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 the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 04/17/2025 (2) and 09/10/2025 has been acknowledged by the Office.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ‘swivel locking mechanism’ must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 includes improper secondary antecedent basis, the following is suggested: “The patient transport apparatus of claim 3, wherein the one or more sensors responsive to patient presence on the patient support surface of the litter are configured to determine [[the]] a mass acting on the patient support surface.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the swivel locking mechanism (Prong A) and is configured to engage the swivel locking mechanism to prevent rotation (Prong B). No further structure is added in the immediate limitation thus Prong C is also met. The disclosure does not provide clarification to the type of product, structure or material to perform the function as outlined in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, Claim 9 recites a negative limitation (emphasis added): "wherein the controller is configured to limit operation of the actuator system to prevent raising the litter above the defined transport height in response to detecting patient presence when the proximity sensor detects that the support structure is not located within a predefined proximity of the vehicle.” However, the specification as filed does not provide support for this exclusion. The original disclosure does not describe the invention as being devoid of this feature, nor does it distinguish the invention from this feature, or indicate that the feature is unnecessary. While Applicant is not required to list every conceivable feature to be excluded, the specification must provide adequate context to convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of the invention without the claimed element. The mere absence of a positive recitation of the proximity sensor being able to detect that the support structure is not located within a predefined proximity of the vehicle, in the description is not a sufficient basis for the negative limitation. Therefore, there is no evidence in the specification to support the exclusion of the emphasized limitation as indicated above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 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, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “likelihood” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “likelihood” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 'Likelihood' is a relative term because it measures the plausibility of a specific situation, outcome, or parameter, in comparison to others, rather than as an absolute probability. Often using ratios, percentages, proportions, or determined values to compare one of these parameters against another (e.g., 10 feet from the ground is 2x more likely to tip than 8 feet off the ground). The term “likelihood” is not defined by the disclosure, further it does not define a precise numerical boundary making its meaning dependent on context, subjective interpretation and specific (often subjective) user experiences rather than objective, universally defined measurement. The Examiner suggests either denoting in the specification what values are to be used to determine how ‘likelihood’ is to be interpreted or removing the limitation from the claim and stating ‘reducing a tipping event’ (or similar language).
Claim(s) 2-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (claim 1).
The term “object” in claims 5 and 6 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “object” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is considered a relative term because it lacks specificity to what type of ‘object’ other than ‘a patient’ would be transferred with no consistent examples or context given, allowing for subjective interpretation and specific user experiences to be used rather than having an objective, universally defined component to be considered.
Notably, does ‘an object’ need to be directly on top of where a patient is laying or can it be anything that is adding weight to the litter itself (e.g., Would an oxygen tank attached to an under-surface of the patient lying region be considered an object? AND/OR Would an IV pole attached to an upper-surface of the patient lying region be considered an object? AND/OR Would a restraint system/strap attached to the litter or patient lying region be considered an object, even if the weight is not substantial?)
AND/OR
Does the object have a specific load value that is discernable by the controller (i.e. a weight of 0.5 ounce increments being sensed by the controller vs. 0.5 lb increments being sensed by the controller | since 1 oz. is 1/16 of a lb., those a widely different values and are incomparable due to the conversion)
The term “limit operation” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “limit” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is considered a relative term because its definition depends on context, comparison, or specific thresholds, rather than an absolute, universal standard. It often provides "wiggle room" or subjective boundaries. A limit is relative to the specific parameters set, that have not been communicated through the claims or the disclosure (e.g. A controller can limit operation (1) by slowing down a speed, OR (2) temporarily pausing for a few seconds, or (3) initiating a shutdown and cutting power to the actuator system. Each of which are wide variations of what can be considered a soft limit, medium limit or hard limit of an operation.) The term is being interpreted as stopping, initiating a shutdown or cutting power, therefore option #3 indicated above – specifically due to the following limitation stating ‘to prevent raising the litter …’. If the Applicant would prefer the claim to be interpreted different, the Examiner suggests providing clarification to the limitation / term ‘limit’ with respect to ‘operation’ in the disclosure.
Claim limitation “the swivel locking mechanism (Prong A) and is configured to engage the swivel locking mechanism to prevent rotation” in Claim 20, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The locking mechanism is discussed generically in Specification paragraph [0015] but is devoid of any structure to further describe the “swivel locking mechanism” beyond its function of preventing rotation when the wheels of the litter exceed the defined transport height. Applicant’s figures also do not provide any further details to the claimed “swivel locking mechanism.” The Examiner is unsure what type of locking mechanism is being used as there are a variety of manual locking mechanism (foot pedal) or an electrical locking mechanism (such as remote operation, such as a control or button being pressed). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 7-8, 10-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al., hereinafter 'Reed' (US 20090165208 A1) in view of Blickensderfer et al., hereinafter 'Blickensderfer' (US 20160128880 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Reed teaches: A patient transport apparatus (1 - Fig. 1, Para 0112) comprising: a support structure including a base (10, Para 0112) and a litter (Para 0135-0136 and Figs. 7-8) with a patient support surface to support a patient (Para 0151: "a patient litter of the present invention comprises a four section litter comprising a leg litter 152, a thigh litter 159, a seat/lower torso litter 161, and a head/upper torso litter 164"); a lift mechanism ('a hydraulic system' - Fig. 12, Para 0174) having an actuator system (60, 61 - Figs 1. and 8, Para 0160) to facilitate movement of the litter relative to the base between a plurality of different heights (Para 0175) including a maximum height (Fig. 1 and Fig. 8, Para 0135 and Para 0138 "fully raised position") and a minimum height (Fig. 6, Para 0135 "fully collapsed position"); one or more sensors responsive to changes in the height of the litter relative to the base resulting from operation of the lift mechanism (84 - Figs. 14-16, Para 0181); a user input device to receive input from a user (117 - Fig. 56); and a controller operably connected to the actuator system, the one or more sensors, and the user input device (Para 0009: "and a circuit board, wherein the circuit board is located within a controller housing fastened to lift handles surrounding the foot-end of the top frame, wherein the circuit board comprises: i) a controller, wherein the controller monitors and records the voltage information of the pressure transducer, wherein the controller processes the voltage information to calculate load weight on the cot; ii) a processor; iii) a memory component; iv) an accelerometer, wherein the accelerometer is configured to measure in degrees the angle of movement from side to side of the circuit board with respect to a horizontal plane that is perpendicular to the earth's gravitational force; and iv) a firmware component comprising an algorithm, wherein the firmware and algorithm are configured to calculate and record cot tip angle utilizing: a) cot load measured by the pressure transducer; b) cot height measured by the ultrasonic sensor; and c) cot angle measured by the accelerometer; G) a non-series wired, two battery power system, wherein the system powers the hydraulic and electrical components of the cot; and H) a control panel (e.g., user interface), wherein the control panel comprises icon indicators for service information, hydraulic system information, and tip angle information; wherein the cot is configured to raise and lower a subject (e.g., weighing between 20 and 100 pounds (e.g., greater than 100 pounds, greater than 200 pounds, greater than 300 pounds, greater than 400 pounds, greater than 500 pounds, greater than 600 pounds (e.g., 650 or more pounds (e.g., unassisted (e.g., without the assistance of lifting energy exerted by one or more persons (e.g., EMS persons))))))"), the controller being configured to: define a transport height for the litter between the maximum height and the minimum height (Para 0210, further noting: "In some embodiments, one or all of a specific set of conditions (e.g., as monitored and/or recorded by a processor (e.g., a processor within a controller (e.g., microcontroller) and/or other processor ) enable and/or initiate an automatic retract of the legs (e.g., fixed and/or telescoping legs) of a cot comprising an automatic retract system provided herein. These conditions include, for example, a specific system pressure (e.g., as monitored by a pressure transducer); a specific angle of the cot (e.g., patient litter and/or other component of the cot (e.g., as monitored via one or more accelerometers located upon the cot)); and/or a specific height of the patient litter (e.g., a partially raised or completely raised position (e.g., as monitored via an ultrasonic sensor)).") for reducing a likelihood of tipping (Para 0009, further noting "For example, in some embodiments, the audio alert comprises a pulsed tone signal or a solid tone signal. In some embodiments, the pulsed tone signal sounds when the cot tip angle is within a certain number of degrees from the tipping point. For example, in some embodiments, the pulsed tone signal sounds when the cot tip angle is identified (e.g., by the components of the tip angle monitoring, recording and alert system (e.g., by the algorithm)) to be three degrees or less from the tipping point of the cot. In some embodiments, the pulsed tone signal sounds when the cot tip angle is identified (e.g., by the components of the tip angle monitoring, recording and alert system (e.g., by the algorithm)) to be five degrees or less from the tipping point of the cot. In some embodiments, the pulsed tone signal sounds when the cot tip angle is identified (e.g., by the components of the tip angle monitoring, recording and alert system (e.g., by the algorithm)) to be seven degrees or less from the tipping point of the cot. The present invention is not limited to these amounts. Indeed, a pulsed tone signal may sound when the cot tip angle is identified to be any desired degree (or less) from the tipping point of the cot (e.g., 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15, less than 3 or more than 15 degrees). In some embodiments, a solid tone signal sounds when the cot tip angle reaches the tipping point of the cot. In some embodiments, the tip angle monitoring, recording and alert system communicates with the controller to preclude raising of the cot (e.g., when the system detects a certain tip angle (e.g., 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15, less than 3 or more than 15 degrees from a tipping point))."), operate the actuator system to raise or lower the litter in response to input from the user on the user input device (inputting weight into 123, 124 - further noting Para 0188), but Reed does not explicitly teach, pause operation of the actuator system when the litter reaches the defined transport height, and provide an indication to the user that the litter is at the defined transport height.
Blickensderfer teaches: pause operation of the actuator system when the litter reaches the defined transport height (Para 0089, 0090 - 'cease automatically'), and provide an indication to the user that the litter is at the defined transport height (Para 0089, 0090 - 'reaching transport position').
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Reed to include pausing operation of the actuator system when the litter reaches a defined transport height and providing an indication to the user that the litter is at the defined transport height, as taught by Blickensderfer, in order to improve user awareness of cot positioning and enhance operational safety by preventing over-travel and reducing the likelihood of tipping.
In regards to Claim 2, Reed in view of Blickensderfer teaches: The patient transport apparatus of claim 1, Reed further teaches, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine patient presence on the patient support surface of the litter (Para 0229: "The present invention provides the ability to monitor and record patient weight data (e.g., average patient weight data)."), and define the transport height for the litter based at least in part on the patient presence (Para 0195-2000, "In some embodiments, a controller is configured to record cot height, weight upon the cot, degree of movement of cot, and/or tip angle of cot (e.g., into memory storage means (e.g., a hard drive, disk, memory card, etc.) during usage of the cot.", and further noting Para 0188).
In regards to Claim 3, Reed in view of Blickensderfer teaches: The patient transport apparatus of claim 2, Reed further teaches, including one or more sensors responsive to patient presence on the patient support surface of the litter (Para 0219: "In some embodiments, the present invention provides a cot comprising a pressure transducer, wherein the pressure transducer (e.g., analog sensor) is configured to monitor hydraulic system pressure that is utilized to calculate cot load weight (e.g., subject weight), overload situations and hydraulic system failure; monitor conditions utilized in a tip angle monitoring, recording and alert system; and/or monitor conditions associated with automatic retraction of the legs of a hydraulically powered cot described herein.").
In regards to Claim 4, Reed in view of Blickensderfer teaches: The patient transport apparatus of claim 3, Reed further teaches, wherein the one or more sensors responsive to patient presence on the patient support surface of the litter are configured to determine the mass acting on the patient support surface (Para 0219: "In some embodiments, the present invention provides a cot comprising a pressure transducer, wherein the pressure transducer (e.g., analog sensor) is configured to monitor hydraulic system pressure that is utilized to calculate cot load weight (e.g., subject weight), overload situations and hydraulic system failure; monitor conditions utilized in a tip angle monitoring, recording and alert system; and/or monitor conditions associated with automatic retraction of the legs of a hydraulically powered cot described herein.").
In regards to Claim 5, Reed in view of Blickensderfer teaches: The patient transport apparatus of claim 3, Reed further teaches, wherein the controller is configured to determine if an object, instead of the patient, is located on the litter based at least in part on data received from the one or more sensors responsive to patient presence on the patient support surface of the litter (noting Para 0179: "The present invention is not limited by the method of determining load weight upon a cot of the present invention. In a preferred embodiment, load weight is determined utilizing a pressure transducer 183 housed on and/or within a hydraulic system manifold (e.g., shown in FIG. 34). The pressure transducer converts hydraulic system pressure information into voltage information. Thus, in some embodiments, a cot system of the present invention utilizes hydraulic system pressure to calculate patient weight. For example, one or more pressure transducers (e.g., that is an internal component of a hydraulic system manifold and/or that plugs into the manifold) are wired to a controller that is configured to detect signals (e.g., analog voltage) from the transducer. As pressure within the hydraulic system varies, the transducer will provide a different signal (e.g., voltage feedback) to the controller, that is configured to monitor the signals (e.g., voltage variations (e.g., pressure changes)) and to calculate load (e.g., subject) weight therefrom. As described above, a pressure transducer can monitor various conditions of the cot (e.g., whether or not a subject is present on the cot) and provide this information to the controller (e.g., that is configured to regulate valve configuration within the hydraulic system manifold (e.g., to prevent engagement of a quick collapse mode of the cot (e.g., when system pressure is greater than 25 PSI)))" and Para 0177: "As used herein, the term "tip angle," refers to the position at which a cot (e.g., not bearing a load, or bearing load weight (e.g., of any weight (e.g., ranging from about 10 pounds to about 1000 pounds)))").
In regards to Claim 7, Reed in view of Blickensderfer teaches: The patient transport apparatus of claim 2, Reed further teaches, further comprising a proximity sensor configured to detect a location of the support structure relative to a vehicle (Para 0167: "For example, when the down button is depressed and the system pressure is below 25 pounds per square inch (PSI), or when an ultrasonic sensor or other distance sensing device detects the absence of a decrease in slider block distance from the measuring device and/or detects an increase in slider block distance from the device (e.g., when load wheels of a load rail assembly are resting upon the deck of an ambulance and the leg assemblies are outside of the ambulance such that the wheels attached to the base frame are suspended in air), the pump 320 is turned in a direction that supplies fluid to the rod end of the cylinder.").
In regards to Claim 8, Reed in view of Blickensderfer teaches: The patient transport apparatus of claim 7, Reed further teaches, wherein the controller is configured to allow the user to raise the litter above the defined transport height with input from the user on the user input device when the proximity sensor detects that the support structure is within a pre-defined proximity to the vehicle (Para 0224: "However, if the weight of the patient litter is supported (e.g., via one or more users of the cot lifting and/or holding the team lift rail and/or when load wheels of a load rail assembly are resting upon the deck of an ambulance and the leg assemblies are outside of the ambulance such that the wheels attached to the base frame are suspended in air), and a "down" button is pressed thereby opening the controlled lower valve 305, an ultrasonic sensor monitoring cot height detects the absence of a decrease in slider block distance from the sensor and/or detects an increase in slider block distance from the sensor (e.g., indicating a condition in which the base frame is not supported by a surface (e.g., the ground). Thus, in some embodiments, the controller is configured to recognize a condition in which a lower command is initiated (e.g., a "down" button is pressed) and the absence of a lowering of cot height (e.g., as detected by absence of a decrease in slider block distance from the sensor and/or increase in slider block distance from the sensor) and to identify the conditions as an ambulance loading event, wherein when the controller identifies this event, the controller enables and/or initiates a hydraulic system of the cot to collapse the legs of the cot under power (e.g., the pump 320 is turned in a direction that supplies fluid to the rod end of the cylinder; fluid passes through the P.O. check valve 303 in the free flow direction and into the rod end of the cylinder; and the quick collapse valve 309 opens to allow fluid to travel from the cap end of the cylinder to tank as the cylinder retracts (e.g., as shown in FIG. 49)). In some embodiments, the cot remains in a powered collapse mode until the down button is released or the cot legs are fully collapsed/retracted. In other configurations, the cot remains in a powered collapse mode until an angle of the cot is identified (e.g., via a controller utilizing information (e.g., voltage information) from an accelerometer of a tip angle monitoring system of the present invention) as being at an angle at risk of cot tipping (e.g., if the foot end of the cot is accidentally lowered (e.g., the foot end of the cot drops) thereby producing an unsafe operational angle of the cot).").
In regards to Claim 10, Reed in view of Blickensderfer teaches: The patient transport apparatus of claim 1, Reed further teaches, wherein the controller, based on the input from the user, is configured to override the paused operation such that the actuator system is operable to raise the litter above the defined transport height (Para 0182: "Travel beyond a user define maximum set height (e.g., load height) is made possible by removing and reapplying the signal to raise (e.g., re-pressing the up button) until the cot reaches it's factory defined end of travel limit.").
In regards to Claim 11, Reed in view of Blickensderfer teaches: The patient transport apparatus of claim 1, Reed further teaches, wherein the controller further comprises a memory configured to store a user selected transport height (Claim 4 of Reed: "wherein said controller is configured to raise the legs of said cot to a maximum height stored in a memory component of said controller.").
In regards to Claim 12, Reed in view of Blickensderfer teaches: The patient transport apparatus of claim 11, Reed further teaches, wherein the controller is configured to modify the user selected transport height based on one or more parameters of the patient (Para 0195: "In some embodiments, a controller is configured to consider one or a plurality of scenarios. For example, a controller can be configured to sort through a look-up table (e.g., a table described in FIG. 69) to determine the angle of tip for a given height (e.g., height as determined from ultrasonic sensor signal) and weight (e.g., as determined from pressure transducer signal). In this scenario, the tip monitoring, recording and alert system warns of unsafe operating angles during transport of the cot to and/or from an ambulance (e.g., if rolling across uneven terrain). A controller can also be configured to sort through a look-up table (e.g., a table described in FIG. 69) to determine tip height for a given weight (e.g., as determined by pressure transducer signal) and angle (e.g., as measured by a 3-axis accelerometer).").
In regards to Claim 13, Reed in view of Blickensderfer teaches: The patient transport apparatus of claim 1, Reed further teaches, further comprising a loading mechanism (188 - Fig. 1 and Fig. 36) configured for placement in a vehicle (Para 0148: "In some embodiments, the telescoping load-rail assembly 4 also features a system whereby properly securing the cot in a mount system prevents unintentional disengagement of a spring-loaded lock-pin assembly while the cot is secured within an ambulance. For example, the pin 201 is used to lock-out the telescoping rail release rod 193 when in ambulance. The catch bar pivots 187 attached to the catch bar 188 rotate pivotally about load rail cross tube 186 when properly secured in an ambulance. The catch bar pivots 187 push up the spring loaded pin assembly 201. The pin 201 engages a pocket in the release connector assemblies 192 and prevents the rod 193 from being pulled."), the loading mechanism configured to couple to the support structure (Fig. 36 shown to be coupled thereto through components thereof).
In regards to Claim 14, Reed in view of Blickensderfer teaches: The patient transport apparatus of claim 1, Reed further teaches, further comprising an indicator operably connected to the controller and comprising one or more of a visual indicator, audible indicator, and tactile indicator (Para 0192: "In some embodiments, the cot is configured to provide an audible and/or visual alarm in the event the side-to-side angle of movement of the cot approaches and/or reaches an angle at which the cot will tip (e.g., depending upon cot angle, load weight and/or litter height)" and noting Figure 56, Para 0203).
In regards to Claim 17, Reed in view of Blickensderfer teaches: The patient transport apparatus of claim 1, Reed further teaches, further comprising wheels (15 - Fig. 1, Para 0115) attached to the support structure opposite the patient support surface (Fig. 1), and a brake operably attached to at least one of the wheels (20 - Fig. 4A, Para 0116-1119).
In regards to Claim 18, Reed in view of Blickensderfer teaches: The patient transport apparatus of claim 17, Blickensderfer further teaches, wherein the controller is coupled to the brake and is configured to engage the brake when the litter exceeds the defined transport height (Para 0121 - 'each of the turning mechanism 90, the lock actuator 92, and the brake mechanism 94 can be communicatively coupled to the one or more processors 100. Accordingly, any of the operator controls 57 can be encoded to provide control signals that are operable to cause any of the operations of the turning mechanism 90, the lock actuator 92, the brake mechanism 94, or combinations thereof to be performed automatically. Alternatively, or additionally, any cot function can cause the any of the operations of the turning mechanism 90, the lock actuator 92, the brake mechanism 94, or combinations thereof to be performed automatically.' AND Para 0085 - 'operator controls 57 a raise button and a lower button').
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Reed, in view of Blickensderfer, to couple the controller to a brake and configure the controller to automatically engage the brake when the litter exceeds the defined transport height, in order to enhance stability and prevent unintended movement of the patient transport apparatus during operation.
In regards to Claim 19, Reed in view of Blickensderfer teaches: The patient transport apparatus of claim 1, Reed teaches, further comprising wheels attached to the support structure (15 - Fig. 1) and capable of swiveling about swivel axes to facilitate turning (Para 0118 and Para 0262 discussing rotating caster wheels), and a swivel locking mechanism operably attached to at least one of the wheels (Para 0120: "In some embodiments, a cot of the present invention comprises a locking mechanism that engages a pair of wheels (e.g., the wheels on the foot-end, or the wheels on the head-end) in a fixed, straight position.").
In regards to Claim 20, Reed in view of Blickensderfer teaches: The patient transport apparatus of claim 19, Blickensderfer further teaches, wherein the controller is coupled to the swivel locking mechanism and is configured to engage the swivel locking mechanism to prevent rotation (Para 0137 - 'the control signal, the one or processors 100 can execute machine readable instructions to automatically actuate the lock actuator 92. ') of at least one of the wheels when the litter exceeds the defined transport height (Para 0121 - 'any of the operator controls 57 can be encoded to provide control signals that are operable to cause any of the operations of the turning mechanism 90, the lock actuator 92, the brake mechanism 94, or combinations thereof to be performed automatically.', Such that the operator controls include Para 0085 and Para 0090 discusses raising the cot height to exceed a specified position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Reed, in view of Blickensderfer, to couple the controller to a swivel locking mechanism and configure the controller to engage the swivel locking mechanism to prevent rotation of at least one wheel when the litter exceeds the defined transport height, in order to improve control and stability of the apparatus and reduce the risk of unwanted movement during use.
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Reed' (US 20090165208 A1) in view of 'Blickensderfer' (US 20160128880 A1) and further in view of Chinn (US 20100199430 A1).
In regards to Claim 15, Reed in view of Blickensderfer teaches: The patient transport apparatus of claim 14, but Reed nor Blickensderfer do not explicitly teach, wherein the indicator comprises the visual indicator and the controller is configured to cause the visual indicator to display a first visual indication if the litter is above the defined transport height.
Chinn teaches: wherein the indicator comprises the visual indicator and the controller is configured to cause the visual indicator to display a first visual indication if the litter is above the defined transport height (Para 0019 - 'colored LED could flash, or the word "HIGH" could be displayed by the visual display component 122.' i.e. HIGH is the highest height setting).
Reed in view of Blickensderfer and Chinn are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of powered cot systems capable of adjusting heights to transport subjects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Reed in view of Blickensderfer to incorporate the teachings of the visual indicators of Chinn with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a first visual indication such that proper height is received, to provide sensory components allowing easier use while transporting a patient.
In regards to Claim 16, Reed in view of Blickensderfer and further in view of Chinn teaches: The patient transport apparatus of claim 15, Chinn further teaches, wherein the controller is configured to cause the visual indicator to display a second visual indication, different than the first visual indication, if the litter is at the defined transport height (Para 0019 -'A blue LED 122 may indicate that the surface is at the desired level position for neonatal transport.').
Reed in view of Blickensderfer and Chinn are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of powered cot systems capable of adjusting heights to transport subjects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Reed in view of Blickensderfer and further in view of Chinn to incorporate the teachings of the second visual indicators of Chinn with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a visual indication such that proper height is received, to provide sensory components allowing easier use while transporting a patient.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (noting 112 rejections indicated above), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 6, the primary reference of Reed in view of secondary reference, Blickensderfer teach the patient transport apparatus. However, Reed nor Blickensderfer do not teach, 'wherein the controller is configured to: define a second transport height for the litter supporting the object based at least in part on the mass of the object on the litter, and operate the actuator system to raise or lower the litter to the second defined transport height.' However, other references as searched by the Examiner were reviewed and considered, but did not teach the limitation shown above. Prior art of Lambarth et al., hereinafter 'Lambarth' (US 8439416 B2) was previously considered specifically Para 0074 and Para 00112, to teach the controller being configured to define a second transport height based on a mass of an object (filled with equipment), however after even further consideration, it only raises arms which would not define a height or a different height of the patient support surface. Rather the arms are additional forms of structure to the device and do not provide height adjustment.
Regarding Claim 9, the primary reference of Reed in view of secondary reference, Blickensderfer teach the patient transport apparatus but neither reference either alone or in combination teach wherein the controller is configured to limit operation of the actuator system to prevent raising the litter above the defined transport height in response to detecting patient presence when the proximity sensor detects that the support structure is not located within a predefined proximity of the vehicle. Noting, there is no indication that either Reed or Blickensderfer exhibit a complete shutdown, stoppage or cutting power to prevent raising the litter. Rather, the device lacks any disclosure of a moment or example case when the device prevents or limits operation via not having a location of the vehicle proximity. The only conceived movement is when the ambulance is within proximity as defined in Reed such that the device can alter heights dependent upon several parameters.
Conclusion
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
05/08/2026
Prosecution Insights