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 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 04/01/2025 has been acknowledged by the Office.
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 “an outside edge of the first longitudinally extending arm” and “an outside edge of the second longitudinally extending arm” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim(s) 9 and 19 state: “wherein an upper support surface of the patient platform is substantially horizontally flush with upper surfaces of the arms of the frame.”, however, to be consistent with previously claimed limitations, the following amendments are suggested to provide clarity and confirm that there are not new ‘arms’ being claimed.
Claim 9: “… wherein an upper support surface of the patient platform is substantially horizontally flush with upper surfaces of the longitudinally extending arms of the frame.”
Claim 19: “… wherein an upper support surface of the patient platform is substantially horizontally flush with upper surfaces of the first and second longitudinally extending arms of the frame.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5, 7, 9, 12-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barr et al., hereinafter 'Barr' (US 8561226 B1) in view of Roberts (US 20070220672 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Barr teaches: A gurney (10 - Fig. 1) configured to enable patient transfer without requiring lateral transfer (Figs. 3-8), comprising: a frame (12 - Fig. 1); a base (Col 2 Lines 45-48 and Col 2 Lines 59-64) connected to the frame by way of [[an adjustment mechanism, the adjustment mechanism being configured to adjust a height of the frame relative to the base;]] and a patient platform detachably supported by the frame (14 - Fig. 1, shown detachable in Figs. 1 and 2) and configured to detach from the frame (Fig. 2 shown detachable and Fig. 8 showing the fully detachable and placed on the MRI transfer table), the patient platform having an upper end (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Barr), a lower end (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Barr), and a longitudinal length therebetween (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Barr), wherein the frame comprises longitudinally extending arms that are laterally spaced apart from one another (36 and 38 - Fig. 1) and are configured to support the patient platform therebetween (Fig. 1), wherein the frame is configured to (i) contact and support a central section of the patient platform disposed between the upper end and lower end of the patient platform (Fig. 1.2 from Barr indicates a central section), and (ii) contact and support at least 70% of a perimeter edge along at least one longitudinally extending side of the patient platform (Fig. 1.2 from Barr indicates that the longitudinally extending sides along a perimeter edge contact and support at least 70%).
PNG
media_image1.png
425
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.1 from Barr
PNG
media_image2.png
437
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.2 from Barr
Roberts teaches: an adjustment mechanism, the adjustment mechanism being configured to adjust a height of the frame relative to the base (Para 0020: "Each leg member 26 includes an adjustable foot 28 to permit adjustment of the elevation of the track section 18 to accommodate uneven ground.");
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Barr to include an adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a height of the frame relative to the base as taught by Roberts, since adjustable height mechanisms are well known in patient support devices and would have predictably improved usability and adaptability to varying surfaces and clinical environments.
In regards to Claim 2, Barr in view of Roberts teaches: The gurney of claim 1, Barr further teaches, wherein the frame contacts and supports the central section of the platform (see annotated Fig. 1.2 from Barr showing the frame contacts and supports the central section of the platform) such that a center of mass of a patient lying thereon is directly supported by the frame (Col 3 Lines 33-36, further noting Col 1 Lines 58-67 to allow for the patient to rest and be transferred on the frame).
In regards to Claim 3, Barr in view of Roberts teaches: The gurney of claim 1, Barr further teaches, wherein the frame contacts and supports at least 70% of a perimeter edge (see annotated Fig. 1.3 from Barr) of a first longitudinally extending side of the patient platform (see annotated Fig. 1.3 from Barr) and at least 70% of a perimeter edge (see annotated Fig. 1.3 from Barr) of a second longitudinally extending side of the patient platform (see annotated Fig. 1.3 from Barr).
PNG
media_image3.png
432
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.3 from Barr
In regards to Claim 4, Barr in view of Roberts teaches: The gurney of claim 1, Barr further teaches, wherein the frame does not obstruct the upper end of the patient platform (see annotated Fig. 1.4 from Barr).
PNG
media_image4.png
332
666
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.4 from Barr
In regards to Claim 5, Barr in view of Roberts teaches: The gurney of claim 1, Barr further teaches, wherein the base includes two opposing, longitudinally extending base members (20 and 22 - Fig. 1) that are laterally spaced apart from one another (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Barr).
In regards to Claim 7, Barr in view of Roberts teaches: The gurney of claim 1, Barr further teaches, wherein the gurney is constructed of non-ferrous materials and is compatible in an MRI environment (Col 3 Lines 7-14, noting that a portion is disclosed as non-metallic material and compatible in an MRI environment shown in Figure 8, noting Col 2 Lines 23-24).
In regards to Claim 9, Barr in view of Roberts teaches: The gurney of claim 1, Barr further teaches, wherein an upper support surface of the patient platform (see annotated Fig. 1a.1 from Barr) is substantially horizontally flush with upper surfaces of the arms of the frame (see annotated Fig. 1a.1 from Barr).
PNG
media_image5.png
487
740
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1a.1 from Barr
In regards to Claim 12, Barr teaches: A gurney (10 - Fig. 1) configured to enable patient transfer without requiring lateral transfer (Figs. 3-8), comprising: a frame (12 - Fig. 1); a base (Col 2 Lines 45-48 and Col 2 Lines 59-64) connected to the frame by way of [[an adjustment mechanism, the adjustment mechanism being configured to adjust a height of the frame relative to the base;]] and a patient platform detachably supported by the frame (14 - Fig. 1, shown detachable in Figs. 1 and 2) and configured to detach from the frame (Fig. 2 shown detachable and Fig. 8 showing the fully detachable and placed on the MRI transfer table), the patient platform having an upper end (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Barr), a lower end (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Barr), and a longitudinal length therebetween (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Barr), wherein the frame comprises first and second longitudinally extending arms that are laterally spaced apart from one another (36 and 38 - Fig. 1) and are configured to support the patient platform therebetween (Fig. 1), wherein a width from an outside edge of the first longitudinally extending arm (see annotated Fig. 1.4 from Barr) to an outside edge of the second longitudinally extending arm (see annotated Fig. 1.4 from Barr)is greater than a width of the patient platform (see annotated Fig. 1.4 from Barr), wherein the frame is configured to (i) contact and support a central section of the patient platform disposed between the upper end and lower end of the patient platform (see annotated Fig. 1.2 and 1.1 from Barr, respectively showing central section and upper and lower end locations), and (ii) contact and support both longitudinally extending sides of the patient platform (see annotated Fig. 1.2 from Barr).
Barr does not explicitly teach: an adjustment mechanism, the adjustment mechanism being configured to adjust a height of the frame relative to the base;
Roberts teaches: an adjustment mechanism, the adjustment mechanism being configured to adjust a height of the frame relative to the base;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Barr to include an adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a height of the frame relative to the base as taught by Roberts, since adjustable height mechanisms are well known in patient support devices and would have predictably improved usability and adaptability to varying surfaces and clinical environments.
In regards to Claim 13, Barr in view of Roberts teaches: The gurney of claim 12, Barr further teaches, wherein the frame contacts and supports the central section of the platform (see annotated Fig. 1.2 from Barr showing the frame contacts and supports the central section of the platform) such that a center of mass of a patient lying thereon is directly supported by the frame (Col 3 Lines 33-36, further noting Col 1 Lines 58-67 to allow for the patient to rest and be transferred on the frame).
In regards to Claim 14, Barr in view of Roberts teaches: The gurney of claim 12, Barr further teaches, wherein the frame contacts and supports at least 70% of a perimeter edge of a first longitudinally extending side of the patient platform and at least 70% of a perimeter edge of the second longitudinally extending side of the patient platform (Fig. 1.2 from Barr indicates that the longitudinally extending sides along a perimeter edge contact and support at least 70% along either side).
In regards to Claim 15, Barr in view of Roberts teaches: The gurney of claim 12, Barr further teaches, wherein the frame does not obstruct the upper end of the patient platform (see annotated Fig. 1.4 from Barr).
In regards to Claim 16, Barr in view of Roberts teaches: The gurney of claim 12, Barr further teaches, wherein the base includes two opposing, longitudinally extending base members that are laterally spaced apart from one another (36 and 38 - Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 19, Barr in view of Roberts teaches: The gurney of claim 12, Barr further teaches, wherein an upper support surface of the patient platform (see annotated Fig. 1a.1 from Barr) is substantially horizontally flush with upper surfaces of the arms of the frame (see annotated Fig. 1a.1 from Barr).
Claim(s) 6, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘Barr' (US 8561226 B1) in view of Roberts (US 20070220672 A1) and further in view of McKenna (US 20040131159 A1).
In regards to Claim 6, Barr in view of Roberts teaches: The gurney of claim 5, Barr nor Roberts do not explicitly teach, wherein a span between the two opposing base members is at least about 20 inches.
McKenna teaches: wherein a span between the two opposing base members is at least about 20 inches (Para 0035: "According to one exemplary embodiment, the upper base 218 has a length "l" equal to about 38 inches and a width "w" equal to about 6 inches, while the pallet 222 has a length "L" equal to about 80 inches and a width "W" equal to about 30 inches.", noting that in Fig. 3 showing an end elevation view the table and the lower base are of a similar width dimension).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gurney of Barr as combined with Roberts to provide a span between opposing base members of at least about 20 inches as taught by McKenna, as such dimensional spacing represents a routine design choice that accommodates stability and patient support requirements.
In regards to Claim 11, Barr in view of Roberts teaches: The gurney of claim 1, Barr nor Roberts do not explicitly teach, wherein the frame is adjustable into a reverse Trendelenburg position or into a Trendelenburg position.
McKenna teaches: wherein the frame is adjustable into a reverse Trendelenburg position or into a Trendelenburg position (Fig. 5 and noting Para 0031: "a flat, horizontal position as shown in FIG. 4, and a Trendelenburg position shown in FIG. 5, where a patient's feet are raised above the patient's head, or the patient's head is raised above the patient's feet.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the gurney of Barr as combined with Roberts to be adjustable into Trendelenburg and reverse Trendelenburg positions as taught by McKenna, since such positioning capabilities are commonly employed in medical support devices to facilitate patient care and clinical procedures.
In regards to Claim 17, Barr in view of Roberts teaches: The gurney of claim 16, Barr nor Roberts do not explicitly teach, wherein a span between the two opposing base members is at least about 20 inches.
McKenna teaches: wherein a span between the two opposing base members is at least about 20 inches (Para 0035: "According to one exemplary embodiment, the upper base 218 has a length "l" equal to about 38 inches and a width "w" equal to about 6 inches, while the pallet 222 has a length "L" equal to about 80 inches and a width "W" equal to about 30 inches.", noting that in Fig. 3 showing an end elevation view the table and the lower base are of a similar width dimension).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gurney of Barr as combined with Roberts to provide a span between opposing base members of at least about 20 inches as taught by McKenna, as such dimensional spacing represents a routine design choice that accommodates stability and patient support requirements.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Barr' (US 8561226 B1) in view of Roberts (US 20070220672 A1) and further in view of Patterson et al., hereinafter 'Patterson' (US 8359683 B1).
In regards to Claim 8, Barr in view of Roberts teaches: The gurney of claim 1, Barr nor Roberts do not explicitly teach, wherein the frame includes a scale for weighing a patient.
Patterson teaches: wherein the frame includes a scale for weighing a patient (Col 9 Lines 33-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gurney of Barr as combined with Roberts to include a scale for weighing a patient as taught by Patterson, as integrating weighing functionality into patient transport devices is a known practice that yields predictable clinical benefits.
In regards to Claim 18, Barr in view of Roberts teaches: The gurney of claim 12, Barr nor Roberts do not explicitly teach, wherein the frame includes a scale for weighing a patient.
Patterson teaches: wherein the frame includes a scale for weighing a patient (Col 9 Lines 33-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gurney of Barr as combined with Roberts to include a scale for weighing a patient as taught by Patterson, as integrating weighing functionality into patient transport devices is a known practice that yields predictable clinical benefits.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Barr' (US 8561226 B1) in view of Roberts (US 20070220672 A1) and further in view of Heimbrock (US 6266831 B1).
In regards to Claim 10, Barr in view of Roberts teaches: The gurney of claim 1, Barr nor Roberts do not explicitly teach, wherein the patient platform includes opposing tracks disposed on a reverse side of the patient platform, the tracks being spaced apart so as to fit an x-ray cassette therebetween.
Heimbrock teaches: wherein the patient platform includes opposing tracks disposed on a reverse side of the patient platform (50 and 52 - Fig. 1), the tracks being spaced apart so as to fit an x-ray cassette therebetween (220 - Fig. 1, Col 5 Line 65 - Col 6 Line 8 - shown to fit therebetween in Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gurney of Barr as combined with Roberts to include opposing tracks on a reverse side of the patient platform for receiving an x-ray cassette as taught by Heimbrock, since such track arrangements are well known and facilitate imaging without requiring patient transfer.
In regards to Claim 20, Barr in view of Roberts teaches: The gurney of claim 12, Barr nor Roberts do not explicitly teach, wherein the patient platform includes opposing tracks disposed on a reverse side of the patient platform, the tracks being spaced apart so as to fit an x-ray cassette therebetween.
Heimbrock teaches: wherein the patient platform includes opposing tracks disposed on a reverse side of the patient platform (50 and 52 - Fig. 1), the tracks being spaced apart so as to fit an x-ray cassette therebetween (220 - Fig. 1, Col 5 Line 65 - Col 6 Line 8 - shown to fit therebetween in Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gurney of Barr as combined with Roberts to include opposing tracks on a reverse side of the patient platform for receiving an x-ray cassette as taught by Heimbrock, since such track arrangements are well known and facilitate imaging without requiring patient transfer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sales (US-20200337917-A1) teaches: A gurney transfer assist device for a helicopter has a fixed height frame supporting a slidably movable bed deck frame. The fixed height frame is releasably secured to a known wheeled gurney. The fixed height dimension raises a carried stretcher to a vertical height to allow transfer to and/or from a medical helicopter loading surface. The slidably movable bed deck frame is extendable outwardly from one end of the fixed height frame and the extending end is angulated to facilitate transfer of the stretcher and supported patient to/from the helicopter loading surface.
Bridge (US 20110145991 A1) teaches: A removable pallet configured to be mounted to a patient table. The patient table has a table surface adapted to support patients thereon during a medical procedure or imaging session. The removable pallet includes a support body having a runway configured to slidably engage a transfer board carrying a patient. The support body extends along a longitudinal axis and is configured to be mounted over the table surface of the patient table. The removable pallet also includes a coupling device that is configured to removably couple the support body and the patient table. The coupling device secures the support body over the table surface to permit the transfer board to be moved onto the patient table.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON MATTHEWS 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 MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673