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 .
Remarks
This communication is in response to Application No. 19/008,158 filed on 01/02/2025.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS was found at the time of examination.
Drawings
The drawings filed 01/02/2025 are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation Under 35 USC § 112
No claim elements in this application are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 5,806,467, hereinafter D1.
PNG
media_image1.png
895
1210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1.
D1 discloses a restraint anchor for a component of a patient support apparatus, said restraint anchor comprising:
a strap (fig. 5) having a first strap section (see annotated figure 5) and a second strap section (see annotated figure 5); said first strap section (see annotated figure 5) having opposed first (generally indicated by 2a) and second (portion opposite 2a) distal ends and forming a loop (2) between said first and second distal ends (fig. 5), said first strap section for looping around the component of the patient support apparatus and for receiving said second strap section through said loop for securing said restraint anchor to the component (note the phrase “for” is typically used to connect structure to a function, similar to the word “configured to.” “Configured to” (for) usually means the structure can perform the function with no additional modification therefore this recitation is interpreted as a functional recitation. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally; apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP 2114. All functional implications have been carefully considered but are deemed not to impose any patentably distinguishing structure over that disclosed by the prior art reference); said second strap section having first and second ends (see annotated figure 5), said first end of said second strap section (see annotated figure , 2nd strap – end) coupled to said first and second distal ends of said first strap section (fig. 5), said second end of said second strap section (see annotated figure; 2nd strap – end) coupled to a buckle component; and said strap having at least one stop with a v-shaped recess (see annotated figure 5- circled portion) to limit movement of said second strap section through said loop wherein said stop helps retain said restraint on the component (the use of “to limit…” indicates this is a statement of intended use. All functional implications have been carefully considered but are deemed not to impose any patentably distinguishing structure over that disclosed by the prior art reference. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114).
As to claim 2.
D1 discloses the restraint anchor according to claim 1, wherein said stop (see annotated figure 5) comprises a second loop (loop 6) having a base (6b) and a looped end (6a) and formed said v-shaped recess (see annotated figure 5 – the circled portion is between 6a and 6b) therebetween, and said base (6b) being secured to or formed at said strap (as in fig. 5).
As to claim 6.
D1 discloses wherein said second strap section is stitched to said first and second distal ends (fig. 5) of said first strap section (connection via stitching or welding, col. 2, ln. 32+).
As to claim 7.
D1 further discloses wherein said second strap section forms said stop (fig. 5).
As to claim 8.
D1 further discloses wherein said first end of said second strap section (see annotated figure , 2nd strap – end) is looped to form said stop (fig. 5).
As to claim 9.
D1 discloses wherein said first end of said second strap section is looped to form said stop (see explanation for claim 8).
As to claim 10.
D1 discloses wherein said second end of said second strap section is looped through said buckle component (7) to couple said buckle component (7) to said strap (strap 1) via said second end (fig. 5).
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 of this title, 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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
As to claims 3-4.
D1 does not explicitly disclose the following limitations:
[claim 3] - wherein said at least one stop comprises a pair of said stops; and
[claim 4] - wherein said pair of stops are secured to opposed sides of said strap.
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device a different part count not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(VI) provides that a mere duplication of known parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. The specification as submitted is silent as to a new and unexpected result.
The applicant has not disclosed that having [claim 3] - wherein said at least one stop comprises a pair of said stops; or [claim 4] - wherein said pair of stops are secured to opposed sides of said strap solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the structure acts as a stop. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the D1 to have the claimed limitations, as a mere duplication of known structure and because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the attached PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as each further discloses a state of the art.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or pointed out by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. T. Newton, Esq. whose telephone number is (313)446-4899. The examiner can normally be reached 0700-1500 M-F.
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, SPE 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.
/J. T. Newton/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Mon 12-Jan-26
* * * * *