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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-18 are pending in this application. This communication is the first action on its merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 11/7/2024 has been considered by the office.
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 1-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cagner (US 20220273510 A1) in view of Lindqvist (US 20200337921 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Cagner discloses a patient transfer device (patient transfer device 1) for transferring a patient placed on a sheet or mattress from a first surface to a receiving surface (“for transferring a patient placed on a movable sheet from a first surface to a receiving surface”; [0007]), wherein the patient transfer device comprises: at least one retractable pulling wire (wire 9); a pulling arrangement (frame 2) comprising a motor (motor 3) operatively connected to a rotatable wire bobbin (See Fig. 1, motor 3 connected to two bobbins 8) so as to allow retraction of the pulling wire by operating the motor and rotating the wire bobbin and thereby winding up the pulling wire around the wire bobbin (See Fig. 1-2, motor drives the bobbins resulting in winding up wire around said bobbins); a holder arrangement (sheet holding arrangement 10) configured to hold the sheet/mattress when moving the sheet/mattress and thereby transferring the patient placed thereon (sheet holding arrangements configured to hold sheet); wherein the holder arrangement comprises a holder element to which the pulling wire is attached (See Fig. 1, “sheet holding arrangement 10 comprises a first elongated member that is releasably connected to a second elongated member, which in turn is fixedly attached to the two ends of the wire 9”; [0023]), wherein the pulling arrangement (retractable pulling members 7) is configured to retract the pulling wire and thus move the holder arrangement and the holder element towards the pulling arrangement so as to, when the holder arrangement is arranged to hold the sheet/mattress, move the sheet/mattress towards the pulling arrangement and thereby transfer the patient placed on the sheet/mattress from the first surface to the receiving surface (See Para. [0007], wherein the pulling members are described to achieve retracting the wire 9 to pull the sheet towards the pulling members and in turn pull the sheet and transfer the patient), wherein the patient transfer device comprises a wire guide (See Fig. 2, pad 11) configured to guide the pulling wire towards the wire bobbin when the pulling wire is retracted (See Fig. 2, wire 9 is guided through pad 11 to bobbin 8), wherein the wire guide is arranged to define a wire path having a path entrance facing the holder arrangement and a path exit facing the wire bobbin (See Fig. 2, wire 9 has both a path exit and entrance through pad 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
488
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cagner fails to explicitly disclose wherein the wire path comprises a widening portion at the path exit, wherein the widening portion comprises an increasing width and/or height of the wire path in a direction along the wire path and towards the path exit so as to allow the pulling wire to be directed in different angles corresponding to different positions of a longitudinal axis of the wire bobbin while avoid rubbing the pulling wire against a sharp edge at the path exit when the pulling wire is retracted and wind up around the wire bobbin.
However, Lindqvist teaches wherein the wire path comprises a widening portion at the path exit (See Fig. 1 and 7, guide pulley 42 at slot 46), wherein the widening portion comprises an increasing width and/or height of the wire path in a direction along the wire path (See Fig. 1 and 7, guide pulley 42 increases width of the path in a direction along the path) and towards the path exit so as to allow the pulling wire to be directed in different angles corresponding to different positions of a longitudinal axis of the wire bobbin while avoid rubbing the pulling wire against a sharp edge at the path exit when the pulling wire is retracted and wind up around the wire bobbin (See Fig. 1 and 7, guide pulley 42 prevents rubbing of belt 40).
PNG
media_image3.png
680
432
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
490
428
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Cagner by adding the widening guide pulley taught by Lindqvist. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “avoid possibility of entanglement”; (Lindqvist, [0069]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, Cagner, as modified, teaches the patient transfer device (patient transfer device 1) according to claim 1, wherein the longitudinal axis of the wire bobbin extends in a substantially horizontal direction and in a direction substantially perpendicular to a general direction of the wire path (See Fig. 1, wire 9 extends out perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the bobbin 8).
Cagner fails to explicitly teach wherein the widening portion at the path exit comprises an increasing width of the wire path in a direction along the wire path and towards the path exit.
However, Lindqvist teaches wherein the widening portion at the path exit comprises an increasing width of the wire path in a direction along the wire path and towards the path exit (See Fig. 1 and 7, guide pulley 42 increases width of the path in a direction along the path and towards path exit).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Cagner by adding the widening guide pulley taught by Lindqvist. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “avoid possibility of entanglement”; (Lindqvist, [0069]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 3, Cagner, as modified, teaches the patient transfer device (patient transfer device 1) according to claim 2, wherein the wire bobbin is located at a lower level than the path exit (See Fig. 1, bobbin 8 located at a lower level than the path exit of wire 9), and wherein the wire path comprises a downwardly directed portion at the path exit so as to allow the pulling wire to be directed at an angle downwards towards the wire bobbin (See Fig. 1, wire 9 directed downwards towards bobbin 8) while avoid rubbing the pulling wire against a horizontally directed edge at the path exit when the pulling wire is retracted and wind up around the wire bobbin (See Fig. 2, absorbent member 15 and slit 18 prevent rubbing).
Regarding Claim 4, Cagner, as modified, teaches the patient transfer device (patient transfer device 1) according to claim 1.
Cagner fails to explicitly teach wherein the wire guide comprises a wheel arranged at the path exit, wherein the wheel is provided with a wire guiding recess that extends circumferentially at an outer side of the wheel and forms part of the wire path, and wherein a width of the wire guiding recess increases with an increasing distance from a center point of the wheel.
However, Lindqvist teaches wherein the wire guide comprises a wheel arranged at the path exit (See Fig. 1 and 7, guide pulley 42 at slot 46), wherein the wheel is provided with a wire guiding recess that extends circumferentially at an outer side of the wheel and forms part of the wire path, and wherein a width of the wire guiding recess increases with an increasing distance from a center point of the wheel (See Fig. 7, guide pulley 42 extends circumferentially at an outer side of the pulley and the width of the recess increases when moving away from the center most point).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Cagner by adding the wheel guide pulley taught by Lindqvist. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “avoid possibility of entanglement”; (Lindqvist, [0069]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 5, Cagner, as modified, teaches the patient transfer device (patient transfer device 1) according to claim 1, wherein the wire guide comprises a cylindrical element surrounding the wire path along a longitudinal direction thereof (See Fig. 2, pad 11 comprises hole 13 and 21 surrounding path of wire 9).
Regarding Claim 7, Cagner, as modified, teaches the patient transfer device (patient transfer device 1) according to claim 5, wherein the cylindrical element has an elongated opening that extends along the entire cylindrical element so as to allow removal and replacement of the pulling wire from/to the cylindrical element without having to pass an end of the pulling wire through the cylindrical element (See Fig. 2, slit 14 of hole 13 of pad 11 allows for removal of wire without pulling through the hole 13), preferably the elongated opening comprises a plurality of sections that extend in different directions.
Regarding Claim 8, Cagner, as modified, teaches the patient transfer device (patient transfer device 1) according to claim 1, wherein the wire guide is arranged on a casing of the pulling arrangement (See Fig. 1, pad 11 is arranged on casing 4 of frame 2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cagner (US 20220273510 A1) in view of Lindqvist (US 20200337921 A1), further in view of Zilver (US 3633646 A).
Regarding Claim 6, Cagner, as modified, teaches the patient transfer device (patient transfer device 1) according to claim 5, wherein the cylindrical element is open at the path entrance towards the holder element (See Fig. 2, hole 21 is open).
Cagner in view of Lindqvist fails to explicitly teach a funnel-shaped entrance part adapted to a corresponding cone-shaped end part of the holder element so as to receive and enclose the coned-shaped end part of the holder element when the pulling wire is fully retracted.
However, Zilver teaches a funnel-shaped entrance part adapted to a corresponding cone-shaped end part of the holder element so as to receive and enclose the coned-shaped end part of the holder element when the pulling wire is fully retracted (See Fig. 3, second member 23 has a bore to receive conical member 19 when cords 4 and 5 are retracted).
PNG
media_image5.png
336
188
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Cagner in view of Lindqvist by adding the funnel and cone shape members taught by Zilver. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “substantially mate the external configuration of conical member 19”; (Zilver, [Col. 2, Lines 8-9]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cagner (US 20220273510 A1) in view of Lindqvist (US 20200337921 A1), further in view of Kauss (US 20220142836 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Cagner, as modified, teaches the patient transfer device (patient transfer device 1) according to claim 1.
Cagner in view of Lindqvist fails to explicitly teach wherein the pulling arrangement is provided with a proximity sensor configured to detect whether the holder element has reached an end position at or close to the pulling arrangement, preferably the patient transfer device is provided with a control circuitry configured to control operation of the motor in dependence of a sensor signal received from the proximity sensor, wherein the control circuitry is configured to stop operation of the motor when receiving a sensor signal that indicates that the holder element has reached the end position.
However, Kauss teaches wherein the pulling arrangement is provided with a proximity sensor (See Fig. 14, 16-18, proximity sensors 199) configured to detect whether the holder element has reached an end position at or close to the pulling arrangement (“magnet 6 is at a location such that the proximity sensor 199 senses proximity of the magnet 6 when the connection line 5A, 5B in in an “upright position”; [0089], upright position is an end position), preferably the patient transfer device is provided with a control circuitry (proximity sensor circuitry 369) configured to control operation of the motor in dependence of a sensor signal received from the proximity sensor, wherein the control circuitry is configured to stop operation of the motor when receiving a sensor signal that indicates that the holder element has reached the end position (See para. [0103], apparatus reaches an “End” position wherein sensors communicate to the motor 110 via circuitry 369 to turn the motor off and lock the connection lines 5 in place).
PNG
media_image6.png
524
638
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
484
684
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
434
696
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Cagner in view of Lindqvist by adding the sensors and circuitry taught by Kauss. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “measure a position and speed of the motor”; (Kauss, [0083]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 10, Cagner, as modified, teaches the patient transfer device (patient transfer device 1) according to claim 9.
Cagner in view of Lindqvist fails to explicitly teach wherein the proximity sensor is configured to sense presence or changes in an electromagnetic field or a beam of electromagnetic radiation.
However, Kauss teaches wherein the proximity sensor is configured to sense presence or changes in an electromagnetic field or a beam of electromagnetic radiation (“proximity sensor 199 can detect proximity of the magnet 6”; [0084]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Cagner in view of Lindqvist by adding the sensors and magnets taught by Kauss. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “measure a position and speed of the motor”; (Kauss, [0083]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 11, Cagner, as modified, teaches the patient transfer device (patient transfer device 1) according to claim 9.
Cagner in view of Lindqvist fails to explicitly teach wherein the proximity sensor is configured to sense presence or changes in a magnetic field, such as a Hall effect sensor, and wherein the holder element is provided with a magnet.
However, Kauss teaches wherein the proximity sensor is configured to sense presence or changes in a magnetic field, such as a Hall effect sensor (“proximity sensor 199 is a Hall effect sensor”; [0077]), and wherein the holder element is provided with a magnet (“magnet that is attached to connection line 5”; [0077]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Cagner in view of Lindqvist by adding the Hall sensors and magnets taught by Kauss. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “measure a position and speed of the motor”; (Kauss, [0083]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 12, Cagner, as modified, teaches the patient transfer device (patient transfer device 1) according to claim 9.
Cagner in view of Lindqvist fails to explicitly teach wherein the proximity sensor is arranged in connection to the wire guide.
However, Kauss teaches wherein the proximity sensor is arranged in connection to the wire guide (See Fig. 16, sensor 199 arranged on slot 139 where line 5 passes through).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Cagner in view of Lindqvist by adding the sensors positioned on the slot as taught by Kauss. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “sense proximity of the magnet”; (Kauss, [0083]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 13, Cagner, as modified, teaches the patient transfer device (patient transfer device 1) according to claim 9.
Cagner in view of Lindqvist fails to explicitly teach wherein the proximity sensor protrudes through a hole in a casing of the pulling arrangement so as to be positioned at least partly above an upper surface of the casing, preferably the wire guide is arranged on top of and around the proximity sensor, wherein the wire guide on its lower side is provided with a recess configured to give room for and house the protruding part of the proximity sensor.
However, Kauss teaches wherein the proximity sensor protrudes through a hole in a casing of the pulling arrangement so as to be positioned at least partly above an upper surface of the casing (See Fig. 14, sensor 199 sits within slot 139 positioned above front wall 134), preferably the wire guide is arranged on top of and around the proximity sensor (outer cover 137), wherein the wire guide on its lower side is provided with a recess configured to give room for and house the protruding part of the proximity sensor (See Fig. 14, slot 139 acts as a recess for sensor 199).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Cagner in view of Lindqvist by positioning the sensor as taught by Kauss. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “sense proximity of the magnet”; (Kauss, [0083]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cagner (US 20220273510 A1) in view of Lindqvist (US 20200337921 A1), further in view Engel (US 4529240 A).
Regarding Claim 14, Cagner, as modified, teaches the patient transfer device (patient transfer device 1) according to claim.
Cagner in view of Lindqvist fails to explicitly teach wherein the holder arrangement comprises a stop arrangement configured to hold a first end of the pulling wire in place with respect to the holder element, and wherein the holder element encapsulates the stop arrangement, preferably the stop arrangement comprises a ferrule arranged around the pulling wire, wherein the ferrule is clamped onto the pulling wire so as to be firmly attached thereto, and wherein the ferrule, at least over a part of its length, has a diameter that is larger than that of a first aperture.
However, Engel teaches wherein the holder arrangement comprises a stop arrangement (ferrule 19) configured to hold a first end of the pulling wire in place with respect to the holder element (See Fig. 5, “end of the wire rope is held tightly within the sleeve”; [Col. 2, Lines 8-9]), and wherein the holder element encapsulates the stop arrangement (See Fig. 5, ferrule 19 sits within metal block 12), preferably the stop arrangement comprises a ferrule arranged around the pulling wire (See Fig. 5, ferrule 19), wherein the ferrule is clamped onto the pulling wire so as to be firmly attached thereto (See Fig. 5, “end of the wire rope is held tightly within the sleeve”; [Col. 2, Lines 8-9]), and wherein the ferrule, at least over a part of its length, has a diameter that is larger than that of a first aperture (See Fig. 5, ferrule 19 is larger than hole 15).
PNG
media_image9.png
278
406
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Cagner in view of Lindqvist by adding the ferrule taught by Engel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the “end of the wire rope is held tightly within the sleeve”; (Engel, [Col. 2, Lines 8-9]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 15, Cagner, as modified, teaches the patient transfer device (patient transfer device 1) according to claim 14.
Cagner in view of Lindqvist fails to explicitly teach wherein the holder element is provided with the first, and second and third apertures, wherein the stop arrangement is arranged inside the holder element at the first aperture, wherein the pulling wire extends out from the holder element via the first aperture and back into the holder element via the second aperture so as to form a loop outside of the holder element between the first and second apertures, wherein the pulling wire extends out from the holder element via the third aperture and further towards the pulling arrangement, and wherein the pulling wire is free to move in relation to the holder element between the second and third aperture so that the loop of the wire is tightened or decreased when pulling the pulling wire out from the third aperture and so that the loop of the pulling wire is loosened or increased when pulling the pulling wire out from the second aperture.
However, Engel teaches wherein the holder element is provided with the first (hole 15), and second (hole 14) and third apertures (See Fig. 5, opposite end of hole 14 which extends throughout length of metal block 12), wherein the stop arrangement is arranged inside the holder element at the first aperture (See Fig. 5, ferrule 19 is arranged within sleeved 18 at hole 15), wherein the pulling wire extends out from the holder element via the first aperture and back into the holder element via the second aperture so as to form a loop outside of the holder element between the first and second apertures (See Fig. 5, holes 14 and 15 form loop 13), wherein the pulling wire extends out from the holder element via the third aperture and further towards the pulling arrangement (See Fig. 5, elongated cable 10), and wherein the pulling wire is free to move in relation to the holder element between the second and third aperture so that the loop of the wire is tightened or decreased when pulling the pulling wire out from the third aperture and so that the loop of the pulling wire is loosened or increased when pulling the pulling wire out from the second aperture (See Fig. 5, “wire rope is held tightly within the sleeve while the end extending through hole 14 is formed into a loop and permitted to slide and tighten around any object”, [Col. 2, Lines 8-11]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Cagner in view of Lindqvist by adding the three apertures taught by Engel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the “wire rope is held tightly within the sleeve while the end extending through hole 14 is formed into a loop and permitted to slide and tighten around any object”; (Engel, [Col. 2, Lines 8-11]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 16, Cagner, as modified, teaches the patient transfer device (patient transfer device 1) according to claim 15.
Cagner in view of Lindqvist fails to explicitly teach wherein the holder element comprises a first and a second portion, wherein the first and second apertures are arranged in the first portion, wherein the third aperture is arranged in the second portion, and wherein the first portion is arranged to interconnect with the second portion so that the first and/or the second portion encapsulate the stop arrangement when connected.
However, Engel teaches wherein the holder element comprises a first and a second portion (sleeves 11A and 11B), wherein the first and second apertures are arranged in the first portion (See Fig. 9, holes 16A and 16B), wherein the third aperture is arranged in the second portion (See Fig. 9, opening 18B), and wherein the first portion is arranged to interconnect with the second portion so that the first and/or the second portion encapsulate the stop arrangement when connected (See Fig. 19B, sleeves 11A and 11B joined and ferrules 19A and 19B are nested within).
PNG
media_image10.png
166
254
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Cagner in view of Lindqvist by adding the first and second portions taught by Engel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the “end of the wire rope is held tightly within the sleeve”; (Engel, [Col. 2, Lines 8-9]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 17, Cagner, as modified, teaches the patient transfer device (patient transfer device 1) according to claim 16.
Cagner in view of Lindqvist fails to explicitly teach wherein the holder element is provided with a wire guiding channel through which the pulling wire runs, wherein the wire guiding channel extends between the second and third apertures, and wherein a part of the wire guiding channel is formed by a guiding tube that is connected to the first portion and extends towards the second portion.
However, Engel teaches wherein the holder element is provided with a wire guiding channel through which the pulling wire runs (See Fig. 9, channel 16A), wherein the wire guiding channel extends between the second and third apertures (See Fig. 9, channel 16A having two apertures), and wherein a part of the wire guiding channel is formed by a guiding tube that is connected to the first portion and extends towards the second portion (See Fig. 9, channel 16A is formed by two sleeves 11A and 11B joining).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Cagner in view of Lindqvist by adding the wire guiding channel taught by Engel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “form a continuous cable”; (Engel, [Col. 2, Line 68 – Col. 3, Line 1]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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:
Regarding Claim 18, the prior art of Cagner in view of Lindqvist teaches the patient transfer device (patient transfer device 1). However, Cagner in view of Lindqvist, Zilver, Engel, and Kauss and other prior art of record fails to explicitly teach the specific structure surrounding the holder element comprising a magnet wherein the wire runs through a hole within the magnet, wherein the magnet is inside the second portion of the holder element, facing the first portion, when interconnected.
Therefore, with the prior art failing to disclose the instant invention and an additional search, it is the Examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at and/or claimed this specific combination of features in the designed configuration based on the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20060090258 A1: Stryker discloses a patient transfer device moveable both forward and laterally comprising a clamping and strap assembly to transfer a patient.
US 20030074732 A1: Hanson discloses a patient transfer device configured to transfer a patient laterally by way of a drive motor, extension straps and hooks.
US 9964178 B1: Brewer discloses a wire rope choker cable having a loop at one end formed by a locking ferrule sleeve and three apertures for the cable to pass through.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673