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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. This communication is a non-final rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 8/28/2026. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 8/22/2025 and 10/22/2025 have been considered by the office.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 3 and Sub-Species 3C in the reply filed on 8/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite, “apparatus of any of claims”. Examiner suggests amending this to recite, “apparatus . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziaylek (US 9168189 B2) in view of Merritt (US 7865984 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Ziaylek discloses a patient support apparatus (“particularly used mounted with respect to an emergency mobile transporting device, such as a stretcher or gurney”; [Col. 1, Lines 18-20]) comprising: an oxygen tank support coupled with the frame for storing an oxygen tank thereon (See Fig. 1, housing 10 coupled to stretcher 98), the oxygen tank support including a tank holder (housing 10) and a support mount coupled the frame for movement therewith (See Fig. 1, mounting means 34), the tank holder being configured to couple with the support mount in a first orientation of the tank holder and a second orientation of the tank holder (“holding of such generally cylindrical tanks in a horizontal orientation or vertical orientation”; [Col. 1, Lines 24-25]).
Ziaylek fails to explicitly disclose a frame operable to move vertically relative to a floor underlying the frame.
However, Merritt teaches a frame operable to move vertically relative to a floor underlying the frame (“controls 128 allow a user to raise or lower the height of the litter” [Col. 2, Lines 61-62]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ziaylek by combining the tank holder and moveable frame taught by Merritt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “allows the bottle holder 110 to be raised and lowered using the stretcher's own hydraulics that control the position of the litter”; (Merritt, [Col. 5, Lines 51-53]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, Ziaylek, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus of claim 1, wherein the tank holder is formed to define a first opening on a first side of the tank holder (See Fig. 1, longitudinal slots 28 at top side of housing 10) and a second opening on a second side of the tank holder (See Fig. 1, longitudinal slots 28 at bottom side of housing 10) and the support mount extends through each of the first opening and the second opening in both the first orientation and the second orientation of the tank holder (“One form of mounting means could be a strap extending through one or more of the longitudinal slots 28 defined in the housing 10”; [Col. 5, Lines 61-63]).
Regarding Claim 3, Ziaylek, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus of claim 1.
Ziaylek fails to explicitly teach wherein the support mount includes a first mount arm coupled with the frame and extending away from the frame and around at least a portion of the tank holder.
However, Merritt teaches wherein the support mount includes a first mount arm coupled with the frame and extending away from the frame and around at least a portion of the tank holder (See Fig. 2A-2C, transverse elements 212).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ziaylek adding the mount arm taught by Merritt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to receive the cylindrical shape of the bottle”; (Merritt, [Col. 3, Lines 20-21]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 4, Ziaylek, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus of any of claims 1, wherein the tank holder is formed to include a cavity that opens toward the frame (See Fig. 3, interior chamber means 24) and mouth that opens into the cavity on a lateral end of the tank holder (See Fig. 3, access opening 12), and the mouth is located toward a first end of the frame in response to the tank holder being in the first orientation, and the mouth is located toward a second end of the frame opposite the first end in response to the tank holder being in the second orientation (“These longitudinal slot means 28 can provide a means for facilitating securement of the housing 10 of the gas retaining means of the present invention with respect to environment structure in various positions and orientations”; [Col. 5, Lines 46-50], would be an obvious variation to flip the current orientation of housing 10).
Regarding Claim 10, Niayek, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus of claim 1.
Niayek fails to explicitly teach wherein the frame includes a head end and a foot end spaced apart from the head end and a transverse side that extends between the head end and the foot end, and the oxygen tank support is coupled to one of the head end of the frame and the transverse side of the frame.
However, Merritt teaches wherein the frame includes a head end and a foot end spaced apart from the head end and a transverse side that extends between the head end and the foot end (See Fig. 1, stretcher 120 having a head end, foot end and a transverse side), and the oxygen tank support is coupled to one of the head end of the frame and the transverse side of the frame (See Fig. 1, bottle 130 at a transverse side of stretcher 120).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ziaylek by combining the tank holder and the frame taught by Merritt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “allows the bottle holder 110 to be raised and lowered using the stretcher's own hydraulics that control the position of the litter”; (Merritt, [Col. 5, Lines 51-53]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 11, Ziaylek discloses a patient support apparatus (“particularly used mounted with respect to an emergency mobile transporting device, such as a stretcher or gurney”; [Col. 1, Lines 18-20]) comprising: an oxygen tank support for storing an oxygen tank thereon (See Fig. 1, housing 10 coupled to stretcher 98), the oxygen tank holder including a support mount coupled with the frame for movement therewith (See Fig. 1, mounting means 34) and a tank holder coupled with the support mount (See Fig. 1, housing 10 coupled with mountin means 34) and configured to store the oxygen tank such that a longitudinal axis of the oxygen tank is positioned at an acute angle relative to horizontal (using slot means 28 and straps one could position the tank at an acute angle).
Ziaylek fails to explicitly disclose a frame operable to move vertically relative to a floor underlying the frame.
However, Merritt teaches a frame operable to move vertically relative to a floor underlying the frame (“controls 128 allow a user to raise or lower the height of the litter” [Col. 2, Lines 61-62]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ziaylek by combining the tank holder and moveable frame taught by Merritt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “allows the bottle holder 110 to be raised and lowered using the stretcher's own hydraulics that control the position of the litter”; (Merritt, [Col. 5, Lines 51-53]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 12, Niayek, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus of claim 11.
Niayek fails to explicitly teach wherein the frame includes a head end and a foot end spaced apart from the head end and a transverse side that extends between the head end and the foot end, and the oxygen tank support is coupled to one of the head end of the frame and the transverse side of the frame.
However, Merritt teaches wherein the frame includes a head end and a foot end spaced apart from the head end and a transverse side that extends between the head end and the foot end (See Fig. 1, stretcher 120 having a head end, foot end and a transverse side), and the oxygen tank support is coupled to one of the head end of the frame and the transverse side of the frame (See Fig. 1, bottle 130 at a transverse side of stretcher 120).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ziaylek by combining the tank holder and the frame taught by Merritt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “allows the bottle holder 110 to be raised and lowered using the stretcher's own hydraulics that control the position of the litter”; (Merritt, [Col. 5, Lines 51-53]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 13, Ziaylek, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus of claim 12, wherein the support mount includes a first mount arm coupled with the frame (See Fig. 1, first mounting bracket 36) and the tank holder includes a sidewall coupled with the first mount arm (See Fig. 1, walls 16, 18, 20, 22 of housing 10) and configured to extend at least partway around the oxygen tank (See Fig. 1, housing 10 surround tank 94) and a bottom wall coupled with the sidewall and configured to engage a bottom of the oxygen tank (See Fig. 1, end panel 14).
Regarding Claim 14, Ziaylek, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus of claim 13, wherein the support mount includes a second mount arm coupled with the frame (See Fig. 1, second mounting bracket 38) and wherein the sidewall is formed to include a first aperture and a second aperture, the first mount arm extends through the first aperture, and the second mount arm extends through the second aperture (“One form of mounting means could be a strap extending through one or more of the longitudinal slots 28 defined in the housing 10”; [Col. 5, Lines 61-63]).
Regarding Claim 15, Ziaylek, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus of claim 12.
Ziaylek fails to explicitly teach a deck coupled with the upper frame and the oxygen tank support is located within a footprint of the deck when viewed from above.
However, Merritt teaches a deck coupled with the upper frame and the oxygen tank support is located within a footprint of the deck when viewed from above (See Fig. 1, bottle 130 within litter 124).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ziaylek by positioning the tank holder close the deck as taught by Merritt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “Medical patients being transported on stretchers or gurneys sometimes require oxygen”; (Merritt, [Col. 1, Lines 11-12]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziaylek (US 9168189 B2) in view of Merritt (US 7865984 B2), further in view of Cardonna (US 20130334269 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Ziaylek, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus of any of claims 4, wherein tank holder includes a sidewall extending between a first end and a second end of the tank holder (See Fig. 1, walls 16, 18, 20, 22 of housing 10) and formed to define the cavity for receiving the oxygen tank therein (See Fig. 3, interior chamber 24) and an end wall located at the first end of the oxygen tank holder and configured to engage a bottom of the oxygen tank (See Fig. 1, end panel 3).
Ziaylek in view of Merritt fails to explicitly teach the support mount extends at least partway around the sidewall to couple the tank holder with the frame.
However, Cardonna teaches the support mount extends at least partway around the sidewall to couple the tank holder with the frame (See Fig. 1, straps 76 and 86 extending around the housing 10 of Ziaylek).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Ziaylek in view of Merritt (directed to a patient support apparatus with an oxygen tank holder) and Cardonna (similarly directed to a bottle holder) before them, to have substituted the straps of Cardonna for the straps of Ziaylek (“strap extending through one or more of the longitudinal slots 28 defined in the housing 10”; (Ziaylek, [Col. 5, Lines 62-63]) with a reasonable expectation of success. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, as the straps are art-recognized equivalents that may be used interchangeably without changing the function of a tank/bottle holder.
Regarding Claim 6, Ziaylek, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus of any of claims 5, wherein the sidewall is formed to define a first opening (See Fig. 1, longitudinal slots 28).
Ziaylek in view of Merritt fails to explicitly teach the support mount includes a first mount arm coupled with the frame and extending through the first opening and at least partway around the sidewall of the tank support.
However, Cardonna teaches the support mount includes a first mount arm coupled with the frame and extending through the first opening and at least partway around the sidewall of the tank support (See Fig. 1, straps 76 and 86 extending around the housing 10 and through the slots 28 of Ziaylek).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Ziaylek in view of Merritt (directed to a patient support apparatus with an oxygen tank holder) and Cardonna (similarly directed to a bottle holder) before them, to have substituted the straps of Cardonna for the straps of Ziaylek (“strap extending through one or more of the longitudinal slots 28 defined in the housing 10”; (Ziaylek, [Col. 5, Lines 62-63]) with a reasonable expectation of success. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, as the straps are art-recognized equivalents that may be used interchangeably without changing the function of a tank/bottle holder.
Regarding Claim 7, Ziaylek, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus of claim 6, wherein the sidewall is formed to define a second opening spaced apart from and opposite the first opening (See Fig. 1, longitudinal slots 28 on top and bottom of both sides of housing 10).
Ziaylek in view of Merritt fails to explicitly teach the first mount arm extends through the second opening.
However, Cardonna teaches the first mount arm extends through the second opening (See Fig. 1, straps 76 and 86 extending around the housing 10 and through the slots 28 of Ziaylek).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Ziaylek in view of Merritt (directed to a patient support apparatus with an oxygen tank holder) and Cardonna (similarly directed to a bottle holder) before them, to have substituted the straps of Cardonna for the straps of Ziaylek (“strap extending through one or more of the longitudinal slots 28 defined in the housing 10”; (Ziaylek, [Col. 5, Lines 62-63]) with a reasonable expectation of success. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, as the straps are art-recognized equivalents that may be used interchangeably without changing the function of a tank/bottle holder.
Regarding Claim 8, Ziaylek, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus of claim 7, wherein the sidewall is formed to define a third opening spaced laterally apart from the first opening and a fourth opening spaced apart from and opposite the third opening (See Fig. 1, longitudinal slots 28 on top and bottom of both sides of housing 10).
Ziaylek in view of Merritt fails to explicitly teach the support mount includes a second mount arm coupled with the frame and extending through the third opening and the fourth opening.
However, Cardonna teaches the support mount includes a second mount arm coupled with the frame and extending through the third opening and the fourth opening (See Fig. 1, straps 76 and 86 extending around the housing 10 and through the slots 28 of Ziaylek).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Ziaylek in view of Merritt (directed to a patient support apparatus with an oxygen tank holder) and Cardonna (similarly directed to a bottle holder) before them, to have substituted the straps of Cardonna for the straps of Ziaylek (“strap extending through one or more of the longitudinal slots 28 defined in the housing 10”; (Ziaylek, [Col. 5, Lines 62-63]) with a reasonable expectation of success. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, as the straps are art-recognized equivalents that may be used interchangeably without changing the function of a tank/bottle holder.
Regarding Claim 9, Ziaylek, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus of claim 5, wherein the sidewall includes a curved segment that has a radius of curvature relative to an axis and wherein the axis extends between 0 and 45 degrees relative to horizontal (See Fig. 1 and 3, walls 20, and 22 having curvature relative to the horizontal).
Claims 16 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziaylek (US 9168189 B2) in view of Cardonna (US 20130334269 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Ziaylek discloses a method of assembling an oxygen tank support on a patient support apparatus (“a mounting means 34 which is designed to be securable with respect to various available portions of emergency transport equipment such as a stretcher or gurney”; [Col. 6, Lines 4-6]), the method comprising: aligning a first opening of a tank holder included in the oxygen tank support with a first mount arm of the oxygen tank support coupled with an upper frame of the patient support apparatus (See Fig. 1, “One form of mounting means could be a strap extending through one or more of the longitudinal slots 28 defined in the housing 10”; [Col. 5, Lines 61-63]).
Ziaylek fails to explicitly disclose rotating the tank holder in a first direction relative to the first mount arm so that first mount arm extends through the first opening and then through a second opening of the tank holder after passing through the first opening to cause the tank holder to be supported on the first mount arm in a first orientation.
However, Cardonna teaches the tank holder in a first direction relative to the first mount arm so that first mount arm extends through the first opening and then through a second opening of the tank holder after passing through the first opening to cause the tank holder to be supported on the first mount arm in a first orientation (See Fig. 1, using the straps 76 and 86 extending around the housing 10 and through the slots 28 of Ziaylek, while rotating house 10 to feed through straps 76 and 86).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Ziaylek in view of Merritt (directed to a patient support apparatus with an oxygen tank holder) and Cardonna (similarly directed to a bottle holder) before them, to have substituted the straps of Cardonna for the straps of Ziaylek (“strap extending through one or more of the longitudinal slots 28 defined in the housing 10”; (Ziaylek, [Col. 5, Lines 62-63]) with a reasonable expectation of success. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, as the straps are art-recognized equivalents that may be used interchangeably without changing the function of a tank/bottle holder.
Regarding Claim 19, Ziaylek, as modified, teaches the method of claim 16.
Ziaylek fails to explicitly teach locating an anti-rotation tab that extends from a body of the tank holder into a recess formed in the first mount arm.
However, Cardonna teaches an anti-rotation tab that extends from a body of the tank holder into a recess formed in the first mount arm (See Fig. 1, hooks 75, 85 extending from stanchion 40 and hooking straps 76, 86 to secure the bottle).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ziaylek by adding the hooks as taught by Cardonna. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for holding the bottle (not shown) secure and flush”; (Cardonna, [0049]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziaylek (US 9168189 B2) in view of Cardonna (US 20130334269 A1), further in view of Besler (US 3761968 A).
Regarding Claim 20, Ziaylek, as modified, teaches the method of claim 16.
Ziaylek in view of Cardonna fails to explicitly teach further comprising coupling the first mount arm with the upper frame prior to aligning the first opening of the tank holder included in the oxygen tank support with the first mount arm, and wherein the first mount arm is rigid and includes a first segment that extends downwardly away from the upper frame and a second segment that is curved to provide a channel with an opening facing the upper frame.
However, Besler teaches coupling the first mount arm with the upper frame prior to aligning the first opening of the tank holder included in the oxygen tank support with the first mount arm (See Fig. 3, U-shaped members 9, 10 connected to brackets 19 and 22), and wherein the first mount arm is rigid and includes a first segment that extends downwardly away from the upper frame and a second segment that is curved to provide a channel with an opening facing the upper frame (U-shaped members 9 and 10 are welded and extend down and around metal rods 12 that form the bottle holder).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ziaylek in view of Cardonna by adding rigid mounts as taught by Besler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “these brackets mount the attachment very rigidly on the tubular framework”; (Merritt, [Col. 4, Lines 38-40]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claims are deemed allowable subject matter over the prior art of record because the teachings as a whole do not teach nor render obvious the combinations set forth in Claims 17 and 18.
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art of Ziaylek teaches the method of claim 16. However, the prior art of Ziaylek in view of Cardonna and other references fails to explicitly teach, without impermissible hindsight, rotating the tank holder in a second direction relative to the first mount arm so that the first mount arm is removed from the first opening and the second opening, aligning the second opening of the tank holder included in the oxygen tank support with the first mount arm, rotating the tank holder in the first direction relative to the first mount arm so that first mount arm extends through the second opening and then through the first opening of the tank holder after passing through the second opening to cause the tank holder to be supported on the first mount arm in a second orientation.
Therefore, with the prior art failing to disclose the instant invention and an additional search, it is the Examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at and/or claimed this specific combination of features in the designed configuration based on the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20030163871 A1: Conlu discloses a frame structure configured to support equipment such as an oxygen tank.
US 6769659 B1: Martello discloses a bottle bracket with two straps configured to retain a bottle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
