Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 1,965,644 to Heffelfinger in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,720,303 to Richardson, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0295721 to Jensen et al.
Claim 7, Heffelfinger discloses a tactical rescue or transfer device comprising: a first panel 6 including a joining edge at one side of the first panel; a second panel 7 including a joining edge at one side of the second panel: a longitudinal fastener including a slider 20, the slider configured to removably couple or decouple the first panel and the second panel via the joining edge of each of the first panel and the second panel; a cord 21 mechanically coupled to the slider; and a plurality of handles defined by cutaway portion 12 along an outer perimeter of the first panel and the second panel upon assembly; wherein the first panel and the second panel are capable adapting to constricted spaces while supporting the weight of a person or object; and the cord is capable of being engaged to pull down the slider and decouple the first panel and the second panel such that the first panel and the second panel capable of being removed from under the person or object such that the person or object passes between the first and second panels. Heffelfinger is silent to handles being flexible. Richardson discloses a device having flexible handles (130,132,134,136,138,140). It
would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the handles disclosed in Richardson with the device of Heffelfinger with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed the device to be easily stored. Heffelfinger is silent to the outer perimeter to receive inflation tubes. Jensen discloses a device having the outer perimeter 120 receiving inflation tubes 130 (fig. 3)[0033]-[0035]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the inflation tubes disclosed in Jensen with the device of Heffelfinger with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided buoyancy and flotation capabilities to a device being moved across a water surface.
Claim 14, Heffelfinger discloses a method comprising positioning and first and second panels such that the joining edge of the first panel is adjacent and parallel to the joining edge of the second panel; engaging the slider upwards from a bottom position via lateral force to interlock the joining edge of each of the first panel and the second panel; placing the person or object on the first panel and the second panel transporting the person or object from a first location to a second location; pulling down the cord to engage the slider downwards until the joining edge of each of the first panel and the second panel are separated; and removing the first panel and the second panel from under the person or object (col. 1 lines 15-48)(col. 2 lines 70-95). With regards to the transfer device of claim 7, determination of patentability is based on the process: itself. The patentability of a method does not depend on the transfer device of claim 7. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 1,965,644 to Heffelfinger in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,720,303 to Richardson, U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0295721 to Jensen et al., and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 3,110,912 to Propst.
Claims 8-9 and 13, Heffelfinger, as modified, discloses the device, but is silent to the device made from a mesh material. Propst discloses a device with a net panel 5 made from a nylon mesh material having a plurality of apertures. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the nylon mesh material disclosed in Propst with the device of Heffelfinger with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have aided in immobilizing a patient and prevent deterioration of body areas having damaged tissue or broken bones (col. 2 lines 16-26).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 1,965,644 to Heffelfinger in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,720,303 to Richardson, U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0295721 to Jensen et al., and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0210511 to Davis.
Claims 10-12, Heffelfinger, as modified, discloses the device, but is silent to a plurality of straps. Davis discloses a device having a plurality of straps (20a,20b) comprising a small and large loop and a plurality of inflatable tubes defined by a mattress defined by top, bottom, and baffle panels (fig. 11-12)[0006][0034][0035]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the plurality of straps and inflatable tubes disclosed in Davis with the device of Heffelfinger with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a support that is capable of being manipulated from anon-planar or supported on a patient lifting device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 1,275,306 to Rosenshine discloses a patient device having an outer perimeter with inflatable tubes.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,621,382 to Burriss et al. discloses a patient transport device having an inflatable perimeter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDRICK C CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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 C. 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.
/FREDRICK C CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673