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 08/28/2025 and 03/19/2026 has been acknowledged by the Office.
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 8 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.
The term “type” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “type” 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 ‘type’ is a relative concept when applied to slings (such as patient lift slings) because their classification is entirely task-dependent. Rather than being a fixed design, a sling's 'type' is defined by the patient's medical condition, the mechanical hoist used, and the desired orientation (horizontal, upright, sitting, etc.). Slings can be used in supine, seated, hammock or sliding configurations usually to cradle one or more body parts of a user to displace the weight of the user off or along a ground surface. Furthermore, there are even ‘task-specific types of slings’ such as toileting, hygiene (washing/bathing), sit to stand or amputee slings. Lastly, even the use of rigging or lack thereof could be considered a type of hoist wherein the hardware used could be considered a type of hoist. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted that any information relating to the hoist such as but not limited to manufacturing details, technical specifications, manufacturing date, serial number or part number, inspection or maintenance, operational manuals or usage, equipment identifiers, safe working load or capacity, etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kenalty et al., hereinafter 'Kenalty' (US 20130276235 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Kenalty teaches: A sling (10 - Fig. 5, also noting Para 0068) for supporting a subject (101 - Fig. 5) thereon, the sling comprising: a body (50 - Fig. 4a); a pair of straps extending from the body (40, 41 - Fig. 13, Para 068); and a first layer coupled to the body (20 - Fig. 1), the first layer and the body defining a storage pocket having an opening (Figs. 4a, 4b, 4c show the first layer (i.e. 20 or the hood) and the body (i.e. 50) bottom layer defining a storage pocket having an opening), wherein the storage pocket is sized to receive at least a portion of the body and the pair of straps therein in a folded configuration (Fig. 4c, further noting 'In FIG. 4b, the mattress 10 is half-rolled-up, with the spinal boards articulated with respect to each other about hinge axes C and D, which are substantially perpendicular to the mattress longitudinal axis L. In FIG. 4c, the mattress 10 has been completely rolled-up into the foot section 20, presenting a substantially cylindrical cross-section, preferably with two flat or semi-flat portions 21a and 21b.').
In regards to Claim 2, Kenalty teaches: The sling of claim 1, wherein the sling comprises an identifier of the sling (22 - Fig. 1, Para 0039: "A label pouch 22 comprises a clear plastic envelope which may contain information such as patient information, mattress information, hospital information, or a blank sheet which may be used by triage personnel.").
In regards to Claim 3, Kenalty teaches: The sling of claim 2, wherein the first layer comprises the identifier (first layer 20 shown to comprise identifier 22 - Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 10, Kenalty teaches: The sling of claim 1, wherein the sling further comprises a support handle (27 - Fig. 1, Para 0039).
In regards to Claim 11, Kenalty teaches: The sling of claim 10, wherein the support handle is a shoulder loop of the sling (Para 0039: 'An optional shoulder strap 27 may also be affixed to the foot section 20.').
In regards to Claim 13, Kenalty teaches: The sling of claim 10, wherein the support handle is coupled to the storage pocket (Figs. 1-3).
In regards to Claim 14, Kenalty teaches: The sling of claim 1, wherein the first layer is coupled to the body adjacent a perimeter edge of the body ([16, 18]- Fig. 5, noting that the first layer 20 is shown to be coupled to body 50 and also adjacent a perimeter edge of body via element wings 16/18).
In regards to Claim 15, Kenalty teaches: The sling of claim 1, further comprising a closure mechanism disposed on the first layer of material (38 - Fig. 2), wherein the closure mechanism, when in a closed position, maintains the at least a portion of the body within the storage pocket (Fig. 1 and Col 4 Line 60 - Col 5 Line 3).
In regards to Claim 16, Kenalty teaches: The sling of claim 15, wherein the closure mechanism comprises at least one of a zipper mechanism, a fold over closure mechanism, a snap, a magnet, an interlocking fastening mechanism, and a hook and loop fastening mechanism (Fig. 1 and Col 4 Line 60 - Col 5 Line 3).
In regards to Claim 17, Kenalty teaches: The sling of claim 15, wherein the closure mechanism comprises a second layer coupled to the body (28 - Fig. 3, shown indirectly coupled to the body), and wherein the second layer is configured to fold over the opening to maintain the at least a portion of the body within the pocket (28 shown to fold over the opening to maintain the at least a portion of body within the pocket as shown in Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 18, Kenalty teaches: The sling of claim 1, wherein the body comprises a surface having a low-friction material (Col 5 Lines 9-15: 'Preferably, fabric wear strips 66 are affixed to the bottom sheet 50, in-between the wheel assemblies (as shown), to protect the bottom sheet 50 when the mattress 10 is dragged along a surface. The wear strips 66 may comprise Kevlar (which has an excellent co-efficient factor), ballistic nylon (which is a thick, tough, synthetic nylon fabric), or other suitable fabric.', noting that Kevlar has a very low coefficient of friction).
In regards to Claim 19, Kenalty teaches: The sling of claim 1, wherein the pair of straps are a pair of leg straps that each define a connection point for a sling bar of an overhead lift (Col 10 Line 66 - Col 11 Line 6: 'When the mattress is supported by the handles 40 and 41 from a single point (e.g., suspended from a rope sling), the spinal boards 60, 62, and 63 provide rigidity to the patient's back while the wings come up to form a wall, or safety cocoon. Depending on the condition of the patient, it may be necessary to air lift the patient to the nearest hospital. In this situation, the handles may be connected to a helicopter winch or harness and lifted to safety.').
In regards to Claim 20, Kenalty teaches: A sling (10 - Fig. 5, also noting Para 0068) for supporting a subject (101 - Fig. 5) thereon, the sling comprising: a body (50 - Fig. 4a) having a first portion and a second portion (see annotated Fig. 4a.1 from Kenalty); a pair of leg straps extending from the body (40 - Fig. 5); a pair of shoulder loops extending from the body (41 - Fig. 5); and a first layer partially coupled to the second portion of the body (20 - Fig. 1) to define a storage pocket having a closable opening (Figs. 4a, 4b, 4c show the first layer (i.e. 20 or the hood) and the body (i.e. 50) bottom layer defining a storage pocket having an opening), wherein the second portion of the body is positioned with respect to the first portion of the body to allow for the first portion of the body to be received within the storage pocket when the sling is in a folded configuration (Figs. 4a -> 4c, showing Fig. 4c as the folded configuration wherein the first portion of the body being received in storage pocket area 20), and wherein the pair of leg straps and/or the pair of shoulder loops are disposed within the storage pocket when the sling is in the folded configuration (Fig. 3 thru Fig. 4c showing the leg straps and shoulder loops folded inward and to be disposed within the storage pocket in folded configuration of Fig. 4c).
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) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Kenalty' (US 20130276235 A1) in view of Alveblom et al., hereinafter 'Alveblom' (EP 2901996 A1).
In regards to Claim 4, Kenalty teaches: The sling of claim 2, but Kenalty does not explicitly teach, wherein the body comprises the identifier.
Alveblom teaches: wherein the body comprises the identifier (Fig. 2 shows the body comprising the identifier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kenalty’s sling to include an identifier on the body as taught by Alveblom. Alveblom teaches providing an identifier directly on the body of the sling to facilitate identification and recognition of sling characteristics. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating such an identifier into Kenalty’s sling would have predictably improved the ability of caregivers and users to identify, select, and manage the sling while retaining the intended functionality of the sling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Kenalty and Alveblom to arrive at the claimed invention.
In regards to Claim 5, Kenalty in view of Alveblom teaches: The sling of claim 4, Kenalty further teaches, wherein the first layer is substantially transparent and the identifier on the body is visible through the first layer (Para 0039: "A label pouch 22 comprises a clear plastic envelope which may contain information such as patient information, mattress information, hospital information, or a blank sheet which may be used by triage personnel.").
Claim(s) 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Kenalty' (US 20130276235 A1) in view of Joncas (WO 2019213785 A1)
In regards to Claim 6, Kenalty teaches: The sling of claim 2, but Kenalty does not explicitly teach, wherein the identifier is a color-coded identifier, a color of the color-coded identifier being associated with a feature of the sling.
Joncas teaches: wherein the identifier is a color-coded identifier, a color of the color-coded identifier being associated with a feature of the sling. (Fig. 5, noting 'As indicated by said Fig. 5, the first marker elements 55 and second marker elements 56 may each comprise a color indication, each being in a color xl-x6. Optionally, the body 52 may be flexible. For example, the body 52 is formed from a ribbon of cloth, plastic, and/or fiber glass or the body 52 is a flexible metal strip.')
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kenalty’s sling to include a color-coded identifier, wherein the color of the identifier is associated with a feature of the sling, as taught by Joncas. Joncas teaches utilizing color indications to identify characteristics and facilitate recognition of equipment features. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that applying color-coded identifiers to Kenalty’s sling would have provided a simple and efficient visual means for identifying sling characteristics, thereby improving ease of use, reducing user error, and facilitating proper sling selection. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Kenalty and Joncas to achieve the claimed invention.
In regards to Claim 7, Kenalty teaches: The sling of claim 2, but Kenalty does not explicitly teach, wherein the identifier comprises an alphanumeric character associated with a feature of the sling.
Joncas teaches: wherein the identifier comprises an alphanumeric character associated with a feature of the sling (Fig. 6, noting 'Fig. 6 shows a non-limiting example of an excerpt of an assessment form 70. The assessment form 70 may be a paper document or an electronic document. Further, assessment form 70 comprises a plurality of sections 71 to 76, which may be filled out by a user. Section 71 relates to information regarding the manufacturer, part number and serial number of the patient support mounting device 11. Additionally, section 72 relates to a description and a maximum safe working load (SWL) of the patient support mounting device 11. In section 73 there is noted whether the patient support mounting device 11 fulfills all of criteria A, B and C or not. In the example shown in Fig. 6 the patient support mounting device 11 fulfills criteria A, B and C. Section 74 relates to criterion D and section 75 relates to criterion E. The checkboxes in sections 74 and 75 indicate which sizes of patient supports 15 are a safe match with the length and width, respectively of the patient support mounting device 11 being currently examined.').
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kenalty’s sling to include an identifier comprising an alphanumeric character associated with a feature of the sling as taught by Joncas. Joncas teaches the use of alphanumeric information, including part numbers, serial numbers, and other identifying information, to identify and distinguish patient support devices and associated characteristics. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating alphanumeric identifiers into Kenalty’s sling would have improved identification, traceability, and communication of sling features while maintaining the intended function of the sling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Kenalty and Joncas to arrive at the claimed invention.
In regards to Claim 8, Kenalty teaches: The sling of claim 2, but Kenalty does not explicitly teach, wherein the identifier relates to a size of the sling or a type of the sling.
Joncas teaches: wherein the identifier relates to a size of the sling or a type of the sling (Fig. 6 shows size and type of sling including part number / serial number).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kenalty’s sling such that the identifier relates to a size of the sling or a type of the sling as taught by Joncas. Joncas teaches identifying patient support devices according to characteristics such as size and type to assist users in selecting appropriate equipment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that providing size- or type-related identifiers on Kenalty’s sling would have facilitated proper sling selection and reduced the likelihood of misuse, thereby improving safety and usability. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Kenalty and Joncas to achieve the claimed invention.
In regards to Claim 9, Kenalty teaches: The sling of claim 1, but Kenalty does not explicitly teach, wherein the first layer comprises a mesh material.
Joncas teaches: wherein the first layer comprises a mesh material ('For example, patient supports may be manufactured in predetermined sizes, such as extra extra small (XXS), extra small (XS), small (S), medium (M), large (L), extra large (XL), and/or extra extra large (XXL). Optionally, the patient support may be formed from a flexible and tear-strong or tear- proof material such as polyester or a polyester mesh.').
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kenalty’s sling such that the first layer comprises a mesh material as taught by Joncas. Joncas teaches forming patient supports from polyester mesh materials that are flexible and tear-resistant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating a mesh material into Kenalty’s sling would have predictably provided benefits such as improved breathability, reduced moisture retention, enhanced user comfort, and maintained structural support for lifting operations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Kenalty and Joncas to arrive at the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regards to Claim 12, the prior art of 'Kenalty' (US 20130276235 A1) teaches a roll-up patient-evacuation mattress has a bottom sheet having a head end and a foot end. The foot section is coupled to the bottom sheet and is dimensioned to substantially enclose the patient-evacuation mattress when the bottom sheet, the mattress, and the patient support sheet are rolled from the head end to the foot end in a direction substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the patient-evacuation mattress into said foot section. Yet, in the folded or rolled up configuration as shown in Figs. 4a-4c the shoulder strap (27) or loop would not define a connection point for a sling bar of an overhead lift. Rather the device is in its storage configuration and would not be defined to use in such a manner to utilize a sling bar or an overhead lift in the claimed instant invention, as it is meant to be hoisted over the shoulder and carried to a different location or placed into storage for the next person to use it.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Badenhorst (WO 2012073209 A1) teaches: The present invention relates a support device which supports and transfers a patient. A support member has a back support portion and a thigh support portion which are relatively displaceably between a flat condition and a folded condition. In the flat condition, the support member is inserted underneath and removed from underneath a supine patient, and in a folded condition the back support portion is at an angle relative to the thigh support portion in order to support the patient in a seated position. An engagement arrangement secures the back support portion and thigh support portion releasably in the folded condition. The support device also includes lifting arrangements which are used to lift and move a patient to a desired location when the patient is positioned on the support member. The support device provides a cost effective and safe and comfortable manner for transporting a patient from one location to another.
Alveblom (EP 2901996 A1) teaches: A device comprising a textile main body, and one or more indicator elements on the textile main body, or on a label fixed to the textile main body, for indicating date information, the indicator elements comprising a plurality of severable portions spaced from the main body or the label on which they are provided, each of the severable portions being associated with date information such that by cutting one or more of the severable portions a date of use of the device or a date of inspection of the device can be indicated. A device having indicator elements of this type has the advantage that the indication of a date of first use or a date of inspection can be made easily, can be read easily and will be durable over many laundry cycles.
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
06/22/2026
Prosecution Insights