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 a Final Rejection in response to Applicant’s “Amendments/Remarks” filed 05/11/2026. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 02/17/2026 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Drawings
The drawing objections made in the Non-Final Rejection on 05/11/2026 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the figures filed on 05/11/2026.
Specification
The specification objections made in the Non-Final Rejection on 05/11/2026 are withdrawn in light of the specification to the figures filed on 05/11/2026.
Claim Objections
The claim objections made in the Non-Final Rejection on 05/11/2026 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims filed on 05/11/2026.
However, Claim(s) 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 and Claim 12 state (emphasis added): ‘a portion of each longitudinally arm in the longitudinal direction’, yet the limitation is missing the word ‘extending’ with respect to the ‘longitudinally arm’. Modification to include this descriptive limitation is necessary to bring clarity to the claim.
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) and further in view of Hand et al., hereinafter ‘Hand’ (US 6526610 B1).
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), [[each longitudinally extending arm including a ledge disposed on an inner edge and extending along at least a portion of each longitudinally arm in the longitudinal direction, wherein the ledges are configured to support the patient platform therebetween]], 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
Barr does not explicitly teach: an adjustment mechanism, the adjustment mechanism being configured to adjust a height of the frame relative to the base; each longitudinally extending arm including a ledge disposed on an inner edge and extending along at least a portion of each longitudinally arm in the longitudinal direction, wherein the ledges are configured to support the patient platform therebetween
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.
Barr nor Roberts do not explicitly teach: each longitudinally extending arm including a ledge disposed on an inner edge and extending along at least a portion of each longitudinally arm in the longitudinal direction, wherein the ledges are configured to support the patient platform therebetween
Hand teaches: each longitudinally extending arm including a ledge (72, 74 – Fig. 1) disposed on an inner edge and extending along at least a portion of each longitudinally arm in the longitudinal direction (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Hand), wherein the ledges are configured to support the patient platform therebetween (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Hand)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Barr in view of Roberts to include a ledge disposed on an inner edge and extending along at least a portion of each longitudinally {extending} arm configured to adjust a height of the frame relative to the base as taught by Roberts, since supportive surfaces such as ledge(s) are well known in structural components to raise the patient above a surface, provide structural integrity and stabilize the unit to and from transfer, and would further have predictably improved usability and adaptability to varying surfaces and clinical environments because of such stability created through the ledge(s).
PNG
media_image3.png
361
712
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.1 from Hand
In regards to Claim 2, Barr in view of Roberts and further in view of Hand 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 and further in view of Hand 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_image4.png
432
617
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.3 from Barr
In regards to Claim 4, Barr in view of Roberts and further in view of Hand 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_image5.png
332
666
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.4 from Barr
In regards to Claim 5, Barr in view of Roberts and further in view of Hand 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 and further in view of Hand 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 and further in view of Hand 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 longitudinally extending arms of the frame (see annotated Fig. 1a.1 from Barr).
PNG
media_image6.png
487
740
media_image6.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), [[each longitudinally extending arm including a ledge disposed on an inner edge and extending along at least a portion of each longitudinally arm in the longitudinal direction, wherein the ledges are configured to support the patient platform therebetween]], 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; each longitudinally extending arm including a ledge disposed on an inner edge and extending along at least a portion of each longitudinally arm in the longitudinal direction, wherein the ledges are configured to support the patient platform therebetween
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.
Barr nor Roberts do not explicitly teach: each longitudinally extending arm including a ledge disposed on an inner edge and extending along at least a portion of each longitudinally arm in the longitudinal direction, wherein the ledges are configured to support the patient platform therebetween
Hand teaches: each longitudinally extending arm including a ledge (72, 74 – Fig. 1) disposed on an inner edge and extending along at least a portion of each longitudinally arm in the longitudinal direction (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Hand), wherein the ledges are configured to support the patient platform therebetween (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Hand)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Barr in view of Roberts to include a ledge disposed on an inner edge and extending along at least a portion of each longitudinally {extending} arm configured to adjust a height of the frame relative to the base as taught by Roberts, since supportive surfaces such as ledge(s) are well known in structural components to raise the patient above a surface, provide structural integrity and stabilize the unit to and from transfer, and would further have predictably improved usability and adaptability to varying surfaces and clinical environments because of such stability created through the ledge(s).
In regards to Claim 13, Barr in view of Roberts and further in view of Hand 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 and further in view of Hand 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 and further in view of Hand 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 and further in view of Hand 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 and further in view of Hand 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 first and second longitudinally extending 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) in view of Hand (US 6526610 B1) and further in view of McKenna (US 20040131159 A1).
In regards to Claim 6, Barr in view of Roberts and further in view of Hand teaches: The gurney of claim 5, Barr nor Roberts nor Hand 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 and Hand 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 and further in view of Hand teaches: The gurney of claim 1, Barr nor Roberts nor Hand 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 and Hand 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 and further in view of Hand teaches: The gurney of claim 16, Barr nor Roberts nor Hand 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 and Hand 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) in view of Hand (US 6526610 B1) and further in view of Patterson et al., hereinafter 'Patterson' (US 8359683 B1).
In regards to Claim 8, Barr in view of Roberts and further in view of Hand teaches: The gurney of claim 1, Barr nor Roberts nor Hand 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 and Hand 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 and further in view of Hand teaches: The gurney of claim 12, Barr nor Roberts nor Hand 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 and Hand 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) in view of Hand (US 6526610 B1) and further in view of Heimbrock (US 6266831 B1).
In regards to Claim 10, Barr in view of Roberts and further in view of Hand teaches: The gurney of claim 1, Barr nor Roberts nor Hand 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 and Hand 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 and further in view of Hand teaches: The gurney of claim 12, Barr nor Roberts nor Hand 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 and Hand 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filled on 05/11/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. A new ground of rejection is applied using newly cited art. Specifically, the patent of Hand (U.S. Patent No. 6526610 B1) is used in combination with Barr and Roberts to teach or suggest the limitations of Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9, and 12-16. The following is noted by the applicant in their remarks:
Applicant’s Arguments:
Argument #1: “Independent claims 1 and 12 are amended to recite, "each longitudinally extending arm including a ledge disposed on an inner edge and extending along at least a portion of each longitudinally arm in the longitudinal direction, wherein the ledges are configured to support the patient platform therebetween". Applicant respectfully submits the amended claims are patentable over the cited references. 1. Barr does not teach or suggest the gurney system as claimed. As illustrated in Figure la of Barr, reproduced below, Barr teaches a connector-based system in which the patient support 14 is secured to the frame via a series of connectors 16 that include pins that are inserted/retracted from the apertures 14A formed in the side edges of the patient support 14. … Barr does not provide any teaching, suggestion, or motivation that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pin-based support device to achieve a structure including a ledge disposed on an inner edge of each longitudinal arm and extending along the arm to support the patient platform. Modifying Barr in this manner would require substantial redesign of both the frame and the patient platform, including elimination of Barr's pin-based principle of operation.”
Argument #2: “Roberts does not teach or suggest the adjustment mechanism as claimed. The Examiner further relies on Roberts for allegedly teaching an adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a height of the frame relative to the base. Specifically, the Examiner cites paragraph [0020] of Roberts, "each leg member 26 includes an adjustable foot 28 to permit adjustment of the elevation of the track section 18 to accommodate uneven ground". However, Roberts fails to disclose (i) "a base connected to the frame by way of an adjustment mechanism" and (ii) "the adjustment mechanism being configured to adjust a height of the frame relative to the base" as recited in claims 1 and 12. …. The Examiner cites additional secondary references to reject certain dependent claims. However, the additional references, individually or in combination with Barr and/or Roberts, do not cure the deficiencies of Barr and Roberts discussed above. Accordingly, independent claims 1 and 12 and the claims that depend therefrom are patentable over the cited references.”
Examiner’s Remarks:
Examiner’s Response #1: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Applicant has amended the claims to include ‘each longitudinally extending arm including a ledge disposed on an inner edge and extending along at least a portion of each longitudinally arm in the longitudinal direction, wherein the ledges are configured to support the patient platform therebetween’ of Claim(s) 1 and 12, the prior art of record does not render these limitations patentable over the cited references. In particular, newly amended Claims 1 and 12 are now being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the prior art of 'Barr' (US 8561226 B1) in view of Roberts (US 20070220672 A1) and further in view of ‘Hand’ (US 6526610 B1). Specifically, the tertiary reference of 'Hand' (US 6526610 B1), teaches these newly added limitations. As shown in Figures 1-6 of Hand, the ledge is shown on either side of the longitudinally extending arms, with the ledge(s) extending in the longitudinal direction comprising an increased length in that direction. Furthermore, the ledge(s) are also internally disposed on an inner edge of the longitudinally extending arm(s) as shown in the annotated figure 1.1 from Hand (shown in the rejection above). Each of the ledges are configured to support the patient platform therebetween, shown in Figure 2. Therefore, the newly amended claims are fully met by the application of Hand.
Examiner’s Response #2: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the newly amended claims introduce additional limitations that are not fully met by the first two references alone. To address these amendments, the Examiner introduces a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, prior art of 'Barr' (US 8561226 B1) in view of Roberts (US 20070220672 A1) and further in view of ‘Hand’ (US 6526610 B1). Although the primary and secondary references do not overcome the newly amended limitations, the tertiary reference of Hand in combination does teach the following: ‘each longitudinally extending arm including a ledge disposed on an inner edge and extending along at least a portion of each longitudinally arm in the longitudinal direction, wherein the ledges are configured to support the patient platform therebetween’. The Examiner further points to the rejection above and annotated figures showing how Hand does teach these features. The Examiner also notes that while the Applicant’s traversed arguments are acknowledged as to the primary and secondary references, they do not overcome the newly amended limitations when considered in combination with Hand. The Hand reference provides the specific teaching of a ledge disposed on an inner edge of the longitudinally extending arms on either side, and the ledges are configured to support the patient platform therebetween, as now recited in the amended claims. Therefore, the rejection of the newly amended claims is properly maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hand et al. (US 20040168253 A1) teaches (emphasis added): A bed (10) includes a base (12) and a frame assembly (14). A head end support assembly (16) and a foot end support assembly (18) are coupled between the base (12) and the frame assembly (14). The frame assembly (14) includes first and second side frame members (80, 82) located above the base (12). The bed (10) also includes a plurality of latch mechanisms (160) coupled to the first and second side frame members (80, 82), and a patient support surface (162) configured to be coupled to the first and second side frame members (80, 82) by the plurality of latch mechanisms (160). A rotational drive mechanism (130) is coupled to the foot end support assembly (18) to rotate the frame assembly (14) about its longitudinal axis to a prone position. A proning surface (250) is coupled to the frame assembly (14) to support a patient in the prone position.
Borders et al. (US 20010044971 A1) teaches: An apparatus is configured to be located on a frame of a patient support, the frame having a top surface configured to support a patient, the top surface having a length dimension and a width dimension. The apparatus includes an overlay positioned over the frame of the patient support, the overlay having an upper surface to support the patient and a lower surface configured to abut the top surface of the patient support. The overlay has a width dimension greater than the width dimension of the top surface. A retainer maintains the overlay in a desired position on the frame.
Sales (US 11666495 B2) 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.
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 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
/MADISON MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
06/09/2026
Prosecution Insights