system for increased user securement.
In regards to Claim 7, Egan in view of Micheau teaches: The portable aircraft stretcher according to claim 1, Micheau further teaches, including a backrest hinge connecting the backrest to the seat and allowing selective adjustment of the backrest reclined orientation (22 - Fig. 1, "The stretcher further comprises a base consisting of two feet before 21a and two rear feet 21b. four feet 21a, 21b are hingedly connected to the central frame 6 along articulation axes 22 parallel to the length of the bed base 1. For each foot 21, the corresponding spar 7 rigidly carries two supports 23 oriented downwards, which form a clevis between which the foot 21a or 21b is hinged. As shown in Figure 4, the hinge 22 comprises a bolt whose screw 26 passes through the two supports 23 and the foot 21a or 21b located between them and serves as a hinge axis.").
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Egan by adding a hinge between the backrest and seat to allow adjustable recline positions as taught in Micheau, directed to hinged stretcher frames, since both adjustable hinge structures and reclining support surfaces were known, and one skilled in the art could combine them without altering their functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification would have yielded the predicted result of permitting controlled backrest positioning during use.
In regards to Claim 9, Egan in view of Micheau teaches: The portable aircraft stretcher according to claim 1, Micheau further teaches, including a support member hinge (14 - Fig. 1, "As shown in Figure 1, the hinge pins 14 and 16 are placed slightly above of the plane of the frame 2.") connecting the support member to a rear of the backrest (9 - Fig. 1) and allowing selective positioning of the support member between a folded position and a deployed position (Fig. 1 showing deployed position, whereas the folded position is noted by the following disclosure of Micheau - "Figure 1, the hinge pins 14 and 16 are placed slightly above of the plane of the frame 2. The service position of the partial frames 9 and 11 is defined by pressing the ends of the hoop of each frame 9 11 which abut against the corresponding ends of the longitudinal members 7 of the central frame 6. From this service position the partial frames 9 and 11 can be folded over the top of the central frame 6 by pivoting at 180 about the axes 14 and 16, as illustrated by the circular arrows in phantom 17 and 18 respectively. In position and folded the stretcher is made less cumbersome for transport, storage and handling out of service.").
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Egan by adding a support-member hinge allowing folding between deployed and stowed positions as taught in Micheau, directed to foldable frame structures, since hinged support members were known and could be combined by known mechanical methods without altering their function, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification would have yielded the predicted result of allowing compact folding and deployment of the support member.
In regards to Claim 22, Egan in view of Micheau teaches: The portable aircraft stretcher according to claim 1, Micheau further teaches, including a first connection point configured for attachment to a seatbelt of a first aircraft seat (see annotated Fig. 1.2 from Micheau), a second connection point configured for attachment to a seatbelt of a second aircraft seat adjacent the first aircraft seat (see annotated Fig. 1.2 from Micheau) and a third connection point configured for attachment to a seatbelt of a third aircraft seat adjacent to the second aircraft seat (see annotated Fig. 1.2 from Micheau).
Egan and Micheau are both considered analogous art because they are in the same field of aircraft-mounted patient transport and restraint systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stretcher of Egan to incorporate the multiple seatbelt-based connection points taught by Micheau, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide improved restraint, stability, and compatibility with standard aircraft seating configurations.
PNG
media_image3.png
423
767
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.2 from Micheau
In regards to Claim 37, Egan in view of Micheau teaches: The portable aircraft stretcher according to claim 1, Egan further teaches, wherein the stretcher is configured for transporting a person of limited mobility ("Such a system provides an aircraft medical treatment system that can be utilized for seating when no emergency health conditions exist and provides expedient access to devices and systems associated with treatment of emergency medical conditions.", further noting Para 0025 discussing strap/latch/retention mechanisms other intravenous medications, pills, defibrillator - such that in using any of these devices would further limit a person's mobility).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Egan by explicitly configuring the stretcher for use by persons of limited mobility, a feature taught in Micheau through its use with injured or medically compromised users, since stretchers designed for medical transport inherently support limited-mobility persons, and the combination could be made without changing component functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification would have yielded the predicted result of accommodating users with reduced physical mobility.
Claim(s) 8 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egan (US 20130328361 A2) in view of Micheau (FR 2798842 A1) and further in view of Chinn (WO 2012064942 A2).
In regards to Claim 8, Egan in view of Micheau teaches: The portable aircraft stretcher according to claim 1, but neither Egan nor Micheau explicitly teach, further including a lower-leg rest connected to the seat by a lower-leg rest hinge allowing selective adjustment of the lower-leg rest position relative to the seat.
Chinn teaches: further including a lower-leg rest ([25c, 25d] Fig. 1) connected to the seat (25b - Fig. 3) by a lower-leg rest hinge allowing selective adjustment of the lower-leg rest position relative to the seat (Fig. 4 shows flat configuration whereas Fig. 1 shows the central hinge adjusting the leg rest higher than the seat, "Furthermore, the adjustable lower body section 22 may also be raised such that the patient's feet would be elevated relative their torso. It should be appreciated that the adjustable upper body section 21 and the adjustable lower body section 22 may further be adjustable in any alternative configuration to change the positioning of the patient.").
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Egan/Micheau by adding a hinged lower-leg rest adjustable relative to the seat as taught in Chinn, directed to patient-support devices with articulated lower-body sections, since articulated leg-rest mechanisms were known and could be combined using standard hinge principles without changing their function, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification would have yielded the predicted result of providing adjustable leg support for patient comfort and positioning.
In regards to Claim 30, Egan in view of Micheau teaches: The portable aircraft stretcher according to claim 1, Micheau further teaches, the stretcher including a frame (2- Fig. 2, "a peripheral frame"), but neither Egan nor Micheau further teach, the backrest including a back panel secured to the frame and the seat including a seat panel secured to the frame.
Chinn teaches: the backrest including a back panel (26a - Fig. 1) secured to the frame and the seat including a seat panel (26b - Fig. 1)secured to the frame.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Egan/Micheau by securing a back panel and seat panel to the frame as taught in Chinn, directed to framed support panels, since panel-mounted backrests and seat portions were known and could be combined without altering their function, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification would have yielded the predicted result of providing stable support surfaces fixed to the stretcher frame.
Claim(s) 19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egan (US 20130328361 A2) in view of Micheau (FR 2798842 A1) and further in view of Campani (EP 3760177 A1).
In regards to Claim 19, Egan in view of Micheau teaches: The portable aircraft stretcher according to claim 1, but neither Egan nor Micheau explicitly teach, the one or more connection points including an opening in the support member and wherein one of the aircraft seatbelts is insertable through the support member opening.
Campani teaches: the one or more connection points including an opening in the support member and wherein one of the aircraft seatbelts is insertable through the support member opening (5a - Fig. 1, noting "Advantageously, the connection means 5, furthermore, is removably connected to respective connection portions 5a of the spinal board 2 and the extrication device 4. The connection means 5 thus realized allows a reversible coupling between the spinal board 2 and the extrication device 4 which can be performed rapidly and is intuitive for a user." and "The connection belts 8 are fixed to the supporting belt 7 at a respective first end thereof and are removably connected to a connection portion 5a of the extrication device 4.").
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Egan/Micheau by adding an opening in the support member through which a seatbelt may be inserted, as taught in Campani, directed to medical boards with belt-receiving passages, since belt-opening structures were known and could be added without altering their function, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification would have yielded the predicted result of permitting direct belt-through-frame securement.
In regards to Claim 25, Egan in view of Micheau teaches: The portable aircraft stretcher according to claim 1, but neither Egan nor Micheau explicitly teach, the stretcher further including a headrest including a pair of lateral supports for supporting opposite sides of the person's head.
Campani teaches: the stretcher further including a headrest (4 - Fig. 1) including a pair of lateral supports (12 - Fig. 1) for supporting opposite sides of the person's head (12 supports the users head along opposite sides to maintain the rest in position).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Egan in view of Micheau by adding a headrest having a pair of lateral supports as taught in Campani, since lateral head-support structures were known in patient-transport devices and could be incorporated without changing their function, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification would have yielded the predicted result of providing stable lateral head support for the user.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egan (US 20130328361 A2) in view of Micheau (FR 2798842 A1) in view Chinn (WO 2012064942 A2) and further in view of Campani (EP 3760177 A1).
In regards to Claim 20, Egan in view of Micheau and further in view of Campani teaches: The portable aircraft stretcher according to claim 8, but neither Egan, Micheau nor Campani do not explicitly teach, the one or more connection points including an opening in the lower-leg rest and wherein one of the seat belts is insertable through the lower-leg rest opening.
Campani teaches: the one or more connection points including an opening in the lower-leg rest and wherein one of the seat belts is insertable through the lower-leg rest opening (5a as shown in Fig. 1, is not only local to the head portion of the device but is local at three additional spots, one of which is local to the leg rest region where a belt is inserted thereto).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Egan in view of Micheau and further in view of Chinn by including a belt-receiving opening in the lower-leg rest as taught in Campani, since belt-passage openings were known and could be applied to any support portion without altering its function, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification would have yielded the predicted result of allowing aircraft seatbelt securement directly through the lower-leg rest.
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egan (US 20130328361 A2) in view of Micheau (FR 2798842 A1) and further in view of Keogh (US 20030057323 A1).
In regards to Claim 24, Egan in view of Micheau teaches: The portable aircraft stretcher according to claim 1, Micheau further teaches, the stretching being collapsible to a stowed configuration ("From this service position the partial frames 9 and 11 can be folded over the top of the central frame 6 by pivoting at 180 about the axes 14 and 16, as illustrated by the circular arrows in phantom 17 and 18 respectively. In position and folded the stretcher is made less cumbersome for transport, storage and handling out of service."), but Micheau does not explicitly teach, allowing for overhead storage in a commercial aircraft.
Keogh teaches: allowing for overhead storage (12 - Fig. 6, vertical disposed overhead partially relative to the head of a user when in vertical/storage configuration) in a commercial aircraft (Paras 0033/0049/0050: "an aircraft").
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Egan/Micheau by configuring the stretcher to collapse sufficiently for aircraft overhead-bin storage as taught in Keogh, directed to equipment designed for overhead stowage, since foldable structures and aircraft-dimensioned stowable equipment were known in the art and could be combined without changing their function, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification would have yielded the predicted result of enabling the stretcher to be stored in standard overhead compartments.
Claim(s) 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egan (US 20130328361 A2) in view of Micheau (FR 2798842 A1) and further in view of Cabrera (US 5259575 A).
In regards to Claim 38, Egan in view of Micheau teach: The portable aircraft stretcher according to claim 37, Egan nor Micheau explicitly teach, the stretcher being configured for continuously supporting the person of limited mobility in flight and also during loading and unloading of the person from the aircraft.
Cabrera teaches: the stretcher being configured for continuously supporting the person of limited mobility in flight (Col 1 Lines 35-42: "Furthermore, there are many instances where the patent cannot travel in an upright position but is required to remain in a supine or prone position for the entire duration of the trip. In addition, it is not uncommon that passengers can suffer from heart attacks or other maladies in flight which require that the traveler be placed in a prone or supine position for the remainder of the flight.") and also during loading and unloading of the person from the aircraft (Col 5 Lines 31-38).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the stretcher system of Egan, as supplemented with the patient-support features in Micheau, by incorporating the continuous in-flight and transfer support taught by Cabrera. Cabrera describes stretchers that maintain a patient in a supine or prone position throughout loading, unloading, and the entire duration of flight, and these teachings were well known for accommodating passengers who cannot sit upright. Applying this design would have required only routine adaptation while preserving the basic functions of the system, and would reasonably be expected to yield a stretcher capable of supporting a limited-mobility user continuously during transfer and flight.
Claim(s) 41 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egan (US 20130328361 A2) in view of Micheau (FR 2798842 A1) and further in view of Ferneau (US 20040034935 A1).
In regards to Claim 41, Egan in view of Micheau teach: The portable aircraft stretcher according to claim 38, but Egan nor Micheau do not explicitly teach, including a fulcrum portion allowing the stretcher to be pivoted about the fulcrum portion for facilitating loading and unloading of the stretcher.
Ferneau teaches: including a fulcrum portion (28/28a - Fig. 1b, Para 0038) allowing the stretcher to be pivoted about the fulcrum portion for facilitating loading and unloading of the stretcher (Figs. 1a <-> Fig. 1b, notably Para 0038).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to further modify the fulcrum structure added to the Egan in view of Micheau, by adding a fulcrum portion of the type taught in Ferneau. Ferneau provides a pivot-support structure that enables the stretcher to rock or pivot to assist with loading and unloading. Such fulcrum-based pivot arrangements were familiar in patient-handling devices, and incorporating Ferneau’s structure into Egan in view of Micheau’s stretcher would have involved only routine mechanical modification without altering the functions of the underlying components. The expected result would be a stretcher capable of pivoting about the added fulcrum to facilitate transfer, as recited in the claim.
In regards to Claim 42, Egan in view of Micheau and further in view of Ferneau teach: The portable aircraft stretcher according to claim 41, Ferneau further teaches, the fulcrum portion including a curved portion on an underside of the seat (108 - Fig. 2a, notably shown in integrally and on an underside of the seat in Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to further modify the fulcrum structure added to the Egan in view of Micheau and further in view of Ferneau to teach the portable aircraft stretcher with fulcrum portion (as discussed for claim 41) by employing the curved underside configuration described in Ferneau. Ferneau explicitly illustrates a curved fulcrum surface integrated into the underside of the seat to enable controlled rocking movement. Such curved fulcrum forms were known, and substituting or incorporating Ferneau’s curved configuration would not change the manner in which the fulcrum functions and would increase ease of use by creating a larger surface area for the user.
Claim(s) 44-45 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egan (US 20130328361 A2) in view of Micheau (FR 2798842 A1) and further in view of Pitt (WO 2020157456 A1).
In regards to Claim 44, Egan in view of Micheau teaches: A stretcher apparatus including the portable aircraft stretcher according to claim 1, but neither Egan nor Micheau do not explicitly teach, and a low-friction slide board for location between the aircraft seats and the stretcher, the slide board configured to facilitate loading and unloading of the stretcher and to support the stretcher during flight.
Pitt teaches: and a low-friction slide board for location between the aircraft seats and the stretcher (212 - Fig. 3), the slide board configured to facilitate loading and unloading of the stretcher and to support the stretcher during flight ("A transfer board 212 is attached to the armrest 116 of the wheelchair 100 using a clip 214 and is laid across the other two seats in the three seat arrangement 216 of aircraft seats. That is to say, the transfer board 212 bridges the gap between the seat 108 and the passenger support arrangement 204").
Egan, Micheau, and Pitt are all considered analogous art because they relate to patient transfer, support, and movement systems used in confined environments such as aircraft. Therefore, it would have been an obvious design choice for a person of ordinary skill to supplement the stretcher apparatus of Egan in view of Micheau, with a low-friction slide board as shown in Pitt. Pitt teaches a transfer board positioned between seats and a support surface to allow smooth movement of a patient across seat rows and to maintain support during use. Low-friction transfer boards were well known for assisting patient handling, and incorporating Pitt’s slide board into the Egan in view of Micheau system would require only routine adaptation without changing the functionality of the stretcher itself. The predictable result would be a stretcher system that uses a slide board to ease loading and unloading and to provide support during flight.
In regards to Claim 45, Egan in view of Micheau and further in view of Pitt teaches: The stretcher apparatus according to claim 44, Pitt further teaches, the aircraft stretcher including one or more low-friction slide pads configured to slide on the slide board during loading and unloading of the stretcher (Pitt: "a slide sheet, can be used to provide a low friction surface to assist the movement of the passenger along the transfer platform.").
Egan, Micheau, and Pitt are all considered analogous art because they relate to patient transfer, support, and movement systems used in confined environments such as aircraft. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stretcher of Egan, as informed by Micheau, to further include the low-friction sliding features taught by Pitt, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide reduced friction and easier patient loading and unloading along a slide board.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 52, 53, and 55 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regards to Claim 52 (as best understood by the 112(b) indicted above | nothing that the Examiner has interpreted the Claim as being dependent upon Claim 44), the prior art of Egan (US 20130328361 A2) in view of Micheau (FR 2798842 A1) and further in view of Pitt (WO 2020157456 A1) teaches A stretcher apparatus including the portable aircraft stretcher, yet all references fail to disclose the specified method described in Claim 52. Notably, there is a lack of disclosure from the prior art to discuss (1) loading of the person, (2) transporting the stretcher + person, (3) movement of the user on stretcher along an aircraft aisle, (4) rotating the stretcher in addition to, shifting the stretcher onto a portion of the slideboard.
While the references provide disclosure about a/the stretcher structures and general handling practices, they do not describe or imply the coordinated set of actions required to carry out this sequence. The combination of loading, moving through the aisle, rotating the stretcher, and transferring it onto a slideboard represents a functional method that is not addressed in the disclosures of Egan, Micheau, or Pitt. These operations respond to the particular challenges of working within an aircraft and go beyond the structural descriptions presented by the prior art. The inclusion of the above steps, is considered to define patentably over the cited art because these required steps were not suggested or rendered obvious by the prior art references, either alone or in combination. For these reasons, the method steps included in Claim 52 set the claim apart from the prior art. The Examiner considers these limitations to define subject matter that was neither taught nor made obvious by the cited references, whether considered separately or together, and therefore finds Claim 52 to be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alli (US 20020171009 A1) teaches: A rescue vehicle having a compartment for receiving a movable stretcher having two mushroom-shaped pins located at a front end and a rear end respectively of the stretcher. The compartment has a lateral opening for passage of the stretcher, and which is narrower than the length of the stretcher; a click-on lock unit located at one end of the compartment, such end facing the lateral opening, and for locking a first of the two pins; and a guide unit, which is set back with respect to the lateral opening, is coplanar with the lock unit, and on which a second of the two pins slides during insertion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON EMANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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 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.
/MADISON EMANSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673