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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 7,360,543 to Coleman et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0284923 to Jensen et al., and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 2,489,828 to Springer.
Claims 1-2, Coleman discloses a device 102 comprising a sheet configured to support an upper body of a patient when the sheet is lifted, the sheet having a periphery including a head edge; a head support defined by a narrow end 116 configured to support a head of the patient when the head support is lifted (fig. 1-2), the head support comprising a top edge, and a plurality of side edges such that the plurality of side edges extend head support extends outwardly from the head edge and the top edge is spaced away from the head edge (fig. 1). Colemen is silent to the narrow end having a bottom edge. Jensen et al discloses a head support 52 having a bottom edge that is connected to an upper edge of a patient transport device [0053]. Selecting a means to connect the head support is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the bottom edge connection of Jensen with the upper edge of the device of Coleman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent means to connect the head support of Coleman. Coleman is silent to a head strap. Springer discloses a head support strap connected to the head support including first and second head support straps 24 connected to the top edge of the head support between a central longitudinal axis and first and second corners of the head support (col. 2 lines 29-32). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the first and second straps Springer with the head support of Coleman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a means to hoist and lower the device of Coleman.
Claim 3, Coleman, as modified, discloses the device wherein the bottom edge of the head support is connected to the sheet at a connection line spaced inwardly from the head edge, but is silent to connecting to a bottom surface of the sheet. Selecting the bottom surface for connecting the head support to the sheet is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to connect the head support to the bottom surface of the device of Coleman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent means to connect the head support of Coleman
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 7,360,543 to Coleman et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0284923 to Jensen et al., U.S. Pat. No. 2,489,828 to Springer, and further in view U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0220695 to Saunders et al.
Claims 4-5, Coleman discloses the device, but is silent to a first and second peripheral straps. Saunders discloses a first peripheral strap connected to a head edge of the sheet between a corner of the sheet and a head support. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the longitudinal straps disclosed in Saunders with the device of Coleman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided additional longitudinal support to the device of Coleman.
Claim 6, Coleman, as modified, discloses the device wherein a length of the first peripheral strap and the second peripheral strap is greater than a length of the head support strap.
Claim 7, Coleman, as modified, discloses the device wherein the first peripheral strap, the second peripheral strap, and the head support strap are capable of connecting to a hoist via buckle connectors for lifting of the patient, the sheet, and the head support; and the length of the head support strap causes the head of the patient to be elevated relative to the upper body of the patient upon the hoist lifting the sheet and the head support (fig. 19-20)(Saunders).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 7,360,543 to Coleman et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0284923 to Jensen et al., U.S. Pat. No. 2,489,828 to Springer, and further in view
U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0137094 to Frost.
Claim 8, Coleman discloses the device, but is silent to a flap. Frost includes a flap defined by straps 16 capable of extending across a forehead of the head of the patient when the sheet is lifted; and the straps are releasably connected to the head support [0073](fig. 10). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the flap disclosed in Frost with the device of Colman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have immobilized the head of a person while the head support of Coleman is lifted.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 7,360,543 to Coleman et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0284923 to Jensen et al., U.S. Pat. No. 2,489,828 to Springer, and further in view U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0210511 to Davis.
Claim 9, Coleman discloses all of the structural limitations as stated above, but is silent to an inflatable body. Davis discloses an inflatable body 2 that is formed by the sheet; and the sheet comprises a top sheet connected to a bottom sheet [0009][0027]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the inflatable pad disclosed in Davis with the device of Coleman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided additional support to the patient support of Coleman.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 7,360,543 to Coleman et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0210511 to Davis.
Claim 10, Coleman discloses a device 102 comprising a sheet configured to support an upper body of a patient when the sheet is lifted, the sheet having a periphery including a head edge; a head support defined by a narrow end 116 configured to support a head of the patient when the head support is lifted (fig. 1-2), the head support comprising a top edge, and a plurality of side edges such that the plurality of side edges extend head support extends outwardly from the head edge such that a protion of the head support is discontinuous with the head edge and the top edge is spaced part from the head edge (fig. 1). Coleman is silent to the head support having a bottom edge. Jensen et al discloses a head support 52 having a bottom edge that is connected to an upper edge of a patient transport device [0053]. Selecting a means to connect the head support is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the bottom edge connection of Jensen with the upper edge of the device of Coleman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent means to connect the head support of Coleman. Coleman is silent to an inflatable body. Davis discloses an inflatable body 2 that is formed by the sheet; and the sheet comprises a top sheet connected to a bottom sheet [0009][0027]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the inflatable pad disclosed in Davis with the device of Coleman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided additional support to the patient support of Coleman.
Claim(s) 11-13, 15-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 7,360,543 to Coleman et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0210511 to Davis, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 2,489,828 to Springer.
Claims 11, 15-16, and 20, Coleman discloses the device and method, but is silent to a head strap. Springer discloses a head support strap connected to the head support including first and second head support straps 24 connected to the top edge of the head support and extends perpendicularly to the head edge and parallel along the side edge of the head support (col. 2 lines 29-32). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the first and second straps Springer with the head support of Coleman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a means to hoist and lower the device of Coleman.
Claim 12, Coleman discloses the patient support device wherein the head support is rectangular and a length of the bottom less than a length of the head edge of the inflatable device.
Claim 13, Coleman, as modified, discloses the device wherein the bottom edge of the head support is connected to the sheet at a connection line spaced inwardly from the head edge, but is silent to connecting to a bottom surface of the inflatable device. Selecting the bottom surface of the inflatable device for connecting the head support is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to connect the head support to the bottom surface of the inflatable device with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent means to connect the head support of Coleman.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 7,360,543 to Coleman et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0210511 to Davis, U.S. Pat. No. 2,489,828 to Springer, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0137094 to Frost.
Claim 14, Coleman discloses the device, but is silent to a flap. Frost includes a flap defined by straps 16 capable of extending across a forehead of the head of the patient when the sheet is lifted; and the straps are releasably connected to the head support [0073](fig. 10). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the flap disclosed in Frost with the device of Colman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have immobilized the head of a person while the head support of Coleman is lifted.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 7,360,543 to Coleman et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0210511 to Davis, U.S. Pat. No. 2,489,828 to Springer, U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0284923 to Jensen et al., and further in view U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0220695 to Saunders et al.
Claim 17, Coleman discloses the patient support device, but is silent to a first and second peripheral straps. Saunders discloses a first peripheral strap connected to a head edge of the sheet between a corner of the sheet and a head support. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the longitudinal straps disclosed in Saunders with the device of Coleman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided additional longitudinal support to the device of Coleman.
Claim 18, Coleman, as modified, discloses the patient support device wherein a length of the first peripheral strap and the second peripheral strap is greater than a length of the head support strap.
Claim 19, Coleman, as modified, discloses the device wherein the first peripheral strap, the second peripheral strap, and the head support strap are capable of connecting to a hoist via buckle connectors for lifting of the patient, the sheet, and the head support; and the length of the head support strap causes the head of the patient to be elevated relative to the upper body of the patient upon the hoist lifting the sheet and the head support (fig. 19-20)(Saunders).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0311781 to Purdy et al. discloses a patient support having an extension portion.
U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0209630 to Kazala et al. discloses a patient support straps attached thereto.
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 FREDRICK C CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached on (571) 270-3654. 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.
/FREDRICK C CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights