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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and vertical arranged with respect to the base element” should read “and vertically arranged with respect to the base element”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 two extensions of the link element (emphasis added) must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 12 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the two extensions of the link element". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “crossed” in claim 12 appears to mean “the endpoints of a U-shape (parallel objects) overlapping in a side view” while the accepted meaning is “two non-parallel objects overlapping in a view” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Mimura (JP H1148704).
Regarding claim 1, Mimura teaches a frame 33 with wheels 1 and a braking system 6 for a patient carrier apparatus (Paragraphs 1 and 17, Figs. 5-6), wherein the frame 33 comprises a front, a back, a first side, and a second side (Fig. 6; the frame 33 extends into four corners of the apparatus, indicating a front, back, and first and second sides), wherein the wheels 1 are arranged with the frame 33 (Paragraph 34, Figs. 5-6),
wherein the braking system 6 comprises an actuator 43 arranged to cooperate with a brake arrangement arranged to apply a braking motion against the wheels 1 (Paragraphs 37-38, Figs. 6-7), and
wherein the braking system comprises a first link element 31, 38 (Paragraphs 31 and 35; the wire 31 and its connection wire 38 are the first link element), wherein a first end of the first link element 31 is arranged to cooperate with a first break arrangement 27 arranged to apply a braking motion against a first wheel 1 and wherein a second end of the first link element 38 is arranged to cooperate with a second break arrangement 27 arranged to apply a braking motion against a second wheel 1 (Paragraphs 31-32, Figs. 4-7).
Regarding the limitation of “for a patient carrier apparatus”, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent). The limitation of “for a patient carrier apparatus” is an intended use claim.
Regarding claim 2, Mimura teaches wherein the braking system comprises a second link element 31, 38 (Paragraphs 31 and 35, Fig., 6; the connection wire 38 and the wire 31 for braking are provided in two distinct assemblies shown in the figure)
Regarding claim 3, Mimura teaches wherein a first end of the second link element 31, 38 is arranged to cooperate with a third brake arrangement 27 arranged to apply a braking motion against a third wheel 1, and a second end of the second link element 31, 38 is arranged to cooperate with a fourth brake arrangement 27 arranged to apply a braking motion against a fourth wheel 1 (Paragraphs 31-34 and 34, Figs. 4-7; all four of the wheels [left, right, front and rear] have the braking arrangement with the linking wires).
Regarding claim 4, Mimura teaches wherein the first link element 31, 38 and the second link element 31, 38, between their respective first end and the second end, comprises a respective first and second cooperation area 34 and which each is arranged to cooperate with the actuator 43 (Paragraphs 33 and 37, Fig. 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura in view of Mimura.
Regarding claim 5, Mimura teaches wherein the actuator 43 is arranged with a base element 32 and which base element 32 is arranged to the middle of the frame (Paragraph 33, Fig. 6).
Mimura does not teach the base element arranged to the front of the frame. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the base element towards a front of the frame, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. This would advantageously position the actuator towards a front of the frame, where a user can easily access it.
Regarding claim 6, Mimura as modified teaches wherein the base element 32 is arranged with a first guide element 36 and a second guide element 36 for guiding the cooperation area of the first link element 31, 38 and the second link element 31, 38 to cooperate with the actuator 43 (Paragraphs 36-38, Fig. 6; the cooperation area is the area of base element 32 where the arm 44 presses against wire 41 to exert force on the link elements; the link elements on both sides of the frame are guided towards this cooperation area by the guide elements 36).
Regarding claim 7, Mimura as modified teaches wherein the respective first and second guide element 36 is arranged along a respective first and second side edge of the base element 32 (Fig. 6) and vertically arranged with respect to the base element 32 (Fig. 6; the base element and the guide elements overlap in a vertical view and are thereby arranged vertically with respect to each other), and angled with respect to the respective side edges extensions (Fig. 6; the outer surface of the guide elements 36 angles the link elements away from a parallel relationship with the side edges extensions).
Regarding claim 8, Mimura as modified teaches wherein the first guide element is arranged at closer distance to a front of the frame compared to the second guide element (Fig. 6; the four guide elements 36 are disposed at four corners of the base element 32; at least one is closer to a front of the frame when compared to another).
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura in view of Mimura and further in view of Tzschoppe (DE 3900312).
Regarding claim 9, Mimura as modified does not teach a turn member.
However, Tzschoppe teaches a braking system for a mobile X-ray chassis wherein an actuator 8 is arranged with a turn member 15 and cooperates with a first and the second link element 18, 19 (Paragraph 22, Figs. 3-4 of Tzschoppe).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified braking system of Mimura to have the turn member of Tzschoppe cooperate with the link elements of the modified braking system of Mimura in order to advantageously make the chassis have low rolling resistance and good maneuverability while having steering and braking capabilities (Abstract of Tzschoppe).
Regarding claim 10, Mimura as modified teaches wherein the turn member comprises a first groove element and a second groove element.
While Mimura on its own does not teach “the turn member comprises a first groove element and a second groove element”, the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the groove elements of a pair of groove wheels (elements 35 of Mimura) being provided on the turn member (element 15 of Tzschoppe) so that the turn member comprises the two groove elements.
Regarding claim 11, Mimura as modified teaches wherein the groove element is a groove wheel 35 (Paragraph 33; a pulley by nature is a groove wheel with a groove element).
Regarding claim 12, Mimura as modified teaches wherein the link element 31, 38 has a U shape in its extension around the groove wheel 35 and through the guide element 36, and in the extension between the guide element towards the respective brake arrangement are the two extensions of the link element 31, 38 crossed with respect to each other (See 112 rejection above; an extension of the link element on each side of the U-shape it forms when surrounding the guide element 36 crosses the opposite extension when viewed from the side).
Mimura as modified does not teach the guide element having guide holes.
However, Mimura teaches wherein guide holes can be used to direct the wires of the braking system towards the actuator (Paragraph 31, Figs. 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified braking system of Mimura/Tzschoppe by substituting guide holes for the guiding pulleys and the results of this substitution would have been predictable and advantageously directed the link elements towards the cooperation area without the need to manufacture additional pulleys.
Regarding claim 13, Mimura as modified teaches wherein the link element 31, 38 is a wire (Paragraph 35, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Mimura as modified teaches wherein the turn member is arranged for positioning between a brake position and a release position, which change of the position from either brake position to release position, or from release position to brake position, is a one movement of the turn member which affects all brake arrangements simultaneously (Paragraphs 37-38, Fig. 6 of Mimura; Paragraphs 22-23, Fig. 4 of Tzschoppe).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura in view of Shih (US 20130160237).
Regarding claim 15, Mimura teaches wherein the braking system comprises a remote control means 7 (Paragraph 33), but does not expressly teach a control unit as claimed.
However, Shih teaches brake mechanism for a patient carrier apparatus ([0001] of Shih) comprising a control unit 80 which is arranged remotely from a braking actuator 30 and which control unit 80 is arranged to communicate with the actuator 30 ([0042] and [0052]-[0054], Fig. 10 of Shih).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the braking system of Mimura to have a remote actuation system as Shih teaches in order to advantageously control the braking quickly and in a convenient manner ([0012] of Shih).
Regarding claim 16, Mimura as modified teaches wherein the control unit comprises a transmitter and is arranged to communicate wireless with a receiver arranged with the actuator ([0042] and [0052]-[0054], Fig. 10 of Shih).
Regarding claim 17, Mimura teaches the apparatus being for caster mounted furniture or the like.
Mimura does not expressly teach a patient carrier apparatus comprising the frame.
However, Shih teaches wherein a patient carrier apparatus can be provided with a caster braking mechanism ([0001] of Shih).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the braking system of Mimura on a patient carrier apparatus as Shih teaches in order to advantageously meet market and consumer requirements ([0001]-[0002] of Shih).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20120311821 teaches a caster system with linking members for braking operations.
US 20110101636 teaches a mobile appliance brake actuation system.
DE 102006014699 teaches a wired braking system with guide members.
CN 201062048 teaches a braking apparatus for a carrier with linking wires between an actuator and wheels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 pm 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, John Olszewski can be reached at 5712722706. 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.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/TIMOTHY WILHELM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights