DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
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 "first mounting location and the second mounting location magnetically couple the hand control device to the hand control mount" (of claim 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Particularly the claimed subject matter appears to state that the hand control device is simultaneously attached to the first and second mounting locations (which have been previously set forth in claim 8 as being “opposite” each other, which would seemingly create an unattainable physical condition of the invention. The matter is further discussed in the 112 section herein.
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 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: "for mounting the control device the lift assembly" should probably read as ""for mounting the control device to the lift assembly"". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is 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.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation "first mounting location and the second mounting location magnetically couple the hand control device to the hand control mount" is recited. There is confusion as to how the hand control device is coupled to the first and the second mounting location respectfully seeming to be simultaneously as written, particularly in light of the fact that antecedent claim 8 establishes “a first mounting location on a first side and a second mounting location on a second side opposite the first mounting location”. There becomes a question of how a physical object that is secured on separate, opposite, outer surfaces achieves connecting the singular hand control at the same time, and may even pose an issue of new matter or enablement due to the physical incapability to achieve and respectfully the lack of figures demonstrating the claimed feature. In light of the lack of the drawing and the disclosure lacking an explanation thereof, it’s construed for the purposes of examination that “wherein the first mounting location and the second mounting location magnetically couple the hand control device to the hand control mount” should probably read as “wherein the first mounting location or the second mounting location magnetically couple the hand control device to the hand control mount.”, or that otherwise that effectively both mounting locations possess a magnetically coupling element, but only one of them is engaged to the hand control mount.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faucher et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20160184156); hereafter “Faucher”, and Breiwa et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20160259374); hereafter “Breiwa”.
Regarding claim 1, Faucher discloses (FIGS. 5 and 6) a lift assembly (as illustrated in FIGS. 5/6), comprising: a lifting device comprising a control mount (60/35/65; as illustrated in FIGS. 5/6), the hand control mount coupled to the lifting device via a strap (10; FIG. 1); and a hand control device ([0028]: “a wired or wireless handheld button controller”)
However, Faucher does not explicitly disclose wherein the hand control mount comprises a plurality of mounting locations or niches for removably mounting the hand control device.
Regardless, Breiwa teaches (FIGS. 19D, 22, 30, and 33) an insert that is a ferromagnetic insert (and where such ferromagnetic insert is also cooperating with a niche therewith formed in the central hub/hand control mount (as illustrated in FIG. 19D) to couple an element of control or display thereon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the ferromagnetic insert about a columnar element/rounded element (as illustrated in FIGS. 22, 30, 33), with the niche coupling therewith/therethrough (as illustrated in FIGS. 19D, 22, and 33), into the hub portion of Faucher on the opposite planar faces thereof. Where the results would have been predictable as both Faucher and Breiwa are concerned with lifting/mounting arrangements, and further Faucher acknowledges “Current device mounts may wobble, lose orientation, lose connectivity, and thereby frustrate the purpose of use, or otherwise be difficult to repeatedly place and remove the device from its location”, where Faucher is one such solution, and further provides “a device having a magnetic attachment feature and a magnetic device mount. The magnetic device mount has a mating magnetic attachment feature. The magnetic attachment feature and mating magnetic attachment feature allow specific angular, radial, and/or longitudinal alignment of the device relative to the mount without a mechanical interface. An electronic device holder and charging system with integrated charging and data transfer interface and a self-aligning, magnetic coupling and docking interface with on-demand decoupling feature are also disclosed” which would be valuable in a hospital setting where surfaces or exposed charging plates would be dangerous to the patient.
Regarding claim 2, Faucher in view of Breiwa discloses (Faucher: FIGS. 5 and 6; Breiwa: FIGS. 22, 30, 33) the lift assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of mounting locations comprises a first mounting location on a first side and a second mounting location on a second side (as previously established in the preceding claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Faucher in view of Breiwa discloses (Beiwa: FIG. 19D) the lift assembly of claim 1, wherein the hand control device mounts to one of the plurality of mounting locations via a projection/recess interface (as set forth in claim 1 previously, niches of one surface and projections of the mating surfaces are considered to adjoint the features together).
Regarding claim 4, Faucher in view of Breiwa discloses (Faucher: FIGS. 5 and 6; Breiwa: FIGS. 22, 30, 33) the lift assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of mounting locations magnetically couple the hand control device to the hand control mount (as set forth in claim 1, where Breiwa provides magnetic couplings (FIGS 22, 30, and 33).
Regarding claim 5, Faucher in view of Breiwa discloses (Faucher: FIGS. 5 and 6) the lift assembly of claim 1, wherein when mounted to one of the plurality of mounting locations, the hand control device is non-rotatable relative to the mounting location (wherein the combination as set forth in claim 1 provides by Breiwa couplers that are geometrically mating and would prevent rotation as demonstrated in Breiwa; correspondent FIGS. 19D, 22, 30, and 33).
Regarding claim 6, Faucher in view of Breiwa discloses (Faucher: FIGS. 5 and 6) the sling bar of claim 1, wherein the plurality of mounting locations each comprise a polygonal shape that mates with a corresponding feature of the hand control device (as demonstrated in Breiwa and set forth in claim 1; correspondent FIGS. 19D, 22, 30, and 33).
Regarding claim 7, Faucher in view of Breiwa discloses (Faucher: FIGS. 5 and 6) the lift assembly of claim 6, wherein the corresponding feature of the hand control device comprises a temporary magnet. Where Breiwa addresses “may be attached to any surface via any means of fastening whether permanent or temporary.” [0074].
Regarding claim 8, Faucher discloses (FIGS. 5 and 6) a lift assembly (as illustrated in FIGS. 5/6), comprising: a lifting device comprising a control mount (60/35/65; as illustrated in FIGS. 5/6), the hand control mount coupled to the lifting device via a strap (10; FIG. 1); and a hand control device ([0028]: “a wired or wireless handheld button controller”)
However, while Faucher does possess a plurality of flat surfaces that are opposite each other (FIGS. 5-6) Faucher does not explicitly disclose wherein the hand control mount comprises a plurality of mounting locations or niches for removably mounting the hand control device or wherein the plurality of mounting locations comprises a first mounting location on a first side and a second mounting location on a second side.
Regardless, Breiwa teaches (FIGS. 19D, 22, 30, and 33) an insert that is a ferromagnetic insert (and where such ferromagnetic insert is also cooperating with a niche therewith formed in the central hub/hand control mount (as illustrated in FIG. 19D) to couple an element of control or display thereon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the ferromagnetic insert about a columnar element/rounded element (as illustrated in FIGS. 22, 30, 33), with the niche coupling therewith/therethrough (as illustrated in FIGS. 19D, 22, and 33), into the hub portion of Faucher on the opposite planar faces thereof. Where the results would have been predictable as both Faucher and Breiwa are concerned with lifting/mounting arrangements, and further Faucher acknowledges “Current device mounts may wobble, lose orientation, lose connectivity, and thereby frustrate the purpose of use, or otherwise be difficult to repeatedly place and remove the device from its location”, where Faucher is one such solution, and further provides “a device having a magnetic attachment feature and a magnetic device mount. The magnetic device mount has a mating magnetic attachment feature. The magnetic attachment feature and mating magnetic attachment feature allow specific angular, radial, and/or longitudinal alignment of the device relative to the mount without a mechanical interface. An electronic device holder and charging system with integrated charging and data transfer interface and a self-aligning, magnetic coupling and docking interface with on-demand decoupling feature are also disclosed” which would be valuable in a hospital setting where surfaces or exposed charging plates would be dangerous to the patient.
Regarding claim 9, Faucher in view of Breiwa discloses (Beiwa: FIG. 19D) the lift assembly of claim 8, wherein the hand control device mounts to one of the plurality of mounting locations via a projection/recess interface (as set forth in claim 8 previously, niches of one surface and projections of the mating surfaces are considered to adjoint the features together).
Regarding claim 10, Faucher in view of Breiwa discloses (Faucher: FIGS. 5 and 6; Breiwa: FIGS. 22, 30, 33) the lift assembly of claim 8, wherein the plurality of mounting locations magnetically couple the hand control device to the hand control mount (as set forth in claim 8, where Breiwa provides magnetic couplings (FIGS 22, 30, and 33).
Regarding claim 11, Faucher in view of Breiwa discloses (Faucher: FIGS. 5 and 6) the lift assembly of claim 8, wherein when mounted to one of the plurality of mounting locations, the hand control device is non-rotatable relative to the mounting location (wherein the combination as set forth in claim 8 provides by Breiwa couplers that are geometrically mating and would prevent rotation as demonstrated in Breiwa; correspondent FIGS. 19D, 22, 30, and 33).
Regarding claim 12, Faucher in view of Breiwa discloses (Faucher: FIGS. 5 and 6) the sling bar of claim 8, wherein the plurality of mounting locations each comprise a polygonal shape that mates with a corresponding feature of the hand control device (as demonstrated in Breiwa and set forth in claim 8; correspondent FIGS. 19D, 22, 30, and 33).
Regarding claim 13, Faucher in view of Breiwa discloses (Faucher: FIGS. 5 and 6) the lift assembly of claim 12, wherein the corresponding feature of the hand control device comprises a temporary magnet. Where Breiwa addresses “may be attached to any surface via any means of fastening whether permanent or temporary.” [0074].
Regarding claim 14, Faucher discloses (FIGS. 1 and 5-6) a lift assembly (as illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 5/6), comprising: a lifting device comprising at least one motor (6; FIG. 1); a sling bar (12; as illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 5/6) configured to engage a sling for subject support (as illustrated in FIG. 1); an attachment mechanism (as illustrated in FIG. 5-6) attaching the sling bar to the lifting device (as illustrated between FIGS. 1 and 5-6 a hand control device ([0028]: “a wired or wireless handheld button controller”) operable to provide control signals to control the lifting device ([0003]: “A caregiver may use a control unit to control the motor unit”); and a hand control mount (as illustrated in FIGS. 5/6 assorted recessed surfaces located about the front and rear of the hub 35/65 about the circular internal hollow) for mounting the hand control device the lift assembly, the hand control mount comprising at least one mounting location for removably mounting the hand control device.
However, while Faucher does possess a plurality of flat surfaces that are opposite each other (FIGS. 5-6) Faucher does not explicitly disclose wherein the hand control mount comprises at least one mounting location (or niches) for removably mounting the hand control device.
Regardless, Breiwa teaches (FIGS. 19D, 22, 30, and 33) an insert that is a ferromagnetic insert (and where such ferromagnetic insert is also cooperating with a niche therewith formed in the central hub/hand control mount to couple an element of control or display thereon (as illustrated in FIG. 19D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the ferromagnetic insert about a columnar element/rounded element (as illustrated in FIGS. 22, 30, 33), with the niche coupling therewith/therethrough (as illustrated in FIGS. 19D, 22, and 33), into the hub portion of Faucher on the opposite planar faces thereof. Where the results would have been predictable as both Faucher and Breiwa are concerned with lifting/mounting arrangements, and further Faucher acknowledges “Current device mounts may wobble, lose orientation, lose connectivity, and thereby frustrate the purpose of use, or otherwise be difficult to repeatedly place and remove the device from its location”, where Faucher is one such solution, and further provides “a device having a magnetic attachment feature and a magnetic device mount. The magnetic device mount has a mating magnetic attachment feature. The magnetic attachment feature and mating magnetic attachment feature allow specific angular, radial, and/or longitudinal alignment of the device relative to the mount without a mechanical interface. An electronic device holder and charging system with integrated charging and data transfer interface and a self-aligning, magnetic coupling and docking interface with on-demand decoupling feature are also disclosed” which would be valuable in a hospital setting where surfaces or exposed charging plates would be dangerous to the patient.
Regarding claim 15, Faucher in view of Breiwa discloses (Beiwa: FIG. 19D) the lift assembly of claim 15, wherein the hand control device mounts to the at least one mounting locations via a projection/recess interface (as set forth in claim 14 previously, niches of one surface and projections of the mating surfaces are considered to adjoint the features together).
Regarding claim 16, Faucher in view of Breiwa discloses (Faucher: FIGS. 5 and 6; Breiwa: FIGS. 22, 30, 33) the lift assembly of claim 14, wherein the at least one mounting locations magnetically couple the hand control device to the hand control mount (as set forth in claim 14, where Breiwa provides magnetic couplings (FIGS 22, 30, and 33).
Regarding claim 17, Faucher in view of Breiwa discloses (Faucher: FIGS. 5 and 6) the lift assembly of claim 15, wherein when mounted to the at least one mounting location, the hand control device is non-rotatable relative to the mounting location (wherein the combination as set forth in claim 14 provides by Breiwa couplers that are geometrically mating and would prevent rotation as demonstrated in Breiwa; correspondent FIGS. 19D, 22, 30, and 33).
Regarding claim 18, Faucher in view of Breiwa discloses (Faucher: FIGS. 5 and 6) the sling bar of claim 14, wherein the at least one mounting location comprise a polygonal shape that mates with a corresponding feature of the hand control device (as demonstrated in Breiwa and set forth in claim 14; correspondent FIGS. 19D, 22, 30, and 33).
Regarding claim 19, Faucher in view of Breiwa discloses (Faucher: FIGS. 5 and 6) the lift assembly of claim 18, wherein the corresponding feature of the hand control device comprises a temporary magnet. Where Breiwa addresses “may be attached to any surface via any means of fastening whether permanent or temporary.” [0074].
Regarding claim 20, Faucher in view of Breiwa discloses (Faucher: FIGS. 5 and 6; Breiwa: FIGS. 22, 30, 33) the lift assembly of claim 14, wherein the at least one mounting locations comprises a first mounting location on a first side and a second mounting location on a second side (as previously established in the preceding claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references cited on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) were considered pertinent because they address the state of the art of lifts, hoists, coupling mechanisms and fastener arrangements alongside magnetic/ferromagnetic coupling mechanisms or uses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/LUKE HALL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights