DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0031: The sentence “various different distances achievable between the the base” contains a grammatical error.
Paragraph 0043: The sentence “to move the cable 154 an thereby release the lift mechanism” contains a spelling error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heimbrock et al. (US 20040055088 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Heimbrock teaches “A patient transport apparatus comprising:
a base (see paragraph 0038);
a litter defining a patient support surface to support a patient (patient support deck, see paragraph 0038);
a lift mechanism interposed between the base and the litter (elevation mechanism, see paragraph 0038), the lift mechanism including an actuator for moving the litter relative to the base between a plurality of vertical configurations including a lowered configuration and a raised configuration (elevation mechanism, see paragraph 0038);
a litter extension supported for movement relative to the patient support surface between a plurality of litter extension positions including a retracted position and one or more extended positions (transversely-extending back, seat, thigh, and foot sections, see paragraph 0039), the litter extension supporting a user interface for operating the actuator of the lift mechanism (contour positioning controlled by interface, see paragraph 0058); and
a cable assembly including:
a cable to translate mechanical force applied to the user interface to the actuator to release the lift mechanism for movement between the raised configuration and the lowered configuration (clutch release cable, see paragraph 0057), the cable extending between a first end coupled to the user interface and a second end coupled to the actuator of the lift mechanism (cable extends from control mechanism to litter section actuator, see paragraph 0057), and
a cable housing operatively attached to the litter, the cable housing defining an inner cavity and a guide disposed within the inner cavity and supporting the cable between the first end and the second end to retain at least a portion of the cable between the first end and the second end as the litter extension moves between the plurality of litter extension positions (cable housing, see paragraph 0072).”
Regarding claim 7, Heimbrock teaches “The patient transport apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the litter includes a frame with a pair of side rails; and wherein the litter extension is telescopically affixed to the pair of side rails for movement between the plurality of litter extension positions.”
Regarding claim 8, Heimbrock teaches “The patient transport apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the litter extension is arranged adjacent to a foot end side of the frame.”
Regarding claim 9, Heimbrock teaches “The patient transport apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the cable housing is operatively attached to the frame.”
Regarding claim 10, Heimbrock teaches “The patient transport apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the litter further includes a cross rail extending between the pair of side rails.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-4 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heimbrock et al. (US 20040055088 A1), in view of Liu (US 20190009758 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Heimbrock teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 1 above, except “wherein the cable defines a retained portion disposed within the inner cavity of the cable housing; and wherein the retained portion has a first length in the retracted position and a second length in one of the one or more extended positions, the first length being larger than the second length.”
However, Liu teaches “wherein the cable defines a retained portion disposed within the inner cavity of the cable housing (bowden cable is housed within brake cable housing, see Liu paragraph 52); and wherein the retained portion has a first length in the retracted position and a second length in one of the one or more extended positions, the first length being larger than the second length (cable forms an enlarged loop shape when the device is retracted and a reduced loop when extended, see Liu paragraph 9).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the cable slack winding and retaining device taught by Liu with the control cable system taught by Heimbrock, to manage excess cable length and prevent tangling or jamming, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, Heimbrock in view of Liu teaches “The patient transport apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the retained portion encircles the guide (see Liu, Figure 14, Annotation Set 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the cable slack winding and retaining device taught by Liu with the control cable system taught by Heimbrock, to manage excess cable length and prevent tangling or jamming, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image1.png
768
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liu, Figure 14, Annotation Set 1
Regarding claim 4, Heimbrock in view of Liu teaches “The patient transport apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the cable housing comprises an upper portion, and a lower portion operatively attached to the upper portion (two part housing may be attached in various orientations, thus having a top and bottom side, see Liu paragraph 53 and Liu, Figure 13, Annotation Set 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the cable slack winding and retaining device taught by Liu with the control cable system taught by Heimbrock, to manage excess cable length and prevent tangling or jamming, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image2.png
623
810
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Liu, Figure 13, Annotation Set 1
Regarding claim 13, Heimbrock in view of Liu teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 1 above, except ”wherein the cable housing defines an inlet and an outlet.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the cable slack winding and retaining device taught by Liu with the control cable system taught by Heimbrock, to manage excess cable length and prevent tangling or jamming, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the single port for both ingress and egress of the cable into both an inlet and outlet port in order to prevent frictional interference of the opposing cable ends when the apparatus is in operation, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 14, Heimbrock in view of Liu teaches “The patient transport apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the outlet is positioned opposite the inner cavity from the inlet in a longitudinal direction (see Liu, Figure 25, Annotation Set 1).”
PNG
media_image3.png
269
267
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Liu, Figure 25, Annotation Set 1
Regarding claim 15, Heimbrock in view of Liu teaches “The patient transport apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the inlet is positioned at a distance closer to the user interface than the outlet (See Liu, Figure 25, Annotation Set 1).”
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heimbrock et al. (US 20040055088 A1), in view of Reed et al. (US 20090165207 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Heimbrock teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 1 above, except “wherein the litter includes a frame with a pair of side rails; and wherein the litter extension is telescopically affixed to the pair of side rails for movement between the plurality of litter extension positions.”
However, Reed teaches “wherein the litter includes a frame with a pair of side rails; and wherein the litter extension is telescopically affixed to the pair of side rails for movement between the plurality of litter extension positions (see Reed, paragraph 113).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the telescoping litter extension rails as taught by Reed into the litter taught by Heimbrock, to allow the litter to better adapt its shape to accommodate the patient safely and comfortably, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Heimbrock in view of Reed teaches “The patient transport apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the litter extension is arranged adjacent to a foot end side of the frame (slider is attached to foot-end of top frame, see Reed paragraph 113).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the telescoping litter extension rails as taught by Reed into the litter taught by Heimbrock, to allow the litter to better adapt its shape to accommodate the patient safely and comfortably, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, Heimbrock in view of Reed teaches “The patient transport apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the cable housing is operatively attached to the frame (auto contour mechanism, including housing, is attached to frame, see Heimbrock, paragraph 0073).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the telescoping litter extension rails as taught by Reed into the litter taught by Heimbrock, to allow the litter to better adapt its shape to accommodate the patient safely and comfortably, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Heimbrock in view of Reed teaches “The patient transport apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the litter further includes a cross rail extending between the pair of side rails (see Heimbrock, Figure 11, Annotation Set 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the telescoping litter extension rails as taught by Reed into the litter taught by Heimbrock, to allow the litter to better adapt its shape to accommodate the patient safely and comfortably, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image4.png
647
776
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Heimbrock, Figure 25, Annotation Set 1
Regarding claim 11, Heimbrock in view of Reed teaches “The patient transport apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the cable housing includes a coupling mechanism extending in an outward direction relative to the inner cavity, the coupling mechanism operatively attached to the cross rail (see Heimbrock, Figure 25, Annotation Set 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the telescoping litter extension rails as taught by Reed into the litter taught by Heimbrock, to allow the litter to better adapt its shape to accommodate the patient safely and comfortably, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image5.png
647
776
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Heimbrock, Figure 25, Annotation Set 2
Regarding claim 12, Heimbrock in view of Reed teaches “The patient transport apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the cross rail is further defined as a first cross rail (see Heimbrock, Figure 25, Annotation Set 3);
wherein the litter further includes a second cross rail, spaced from the first cross rail, extending between the pair of side rails (see Heimbrock, Figure 25, Annotation Set 3);
wherein the coupling mechanism is further defined as a first coupling mechanism operatively attached to the first cross rail (see Heimbrock, Figure 25, Annotation Set 3); and
wherein the cable housing includes a second coupling mechanism, spaced from the first coupling mechanism, operatively attached to the second cross rail (attached to second rail via rest of frame, see Heimbrock, Figure 25, Annotation Set 3).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the telescoping litter extension rails as taught by Reed into the litter taught by Heimbrock, to allow the litter to better adapt its shape to accommodate the patient safely and comfortably, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image6.png
647
776
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Heimbrock, Figure 25, Annotation Set 3
Regarding claim 20, Heimbrock in view of Reed teaches “the user interface includes:
a manual release element coupled with the first end of the cable and having a lever arranged for pivoting movement in response to user engagement to move the cable and operate the actuator to move the litter relative to the base (see Reed, paragraph 141), and
a control panel in electrical communication with a controller for operating the actuator of the lift mechanism (control panel operates hydraulic system, see Reed, paragraph 11).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the electronic and manual hydraulic lift controls as taught by Reed into the litter lift taught by Heimbrock, to improve ease of control for the apparatus while retaining a fail-safe in the event of power loss or malfunction, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heimbrock et al. (US 20040055088 A1), in view of Liu (US 20190009758 A1) and Reed et al. (US 20090165207 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Heimbrock in view of Liu teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 4 above, except “wherein the lower portion includes a lower wall having at least one drain aperture to permit a flow of fluids out of the inner cavity.”
However, Reed teaches “wherein the lower portion includes a lower wall having at least one drain aperture to permit a flow of fluids out of the inner cavity (litter comprises body fluid drainage channel, see paragraph 0253).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the fluid drainage channels in the litter as taught by Reed into the cable housing as taught by Liu and Heimbrock, to prevent the unwanted collection and pooling of bodily fluid within the enclosed cable housing, contributing to safety and ease of cleaning, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, Heimbrock in view of Liu and Reed teaches all of the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 5 above, except “wherein the lower wall includes a plurality of drain apertures; and wherein the lower wall slopes downward to at least one of the plurality of drain apertures.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the fluid drainage channels in the litter as taught by Reed into the cable housing as taught by Liu and Heimbrock, to prevent the unwanted collection and pooling of bodily fluid within the enclosed cable housing, contributing to safety and ease of cleaning, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide multiple drainage channels within the cable housing to drain fluid more effectively, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a sloping wall leading to the drainage channel openings since it is well known in the art that a drain must allow gravity to act on a liquid on a slope to direct it to a desired location.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-19 are 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 primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 16-19 is the inclusion in the claim of limitations directed to “the cable includes a stop to limit movement of a portion of the cable between the first end and the second end toward the guide.” Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record, rendering claim 16 allowable if rewritten to be independent. Claims 17-19 would become allowable by virtue of dependency on claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following reference discloses a related medical stretcher control and actuation system.
Valentino et al. (US 10130528 B2)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R CATALANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/JRC/
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612 August 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights