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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 1, in paragraph 0001, line 2: The phrase --now issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,208,042 on January 28, 2025,-- should be inserted after the phrase “September 27, 2022,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Applicant), regards as the invention. The structural cooperation between the “bridge” and
the “bridge pocket” as recited in dependent claim 17 is generally unclear, thereby rendering claims 17-19 indefinite.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 9-16 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 12-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,208,042 in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,076,208 to Heimbrock et al. Claims 1-10 and 12-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,208,042
are considered to disclose all of the limitations as recited in claims 1-7, 9-16 and 20 except for the use of a plurality of wheels. Heimbrock et al. ‘208 provides the basic teaching of a patient transport apparatus (30) comprising a base (60) and a plurality of wheels (62) (as shown in Figure 1 and as described in column 6, lines 37-40); a patient support deck (34, 44) defining a patient support surface (46), the patient support deck including a back deck section (50) (also as shown in Figure 1 and as described in column 6, lines 7-15); and a deck extension assembly including a head deck section (48) (as shown in Figures 1 & 8-10 and as described in column 6, lines 16-23; column 16, lines 65-67 and in column 17, lines 1-8). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the patient transport apparatus of claims 1-10 and 12-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,208,042 with the plurality of wheels taught in Heimbrock et al. ‘208 with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable result of facilitating movement of the patient transport apparatus along “a floor on which [the patient transport apparatus] sets” as taught by Heimbrock et al. ‘208 (column 2, lines 38-40).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 3,477,761 to Krantz. Krantz shows the claimed limitations of a deck extension assembly for use with a patient transport apparatus (10), the deck extension assembly comprising: a head deck section (11a, 11b, 14-17, 19 & 20) (as shown in Figures 1 & 2 and as described in column 2, lines 40-71); a mount (21, 22) configured for attaching to the patient transport apparatus (10), the mount defining a receiver (as shown in Figures 2 & 3 and as described in column 3, lines 15-20); a brace (12, 13) supported by the receiver (21, 22) for sliding movement relative to the mount along a brace axis (i.e., a longitudinal axis of element 12 as shown in Figure 1) between a plurality of extension positions (defined by elements 23 & 24) (as shown in Figures 2 & 3 and as described in column 3, lines 15-32); a pivot coupling (18, 18’) operatively attached to the brace (12, 13) and supporting the head deck section (11a, 11b, 14-17, 19 & 20) for selective pivoting movement relative to the brace (as shown in Figures 1 & 2 and as described in column 2, lines 52-60); and a retainer (25, 26) interposed between the mount (21, 22) and the brace (12, 13) to selectively retain the brace in one of the plurality of extension positions, the retainer being operable between: a retained configuration to prevent relative movement between the mount (21, 22) and the brace (12, 13), and a released configuration to permit movement of the brace relative to the mount between the plurality of extension positions (as shown in Figure 3 and as
described in column 3, lines 21-32); wherein operation of the retainer (25, 26) changes from the retained configuration to the released configuration in response to force applied to the head deck section (11a, 11b, 14-17, 19 & 20) in a direction along the brace axis (as described in column 3, lines 33-50).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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 examiner respectfully asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patient transport apparatus of claims 1-10 and 12-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,208,042 as modified by Heimbrock et al. ‘208 to include the particular structural arrangement of and cooperation between the pivot shaft and the pivot plate of the pivot coupling as specifically recited in dependent claim 8.
Claims 17-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: Garfoot et al. ‘260, Rasmussen ‘751 and Freedman et al. ‘915.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT G SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-7048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-11:30am and 2pm-7:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin C Mikowski can be reached 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.
/ROBERT G SANTOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673