DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 9/2/2025. Claims 21-23, 25-27, 29, 32, 34, 36, and 39-48 are pending. Claims 21-23, 25-27, 29, 32, 34, 36, and 39 are rejected. Claims 40-48 are allowable.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 21-23, 25-27, 29, 32, 34, 36, and 39 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. Applicant recites “two intermediate links” in claim 21. There is no discussion of “intermediate links” in Applicant’s specification, and it is unclear what structures in the drawings are considered to be “intermediate links” (or if such structures are even shown in the drawings). Examiner notes that Applicant discussed this issue in the remarks dated 9/2/25, however the remarks did not fully clarify the issue. Specifically, claim 21 recites “the four links comprising an upper link, a lower link, and two intermediate links disposed between the upper link and the lower link.” This recitation appears to be saying that “the four links” actually comprise six links. Furthermore, this interpretation is incompatible with Applicant’s remarks and annotated Fig. 4 dated 9/2/25 which seem to indicate that “intermediate links” are actually the upper links indicated in the figures as #308a and 308b (remarks state “The links between upper torque reactor 314 and movable torque reactor 312 can also be considered as intermediate to, or between, upper torque reactor 314 and movable torque reactor 312.”). Additionally, claim 21 recites “an upper torque reactor configured to form the upper link of the at least one upper 4-bar linkage and a floating torque reactor configured to form the lower link of the at least one upper 4-bar linkage and the upper link of the at least one lower 4-bar linkage”. It is unclear if Applicant is positively reciting additional structures, or simply attempting to rename the previously recited links as torque reactors. Therefore, it is unclear what structural configuration is being recited in claim 21. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “intermediate links” (which it is noted are not described in the specification). Based on Applicant’s remarks dated 9/2/2025 it appears that these may be considered to be reference characters #308a and 308b. Applicant may overcome this objection by amending the specification to state that “intermediate links” are indicated by reference characters #308a and 308b, or alternatively by amending the specification and drawings to include a different reference character for intermediate links (if “intermediate links” are not intended to be indicated by reference characters #308a and 308b).
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). There is no discussion in the specification of “intermediate links” as recited in claim 21. Examiner notes that Applicant’s remarks dated 9/2/25 do provide some insight into this terminology, stating “The links between upper torque reactor 314 and movable torque reactor 312 can also be considered as intermediate to, or between, upper torque reactor 314 and movable torque reactor 312.” However, this language is not found in the specification. Therefore the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the claim term “intermediate links”.
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 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 of this title, 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 21-23, 25, 27, 29, 32, 34, 36, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,157,743 to Masuda et al. (“Masuda”) in view of US Patent 6,024,191 to Backer et al. (“Backer”).
Claim 21. A bed for supporting or positioning a patient (Masuda, Fig. 10), comprising: a platform (Masuda, Fig. 10, #41) configured to support at least a portion of the patient; a support column (Masuda, Fig. 10, #52) positioned beneath the platform; a base (Masuda, Fig. 13, #B) positioned beneath the support column and configured to support the support column; a raising/lowering mechanism comprising an actuator (Masuda teaches the use of various actuators including auxiliary cylinders #52, 53, 54 and 55 in Fig. 10; these cylinders “act directly to push up the working base” as discussed in the Abstract; alternatively, Masuda, Fig. 10, #51 or alternatively Fig. 13 #16 or #19 all teach actuators that could read on Applicant’s claimed “actuator”) configured to provide upward force to the platform; and a support and lift mechanism configured to support, raise and lower the platform, the support and lift mechanism comprising a first linkage system and a second linkage system (Masuda, Fig. 10, first linkage system is #42; second linkage system is #45), the first linkage system comprising at least one upper 4-bar linkage and at least one lower 4-bar linkage connected in series (Masuda, Fig. 10, #44 is comprised as claimed; see annotated Fig. 9 below), the at least one upper 4-bar linkage and the at least one lower 4-bar linkage each comprising four links, the four links comprising an upper link, a lower link, and two intermediate links disposed between the upper link and the lower link (while Masuda teaches four bar linkages in a pantograph configuration as has been discussed in the Office Action dated 4/1/25, and seen in the below annotated figure 9, Masuda does not disclose parallelogram type linkages; however such lifting devices are well known in the prior art such as taught by Backer, Fig. 2; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the pantographs of Masuda with parallelogram linkages as taught by Backer since both are art recognized equivalent mechanical means of lifting a load, and doing so would have simply been substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable and obvious results; Backer teaches upper links at Fig. 2, #16 and 17, lower links at #9 and #10, and intermediate links at #33), and the second linkage system configured to act in a plane perpendicular to the first linkage system (Masuda, Figs. 9 and 10, #45 is perpendicular to #42);
PNG
media_image1.png
504
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an upper torque reactor (Backer, Fig. 2, #6) configured to form the upper link of the at least one upper 4-bar linkage and a floating torque reactor (Backer, Fig. 2, #11) configured to form the lower link of the at least one upper 4-bar linkage and the upper link of the at least one lower 4-bar linkage (Backer, Fig. 2, #11 connects the upper and lower linkages as claimed) wherein the actuator any height by using the auxiliary cylinder 19”; in an alternative interpretation, Masuda discloses actuator #16 in Fig. 13 which extends from the base to upper link #13 and Backer discloses an actuator ae #21 in Fig. 2; it would have been obvious to move the point of connection of Masuda’s actuator from upper link #13 to upper structure #14, or to move the points of connection of Backer’s actuator, since doing so would have simply been an obvious rearrangement of parts, and furthermore Applicant has not shown that there is any criticality to the point of connection or that Applicant’s slightly more vertical orientation of the actuator would provide any functional benefit over the orientation of Masuda’s actuator #16), such that the actuator the bed comprising a maximum range of vertical motion between the extended state and the collapsed state (compare the compact vs. raised arrangements of Masuda Fig. 13 and Backer Figs. 1-2, it is inherent that the range of motion between the extended state and the collapsed state comprises a maximum range of motion), and wherein, in the extended state, the platform is lifted.
Claim 22. The bed of claim 21, wherein, the two intermediate links
Claim 23. The bed of claim 22, wherein
Claim 25. The bed of claim 21, further comprising: a lower support mount configured to form the lower link of the at least one lower 4-bar linkage (Backer teaches “lower support mounts” at #1 in Fig. 2).wherein the
Claim 27. The bed of claim 25, wherein the second linkage system comprises a first link bar attached to a lower support block on the base and a second link bar attached to the first link bar and arranged in series with the first link bar, wherein at least one of the two intermediate links the lower 4-bar linkage lie generally horizontally along the base (see Masuda Fig 10, raising/lowering mechanisms #42 and #45 are attached to the base “directly adjacent” to each other), and wherein, when in the collapsed state, the first and second link bars are arranged at substantially the same height as the at least one lower 4-bar linkage (see Masuda Fig. 12, or Backer, Fig. 1).
Claim 29. The bed of claim 21, wherein the at least one upper 4-bar linkage comprises a pair of spaced-apart upper 4-bar linkages, and wherein the at least one lower 4-bar linkage comprises a pair of spaced-apart lower 4-bar linkages, the pair of upper 4-bar linkages, the pair of lower 4-bar linkages being connected to [[a]] the floating torque reactor (Backer, Fig. 2, lower arms 9, 10 are connected to upper arms 16, 17 via torque reactor #11); reactor such that the pair of upper 4-bar linkages is connected to the pair of lower 4-bar linkages, wherein at least a portion of the pair of upper 4-bar linkages is positioned between at least a portion of the pair of lower 4-bar linkages or at least a portion of the pair of lower 4-bar linkages is positioned between at least a portion of the pair of upper 4-bar linkages, and wherein when the bed is moving from a raised to a collapsed position, the pair of upper 4- bar linkages can move unobstructed by the pair of lower 4-bar linkages (see Masuda Fig. 12, or Backer, Fig. 1 in which the apparatus can be placed in a lowered/collapsed configuration precisely because the structures are “positioned between” each other).
Claim 32. The bed of claim 21, wherein the raising/lowering mechanism comprises one or more of: a lead screw, a piston, an actuator (Masuda, Fig. 10, #51), a motor, a telescoping mechanism, a threaded road and nut, a ball screw, a roller screw, concentric screws, and a push chain.
Claim 34. The bed of claim 21, wherein the raising/lowering mechanism is spaced apart from and positioned within the first and second linkage systems (Masuda, actuator #51 is located between linkages of #42 and is thus “spaced apart”; alternatively see Backer Fig. 4a).
Claim 36. The bed of claim 21, wherein the second linkage system comprisessecond linkage system has consecutive link bars of the three link bars in a stacked configuration(Masuda, Figs. 12-13 teach a stacked, or collapsed configuration), and wherein the first linkage system is configured to have motion constrained in a first plane and the second linkage system is configured to have motion constrained in a second plane perpendicular to the first plane, thereby providing in combination resistance to all motion except raising/lowering the platform (Masuda, Fig. 10, #45 is perpendicular to #42, which thereby provides resistance to forces that are transverse to the vertical axis)..
Claim 39. The bed of claim 21, wherein one or both of the first and second linkage systems provide resistance to moments about one or more of a roll axis, a pitch axis, and a yaw axis (Masuda, Fig. 10, #45 is perpendicular to #42, which thereby provides resistance to forces that are transverse to the vertical axis).
Discussion of allowable subject matter
As previously noted in the Office Action dated 7/25/24, regarding Claim 26, Applicant’s claim limitations directed toward “the second linkage system being hingedly connected to the upper torque reactor directly below the at least one upper 4-bar linkage” are not found in the prior art. While the apparatus of Masuda, or Masuda as modified by Backer, teaches similar structures, the attachment point of these structures is not as claimed by Applicant (see Applicant’s Fig. 2), nor is there any obvious manner to reconfigure the apparatus of Masuda to yield the claimed invention. Independent claim 21 would be allowable if amended to include the subject matter of claim 26, as well as all limitations of claims 25.
Examiner notes that Applicant recites general terminology in claim 21, including a “4-bar linkage”, and a “compact arrangement” which can be found in the teachings of either Masuda or Backer. Examiner suggests including additional structural details in claim 21 in order to differentiate over the prior art of Masuda and Backer.
Alternatively, or additionally, Applicant may wish to include limitations directed toward the shape and configuration of links 330a,b,c, and how these links and connections are different than those of bars 308a,b and 310a,b. Independent claim 21 recites limitations that can be interpreted to be the same as disclosed by Masuda and Backer (see rejection above). However, with the introduction of limitations of claims 25 and 26, the claimed invention can no longer be interpreted in such a manner, and only a configuration as seen in Applicant’s Fig. 2 is reasonable (which includes a second linkage #306 that is seen to be structurally different than the linkages of Masuda and Backer).
Additionally, independent claims 40 and 44 comprise limitations that are found in Claims 21, 25 and 26, and these claims additionally are allowable over the prior art for the same reasons.
Response to Applicant's remarks and amendments
Regarding Double Patenting rejections, Applicant has filed a terminal disclaimer, which has been approved, and the double patenting rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 112(b), Applicant argues in remarks dated 9/2/25 that one of ordinary skill would have understood the terminology “intermediate links.” While this may be true, this proposed interpretation in remarks dated 9/2/25 is inconsistent with the claim language of claim 21. Additionally, there is no discussion in Applicant’s specification of “intermediate links” nor are there any structures in the drawings that are called out with a reference character as being intermediate links. Therefore, the specification and drawings have been objected to in this office action. See above for additional discussion.
With respect to claim 21 rejected under 35 USC §103, Applicant argues on pages 11-13 of Applicant’s remarks that the cited art of Masuda and Backer doesn’t teach the claimed invention. First, Examiner will summarize the rejection, then review Applicant’s explicit arguments. While the rejection of claim 21 is discussed in detail above, the rejection and prior art is summarized herein:
Masuda discloses a lifting apparatus with pantograph linkages which reads on Applicant’s recitation of various upper and lower linkages, as well as other structural elements. Backer is introduced for teaching a different type of lifting mechanism (double parallelogram type of linkage) including structures that read on Applicant’s “torque reactors”. The proposed combination is to replace the pantograph linkages of Masuda with double parallelogram linkages. This would have been an obvious substitution of parts (additional discussion and motivation in the above rejection).
Applicant argues that the amended claim language requires an actuator that is configured to extend from the base to the upper torque reactor, and argues that actuator #21 of Backer does not extend from the base to the upper torque reactor. However, Backer was not cited for a teaching of actuator #21. As noted in the above discussion, Masuda discloses various locations of actuators, but not Applicant’s exact location. However, the rejection is based on obviousness, and as noted in the above rejection, it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to move the point of connection of the actuator of Masuda (or of actuator #21 of Backer) to be as claimed, since doing so would have simply been an obvious rearrangement of parts, and furthermore Applicant has not shown that there is any criticality to the point of connection or that Applicant’s slightly more vertical orientation of the actuator would provide any functional benefit over the orientation of Masuda’s actuator #16.
Applicant argues on page 13 of remarks that “Backer’s boom assembly does not form a compact arrangement as its floating frame is always maintained vertically, preventing the boom assembly from completely folding.” However this language is both ambiguous and not found in the recited claim. Applicant appears to be imputing structural meaning to the term “compact arrangement” which is not recited in the claim, nor supported by the specification. Moreover, the structures of either Masuda or of Backer are more compact when in a lowered configuration than when in a raised configuration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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.
/MYLES A THROOP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673