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 .
Response to Amendments
The Amendment filed 11/4/2025 has been entered. Claims 10-20 and 22 were amended, and claims 1-9 were canceled. Thus, claims 10-22 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-11, 14, 18, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites “unit ,” in lines 2-3, and is suggested to read --unit,-- (i.e. delete the extraneous space) in order to be grammatically correct.
Claim 10 recites “supply ,” in line 7, and is suggested to read --supply,-- (i.e. delete the extraneous space) in order to be grammatically correct.
Claim 10 recites “frame .” in line 10, and is suggested to read --frame.-- (i.e. delete the extraneous space) in order to be grammatically correct.
Claim 11 recites “probe is” in line 5, and is suggested to read --probes are-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed and to be grammatically correct.
Claim 14 recites “area located” in line 1, and is suggested to read --area is located-- in order to be grammatically correct.
Claim 18 recites “module .” in line 7, and is suggested to read --module.-- (i.e. delete the extraneous space) in order to be grammatically correct.
Claim 22 recites “the said” in line 1, and is suggested to read --the-- or --said-- in order to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “an inspiration and expiration module” in claim 15 line 6.
Because this claim limitations is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 11-22 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.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “from a first side…a second side” in lines 2-3 is confusing, as it is unclear as to which limitation’s sides are being referenced, and thus the claim is indefinite (i.e. is it the patient’s sides, or the patient support apparatus’s sides, or the patient monitoring system’s side, etc.). Moreover, the limitation “the outlets” in line 3 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to include “an outlet” of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “a monitoring system display” in lines 1-2 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is the same as or different from “a monitoring system display” in claim 11. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as the same limitation. The limitations of "the outer side" in line 2, “the left-head side” in line 2, and “the vital signs” in line 3 are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Moreover, the limitation “the side rail” in line 2 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is part of or separate from the “four side rails” in claim 10, and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as one of the four side rails.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the side rail” in line 2 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is part of or separate from the “four side rails” in claim 10. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as one of the four side rails. The limitation "the left head-side" is recited in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations “the rear” in line 1 and "the left head-side" in line 2 are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Moreover, the limitation “the side rail” in line 2 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is part of or separate from the “four side rails” in claim 10. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as one of the four side rails.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “a gases inlet connector” in lines 1-2 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is the same as or different from “a gases inlet connector” in claim 15. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as the same limitation. Moreover, the limitations “the side” in line 2 and "the head-end section" in lines 2-3 are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “a gases control box” in lines 1-2 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is the same as or different from “a gases control box” in claim 15. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as the same limitation. Moreover, the limitations “the supply” in line 3 and “the wall” in line 4 are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “a ventilation power box” in line 2 and “a ventilation control box” in line 2 are confusing, as it is unclear whether these limitations are meant to be the same as or different from “a power control box” and “a ventilation control box” in claim 15. For the purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as the same respective limitations. Moreover, the limitation “at least one gas hoses and cable” in line 5 is confusing, as it is unclear as to what structures the “at least one” limitation is referencing. In other words, is the “at least one” requiring either gas hoses or a cable, requiring both at least one gas hose and at least one cable, or requiring either a gas hose or a cable.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “the patient backrest board” in line 3 is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “a ventilation system display” in lines 1-2 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is part of or separate from “a ventilation system display” in claim 15. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as the same limitation. Moreover, the limitations “the outer side” in line 2 and “the right head side rail” in line 2 are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Furthermore, the limitation “the right head-side rail” in line 2 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is part of or separate from the “four side rails” in claim 10. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as one of the four side rails.
Regarding claim 21, the limitations “the edge” in line 2, “the head-end section” in line 2, “the ventilation control box” in line 3, “the monitoring electronic system” in line 3, “and “the wall-mounted monitor” in lines 3-4 are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Moreover, the limitations “the ventilator control box” in line 3 and “the monitoring electronic system” in line 3 are confusing, as it is unclear whether these limitations are meant to reference “a patient ventilation system” and “a patient monitoring system” of claim 10, respectively.
Regarding claim 22, the limitations "the halfway position” in lines 3-4, “the probes” in line 4, “the docking area” in line 4, “the first stage” in line 8, “the sockets” in line 9, and “the patient probes” in lines 9-10 are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Moreover, the limitation “the left head side rail” in line 2 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is part of or separate from the “four side rails” in claim 10.
Claim limitation “inspiration and expiration modules” in claim 15 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structures, materials, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structures, materials, or acts to the functions. The disclosure is devoid of any structures that performs the functions in the claims. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “connected to a subject” in line 2 positively recites “a subject”, thereby being directed to a human organism. It is suggested to use claim languages such as --configured to-- or --adapted to-- in order to avoid positively reciting a human organism.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “the left head-side of the subject” in lines 2-3 positively recites “the subject”, thereby being directed to a human organism. It is suggested to use claim languages such as --configured to-- or --adapted to-- in order to avoid positively reciting a human organism.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the left head-side of the subject” in line 2 positively recites “the subject”, thereby being directed to a human organism. It is suggested to use claim languages such as --configured to-- or --adapted to-- in order to avoid positively reciting a human organism.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “the left head-side of the subject” in line 2 positively recites “the subject”, thereby being directed to a human organism. It is suggested to use claim languages such as --configured to-- or --adapted to-- in order to avoid positively reciting a human organism.
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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallent et al. (US 7,865,982 B2) in view of Foster et al. (US 5,337,845), Bayerlein et al. (US 5,007,688), Beney (US 4,768,241), Vosters (US 9,089,461 B1), and Bodurka (US 2019/0188992 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Gallent discloses a mobile integrated patient support apparatus used as a mobile integrated critical care unit (a bed with multiple pieces of patient care equipment can dock at, and thus be mobile away from, a headwall; the bed can be integrated with the patient care equipment; bed can be used in places other than a hospital, such as a nursing facility or patient home) (abstract; col. 3, lines 42-47; col. 7, lines 42-48), the apparatus comprising:
a patient monitoring system (patient-monitoring equipment controlled by second control panel 334) (Figs. 6-7; col. 7, lines 42-48);
one side rail coupled to a patient surface frame (side rail assembly 322 coupled to the deck) (Figs. 6-7; col. 7, lines 9-15);
and a base frame (base 326) (Figs. 6-7; col. 7, lines 9-11).
Gallent does not disclose a patient ventilation system; a removable bar used as a holder for syringe and infusion pumps.
However, Foster teaches a transport of a hospital bed and care cart docks (Foster; abstract) including a patient ventilation system (ventilator 26) (Foster; Figs. 1-2; col. 7, lines 20-25); a removable bar used as a holder for infusion pumps (cart 300 has a bar holding IV pumps 334, and the cart can be removably docked to the bed) (Foster; Figs. 9, 11; col. 5, lines 19-26; col. 12, lines 49-51). Moreover, Bayerlein teaches a mobile intensive care unit (Bayerlein; abstract) including syringe and infusion pumps (infusion syringe pumps 9 and infusion pumps 12 are held) (Bayerlein; Fig. 3; col. 4, lines 5-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Gallent apparatus to include a patient ventilation system; a removable bar used as a holder for syringe and infusion pumps, as taught by Foster and Bayerlein, for the purpose of providing a patient with ventilation while enabling a hospital worked to roll the bed and ventilator as a single unit (Foster; col. 2, lines 50-60), as well as for the purpose of providing a patient with an IV solution or other medical liquid dose (Foster, col. 12 lines 49-51; Bayerlein, col. 4 lines 5-15).
Gallent does not disclose providing an outlet of a power supply.
However, Beney teaches a mobile intensive care system (Beney; abstract) including an outlet of a power supply (d-c outlets 82 can be used for infusion control devices 102 in a portable mode) (Beney; Figs. 1, 4; col. 4, lines 49-68; col. 5, lines 1-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Gallent apparatus to include providing an outlet of a power supply, as taught by Beney, for the purpose of providing DC power to the pumps in a portable mode (Beney; col. 5, lines 5-11).
Gallent does not disclose the removable bar is further ending with a fixable arm supported with an examination light.
However, Vosters teaches an auxiliary bed apparatus (Vosters; abstract) including the removable bar is further ending with a fixable arm supported with an examination light (snake lights 135 can be supported by an end of risers 13, 23 or frame bars 10, 20) (Vosters; Figs. 1, 4-5; col. 7, lines 50-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Gallent removable bar such that the removable bar is further ending with a fixable arm supported with an examination light, as taught by Vosters, for the purpose of providing the apparatus with an adjustable source of illumination to help a user see around the area.
Gallent does not disclose four side rails.
However, Bodurka teaches a patient support apparatus (Bodurka; abstract) including four side rails (four siderails 34) (Bodurka; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Gallent apparatus to include four side rails, as taught by Bodurka, for the purpose of providing additional means for a caregiver to maneuver the bed (Gallent, col. 8 lines 65-67, col. 9 lines 1-4; Bodurka, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, the modified Gallent teaches wherein the patient monitoring system comprises patient probes connected to a subject from a first side (patient-monitoring equipment would have to have probes in order to monitor patient conditions; patient-monitoring equipment is controlled by second control panel 334, and so would be connected to the patient on that side) (Gallent; Figs. 6-7; col. 7, lines 42-48), but does not teach a second side is connected to a monitoring electronic system via the outlets of a docking area, wherein the monitoring electronic system is configured to receive and process data from the patient probes, wherein the data from the patient probe is monitored through a monitoring system display.
However, Beney further teaches a second side is connected to a monitoring electronic system via the outlets of a docking area (another side has outlets 92, 94 for monitoring equipment in an area of end member 16) (Beney; Figs. 1, 4; col. 4, lines 35-44), wherein the monitoring electronic system is configured to receive and process data from the patient probes, wherein the data from the patient probe is monitored through a monitoring system display (the monitoring equipment would receive and process patient data from probes such as pulse and blood pressure, and display it on the visual monitor 104) (Beney; Figs. 1, 4; col. 4, lines 35-44, 63-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Gallent system such that a second side is connected to a monitoring electronic system via the outlets of a docking area, wherein the monitoring electronic system is configured to receive and process data from the patient probes, wherein the data from the patient probe is monitored through a monitoring system display, as taught by Beney, for the purpose of allowing a user to monitor the patient’s condition (Beney; Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 35-44).
Claims 10 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster in view of Bayerlein, Beney, Vosters, and Bodurka.
Regarding claim 10, Foster discloses a mobile integrated patient support apparatus used as a mobile integrated critical care unit (motorized transport of hospital bed and care cart docks; as the bed is free to move between hospital rooms, it could also be moved outside the hospital) (abstract; col. 2, lines 51-60), the apparatus comprising:
a patient ventilation system (ventilator assembly 12 having a ventilator 26) (Figs. 1-2; col. 7, lines 20-25);
a removable bar used as a holder for infusion pumps (cart 300 has a bar holding IV pumps 334, and the cart can be removably docked to the bed) (Figs. 9, 11; col. 5, lines 19-26; col. 12, lines 49-51);
two side rails coupled to the patient surface frame (side guards 102 coupled to a the flat portion of a frame under the mattress) (Figs. 1-2, 8);
and a base frame (bed base 104) (Figs. 1-2, 8; col. 8, lines 33-45).
Foster does not disclose syringe and infusion pumps.
However, Bayerlein teaches a mobile intensive care unit (Bayerlein; abstract) including syringe and infusion pumps (infusion syringe pumps 9 and infusion pumps 12 are held) (Bayerlein; Fig. 3; col. 4, lines 5-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Foster apparatus to include syringe and infusion pumps, as taught by Bayerlein, for the purpose of providing a patient with a medical liquid dose (Bayerlein, col. 4 lines 5-15).
Foster does not disclose a patient monitoring system; providing an outlet of a power supply.
However, Beney teaches a mobile intensive care system (Beney; abstract) including a patient monitoring system (monitoring equipment to provide indications of patient condition; visual monitor 104 to provide visualization of vital signs) (Beney; Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 35-44, 63-68); an outlet of a power supply (d-c outlets 82 can be used for infusion control devices 102 in a portable mode) (Beney; Figs. 1, 4; col. 4, lines 49-68; col. 5, lines 1-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Foster apparatus to include including a patient monitoring system; providing an outlet of a power supply, as taught by Beney, for the purpose of allowing a user to monitor the patient’s condition (Beney; Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 35-44) and well as for providing DC power to the pumps in a portable mode (Beney; col. 5, lines 5-11).
Foster does not disclose the removable bar is further ending with a fixable arm supported with an examination light.
However, Vosters teaches an auxiliary bed apparatus (Vosters; abstract) including the removable bar is further ending with a fixable arm supported with an examination light (snake lights 135 can be supported by an end of risers 13, 23 or frame bars 10, 20) (Vosters; Figs. 1, 4-5; col. 7, lines 50-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Foster removable bar such that the removable bar is further ending with a fixable arm supported with an examination light, as taught by Vosters, for the purpose of providing the apparatus with an adjustable source of illumination to help a user see around the area.
Foster does not disclose four side rails.
However, Bodurka teaches a patient support apparatus (Bodurka; abstract) including four side rails (four siderails 34) (Bodurka; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Foster apparatus to include four side rails, as taught by Bodurka, for the purpose of providing additional means for a caregiver to maneuver the bed as well as helping to ensure a patient is secure in the bed.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, the modified Foster teaches wherein the patient ventilation system comprises: a gases inlet connector (oxygen line 228 or alternatively, as there is oxygen supplied by source in the head wall, one of the cables 32 could be the gases inlet connector to the oxygen source in the head wall) (Foster; Fig. 8; col. 12, lines 58-65; col. 13, lines 3-20); a gases control box (ventilator 26 box with control panel 28, or alternatively controller box 240 which controls the flow of air and oxygen to the ventilator) (Foster; Fig. 8; col. 7, lines 9-10; col. 12, lines 58-68); a ventilation control box (ventilator 26 box with control panel 28, or alternatively controller box 240 which controls the flow of air and oxygen to the ventilator) (Foster; Fig. 8; col. 7, lines 9-10; col. 12, lines 58-68) and a power control box (DC power supply 122 for ventilator 26) (Figs. 1-2; col. 12, lines 1-6); an inspiration and expiration module (ventilator’s two hoses 38) (Foster; Fig. 8; col. 7, lines 13-14); and a ventilation system display (display 30 for monitoring the ventilator 26) (Foster; Fig. 8; col. 7, lines 9-10).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, the modified Foster teaches wherein a gases inlet connector coupled to an edge of the base frame from the side of the head-end section connecting the gases control box to a gases main source coupled to a wall (oxygen line 228 is coupled to an edge of stem 113 of base 104 from the side of the head section of the base 104, then connecting ventilator 26 box with control panel 28 to an oxygen source in the head wall; alternatively, as there is oxygen supplied by source in the head wall, one of the cables 32 could be the gases inlet connector coupled to an edge of stem 113 of base 104 from the side of the head section of the base 104, connecting controller box 240 to the oxygen source in the head wall) (Foster; Fig. 8; col. 7, lines 9-10; col. 12, lines 58-65; col. 13, lines 3-20).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, the modified Foster teaches wherein a gases control box is located at the base frame configured to control the supply of gases for the ventilation system (controller box 240 on base 104 which controls the flow of air and oxygen to the ventilator using electricity, air, and oxygen lines 226, 227, 228 and cables 32) (Foster; Fig. 8; col. 7, lines 11-13; col. 12, lines 58-68) and for switching between a main gas source coupled to the wall and a backup source, further comprising an air blower and a replaceable oxygen cylinder (controller box 240 controls the air and oxygen from either the wall or a cart at the foot of the bed depending upon the condition of the apparatus, that cart having oxygen/air tanks 216; air compressor charges the air tanks, which are removable from the base 104) (Foster; Figs. 7-8; col. 4, lines 30-33; col. 5, lines 19-26; col. 11, lines 4-5, 29-37; col. 13, lines 3-29).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, the modified Foster teaches wherein the ventilation system further comprises a ventilation power box and a ventilation control box attached to the base frame (ventilator 26 box with control panel 28/controller box 240, which are all attached to the base 104) (Foster; Figs. 1-2, 8; col. 7, lines 9-10; col. 12, lines 1-6, 58-68), wherein the ventilation control box is configured to control an operation of the system (controller box 240 controls all the electricity, air, and oxygen to the ventilator for its operation using lines 226, 227, 228) (Foster; Fig. 8; col. 12, lines 58-68), and a flexible transit joint configured to enable passage of at least one gas hoses and cable between the ventilation control box at the base frame to the inspiration and expiration module (lines 226, 227, 228 for passing electricity, air, and oxygen from the control box 240 and cables 32 in base 104 to the ventilator's two hoses 38 are at least indirectly coupled to the frame under the mattress, wherein lines 226, 227, 228 have joints illustrated connecting to the ventilator 26) (Foster; Fig. 8; col. 7, lines 13-14; col. 12, lines 58-68).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, the modified Foster teaches wherein the inspiration and expiration module is integrated with the patient ventilation system located at a rear of the patient backrest board and supported with a breathing circuit configured to be coupled to the subject (ventilator’s two hoses 38 are integrated with the ventilator 26 and display 30 at the rear of the angled portion of the frame under the mattress and supported with a mask coupled to the patient’s face) (Foster; Fig. 8; col. 7, lines 13-14).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallent in view of Foster, Bayerlein, Beney, Vosters, and Bodurka as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Brzenchek et al. (US 10,507,158 A1).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, the modified Gallent teaches the invention as previously claimed, including a monitoring system display configured to display the vital signs of the subject (the monitoring equipment would receive and process patient data such as pulse and blood pressure, and display it on the visual monitor 104) (Beney; Figs. 1, 4; col. 4, lines 35-44, 63-68), but does not teach the monitoring system display located at the side rail located on the left head-side of the subject.
However, Brzenchek teaches a patient support apparatus (Brzenchek; abstract) including a display located at the side rail located on the left head-side of the subject (display screen 142 coupled to an outer side of a siderail 48 near the head and left side) (Brzenchek; Fig. 1; col. 12, lines 3-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Gallent monitoring electronic system display and a rail such that the monitoring system display is located at the side rail located on the left head-side of the subject, as taught by Brzenchek, for the purpose of providing an alternate location for the display which one of ordinary skill in the art could feasibly expect to perform reasonably well.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, the modified Gallent teaches wherein the monitoring electronic system is located inside the side rail located on the left head-side of the subject (display screen 142 coupled to an outer side of a siderail 48 near the head and left side) (Brzenchek; Fig. 1; col. 12, lines 3-14).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, the modified Gallent does not teach wherein the docking area located at the rear of a side rail located on the left head-side of the subject.
However, Brzenchek further teaches circuitry can be in any of the barriers 45, 46, 48, 50 of a bed 10 (Brzenchek; Fig. 1; col. 12, lines 3-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Gallent apparatus circuitry, specifically the Beney outlets 92 and 94 in the end member 16 or docking area, to be located at the rear of a side rail located on the left head-side of the subject, as taught by Brzenchek, for the purpose of providing the docking area circuity with an alternate suitable location which one of ordinary skill in the art could feasibly expect to perform similarly well.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster in view of Bayerlein, Beney, Vosters, and Bodurka as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Brzenchek.
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, the modified Foster teaches the invention as previously claimed, including wherein the ventilation system comprises a ventilation system display configured to display ventilation system data and be in communication with the ventilation control box (display 30 for monitoring the ventilator 26, and so would be in communication with the ventilator 26 with its control panel 28) (Foster; Fig. 8; col. 7, lines 9-10), but does not teach the ventilation system display located at the outer side of the right head side rail.
However, Brzenchek teaches a patient support apparatus (Brzenchek; abstract) including a display located at the outer side of the right head side rail (display screen 142 coupled to an outer side of a siderail 48 near the head and right side) (Brzenchek; Fig. 1; col. 12, lines 3-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Foster ventilation system display and a rail such that it includes the ventilation system display located at the outer side of the right head side rail, as taught by Brzenchek, for the purpose of providing an alternate location for the display which one of ordinary skill in the art could feasibly expect to perform reasonably well.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster in view of Bayerlein, Beney, Vosters, and Bodurka as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Bostic et al. (US 2020/0205661 A1).
Regarding claim 21, as best understood, the modified Foster teaches the invention as previously claimed, including the ventilation control box (ventilator 26) (Foster; Figs. 1-2; col. 7, lines 20-25), but does not teach wherein the base frame supported with data connection couples to the edge of the head-end section configured to communicate between the ventilation control box and the monitoring electronic system with the wall-mounted monitor.
However, Bodurka further teaches wherein the base frame supported with data connection couples to the edge of the head-end section configured to communicate between the ventilation control box and the monitoring electronic system (second transceiver 108 of the patient support apparatus 20 is coupled to an edge of the head-end section of base 24; second transceiver 108 of the patient support apparatus 20 is configured to message or communicate information from medical devices or sensors to the head wall unit 76 with room interface board 62) (Bodurka; Figs. 2-4; para. [0039]; para. [0046]; para. [0060]; para. [0071]). Moreover, Bostic teaches a system with a patient support apparatus (Bostic; abstract) including the wall-mounted monitor (status board 34, which can be a wall-mounted display, wirelessly receives outbound data from the hospital bed 12) (Bostic; Fig. 2; para. [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Foster base frame such that it includes a data connection couples to the edge of the head-end section configured to communicate between the ventilation control box and the monitoring electronic system with the wall-mounted monitor, as taught by Bodurka and Bostic, for the purpose of allowing data from a patient support apparatus to be shared wirelessly without requiring a user to activate a designated control (Bodurka; abstract) as well as allowing for the data to be displayed for a user to view (Bostic; para. [0035]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallent in view of Foster, Bayerlein, Beney, Vosters, and Bodurka as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Adams et al. (US 3,932,903).
Regarding claim 22, as best understood, the modified Gallent teaches the invention as previously claimed, including wherein the patient surface frame comprising the left head side rail configured to move between a raised position and a lowered position (frame with the side rail assembly 322 moves between raised and lowered positions) (Gallent; Figs. 6-7; col. 8, lines 35-42), and the patient surface frame is configured to allow the said left head side rail to be fully opened to the lowered position (side rail assembly 322 is fully lowered) (Gallent, Figs. 6-7, col. 8 lines 35-42), but does not teach wherein the left head side rail is lowered to the halfway position in which the probes are connected to the docking area up to a level of a patient mattress, wherein the halfway position of the first stage is configured to allow access to the sockets of the docking area for a connection or disconnection of the patient probes.
However, Adams teaches a bed guard (Adam; abstract) wherein the left head side rail is lowered to the halfway position (guard rail 12 is moved from a raised position halfway down to an intermediate position with the movement of the timing link 40, and held there with leg and latch 58 until latch 58 retreats into housing 59 via button 71) (Adams; Figs. 1-9; col. 5, lines 7-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Gallent side rail such that the left head side rail is able to be lowered to the halfway position, as taught by Adams, for the purpose of providing an intermediate position for convenient patient care (Adams; col. 5, lines 15-19).
However, Beney further teaches the probes are connected to the docking area, wherein the apparatus is configured to allow access to the sockets of the docking area for a connection or disconnection of the patient probes (another side has outlets 92, 94 for monitoring equipment in an area of end member 16; equipment can be plugged into or unplugged from the outlets 92, 94 regardless of the position of a side rail) (Beney; Figs. 1, 4; col. 4, lines 35-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Gallent side rail to include the probes are connected to the docking area, wherein the apparatus is configured to allow access to the sockets of the docking area for a connection or disconnection of the patient probes, as taught by Beney, for the purpose of for providing a specific power source in the apparatus for the monitoring equipment (Beney; col. 4, lines 35-44), thereby helping to make the bed apparatus portable.
With this modification, the modified Gallent would thus teach wherein the left head side rail is lowered to the halfway position in which the probes are connected to the docking area up to a level of a patient mattress, wherein the halfway position of the first stage is configured to allow access to the sockets of the docking area for a connection or disconnection of the patient probes (the Gallent side rail assembly 322 was modified in view of Adams such that it can be moved from a raised position halfway down to an intermediate position with the movement of the timing link 40, and held there with leg and latch 58 until latch 58 retreats into housing 59 via button 71; regardless of the position of the modified Gallent side rail assembly 322, equipment can be plugged into or unplugged from the Beney outlets 92, 94; when the modified Gallent side rail assembly 322 is halfway down in the intermediate position, the equipment plugged into the Beney outlets 92, 94 would also be up to a level with the mattress) (Gallent, Figs. 6-7, col. 8 lines 35-42; Adams, Figs. 1-9, col. 5 lines 7-27; Beney, Figs. 1 and 4, col. 4 lines 35-44).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/12/2025 and 11/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 in the first paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks filed on 11/4/2025, the Applicant argues that the claims have been amended so as to be presented in ascending numerical order. The Examiner agrees, and has thus the newly amended claims have been entered and considered.
The following responses are all directed to the Applicant’s arguments filed on 9/12/2025.
On page 8 in the “Drawings” section of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that the drawings have been amended to overcome the drawing objection of the previous office action. The Examiner agrees, and has thus withdrawn the drawing objection.
On page 8 in the “Specification” section of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that the specification has been amended to overcome the specification objections of the previous office action. The Examiner agrees, and has thus withdrawn the specification objections.
On pages 8-9 in the “Claim Objections” section of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to overcome the claim objections of the previous office action. The Examiner agrees, and has thus withdrawn those claim objections. However, the newly amended claims have raised new claim objections as detailed above.
On pages 9-10 in the section of the Applicant’s remarks regarding the previous office action’s 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 10, the Applicant argues that the claim has been amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of the previous office action. The Examiner agrees, and has thus withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 10.
On page 10 in the section of the Applicant’s remarks regarding the previous office action’s 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 11, the Applicant argues that the claim has been amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of the previous office action. The Examiner agrees, and has thus withdrawn those 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 11. However, the newly amended claim 11 has raised new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections as detailed above, and thus claim 11 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
On pages 10-12 in the section of the Applicant’s remarks regarding the previous office action’s 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 12-14, the Applicant argues that the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of the previous office action should be withdrawn as their specification describes the left-head side rail is one of the side rails on the left side of the bed where the user’s head is placed. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Applicant’s specification does have support for the claimed side rail to be one of the side rails on the left side of the bed where the user’s head is placed, the claim language itself is still confusing and indefinite as it is not clear whether the claimed side rail located on the left head-side is one of the four side rails originally claimed in claim 10. The Examiner suggests using claim language such as --a first side rail of the four side rails-- in order to make it clear that the side rail in claims 12-14 is one of the side rails of claim 10. Thus, the claims 12-14 are still being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as detailed above.
On pages 12-14 in the section of the Applicant’s remarks regarding the previous office action’s 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 16-19, the Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of the previous office action. The Examiner agrees, and has thus withdrawn those 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 16-19. However, the newly amended claims 16-19 have raised new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections as detailed above, and thus claims 16-19 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
On page 14 in the section of the Applicant’s remarks regarding the previous office action’s 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 20, the Applicant argues that the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of the previous office action should be withdrawn as their specification describes the right-head side rail is one of the side rails on the right side of the bed where the user’s head is placed. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Applicant’s specification does have support for the claimed side rail to be one of the side rails on the right side of the bed where the user’s head is placed, the claim language itself is still confusing and indefinite as it is not clear whether the claimed side rail located on the right head-side is one of the four side rails originally claimed in claim 10. The Examiner suggests using claim language such as --a right-head side rail of the four side rails-- in order to make it clear that the side rail in claim 20 is one of the side rails of claim 10. Thus, the claim 20 is still being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as detailed above.
On pages 15-16 in the section of the Applicant’s remarks regarding the previous office action’s 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 21-22, the Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of the previous office action. The Examiner agrees, and has thus withdrawn those 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 21-22. However, the newly amended claims 21-22 have raised new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections as detailed above, and thus claims 21-22 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
On page 16 in the last two paragraphs of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that claim limitation term of “inspiration and expiration module” is disclosed in their specification and drawings, and thus should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and rejected und er 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to disclose the corresponding structures, materials, or acts for performing its function. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Simply reciting the claimed term limitation of “inspiration and expiration module” in the specification and having this term in a plain text box in the drawings does not disclose any specific corresponding structures, materials, or acts for the generic placeholder of “module” to perform “inspiration and expiration” functions (e.g. a computer, a negative and/or positive air pressure generator, branched or unbranched tubing, a mask, vents, valves, etc.). Thus, the claimed limitation is still being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the subsequent rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is being maintained as detailed above.
On page 17 in the first paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that claim limitation term of “opening…through a different mechanism” in claim 22 is deleted ,and thus should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The Examiner agrees, and has thus withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of the “opening…through a different mechanism” limitation.
On pages 17-18 in the “Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101” section of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the previous office action. The Examiner agrees, and has thus withdrawn those 35 U.S.C. rejections. However, the newly amended claims have raised new 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections as detailed above.
On page 18 in the last three paragraphs to page 19 in the first two paragraphs of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that Gallant teaches the bed’s function depends on docking to a headwall, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention which can function independently of a headwall outside the patient room. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., functioning independent of a headwall outside the patient room) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, the Applicant’s claimed invention does not preclude the use of a headwall. Rather, claims 16-17 and 21 recite the use of a wall for the Applicant’s invention. Thus, Gallant can still be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention.
On page 19 in the third paragraph to page 20 in the second paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that the Gallant side rail supports external medical treatment devices such as a chest drainage unit and a means to mount equipment, while the Applicant’s claimed invention has a side rail directly supporting probes, monitoring electronics, displays, and bed/ventilation control systems to eliminate external modules, and thus Gallant cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. the side rail directly supporting probes, monitoring electronics, and bed/ventilation control systems to eliminate external modules) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, it is the combination of Gallant with the Brzenchek reference which teaches a monitoring system display in the side rail (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 12-13 above for details). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 20 in the third paragraph to page 21 in the third paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that Gallant does not provide a facility to embed/centralize ventilation, gas control, or power management inside its base, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Gallant reference was not used to teach the dependent claims 16-18 and 21 regarding the argued features. Rather, Foster in view of Bayerlein, Beney, Vosters, Bodurka, and Bostic were used to teach those claims. Thus, this argument is moot, and the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention.
On page 21 in the fourth to last paragraphs of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that Gallant does not disclose a ventilation control box, gases control box with blowers and filters, multiple power boxes, rechargeable batteries, drive wheel system, backup oxygen cylinder holders, or routing breathing circuits and monitoring connections through flexible joints all integrated together, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. filters, multiple power boxes, rechargeable batteries, drive wheel system) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, the Gallant reference was not used to teach the dependent claims 15-18 and 20-21 regarding the rest of the argued features. Rather, Foster in view of Bayerlein, Beney, Vosters, Bodurka, Brzenchek, and Bostic were used to teach those claims. Thus, this argument is moot, and the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention.
On page 22 in the first paragraph to page 23 in the second paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that the combination of Foster and Gallent does not disclose the ventilator having internal rechargeable batteries and connected to the bed’s CPU and data system, wherein the ventilator is built into the base frame, the base frame also having a gases control box, ventilation control box, blower, filters, dual hoses, patient circuit routing, and a backup oxygen cylinder, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. the ventilator’s internal rechargeable batteries, the bed’s CPU and data system, the base frame having the ventilator, blower, filters, dual hoses, patient circuit routing, and a backup oxygen cylinder) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, Foster can still teach the gases control box and ventilation control box located at the base frame as recited in claims 17-18 (controller box 240 on base 104 which controls the flow of air and oxygen to the ventilator using electricity, air, and oxygen lines 226, 227, 228 and cables 32; ventilator 26 box with control panel 28, or alternatively controller box 240 which controls the flow of air and oxygen to the ventilator, both of which are attached to the base 104) (Foster; Fig. 8; col. 7, lines 9-13; col. 12, lines 58-68). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 23 in the third paragraph to page 24 in the first paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that Foster’s IV pump is mounted on a conventional IV rack while the Applicant’s invention has a removable bar with integrated DC power for the syringe and infusion pumps via brackets and a lock mechanism, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. brackets and a lock mechanism for the syringe and infusion pumps) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, Foster in view of Bayerlein does teach a removable bar with integrated DC power for the syringe and infusion pumps (modified Foster cart 300 bar holding IV pumps 334/Bayerlein infusion syringe pumps 9 and infusion pumps 12, where the cart can be removably docked to the bed) (Foster, Figs. 9 and 11, col. 5 lines 19-26, col. 12 lines 49-51; Bayerlein, Fig. 3, col. 4 lines 5-15). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 23 in the last paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that the position of the Foster IV rack and the claimed invention are different, as the claimed invention has the syringe and infusion pumps close to the patient’s head, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. the syringe and infusion pumps located close to the patient’s head) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 24 in the second paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that Gallant cannot be modified with Foster to teach the IV rack as it would require mechanical and electrical adaptation. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Modifying the Gallant reference in view of Foster to include a removable bar used as a holder for infusion pumps, i.e. the argued IV rack, would not require a significant modification of the mechanical and electrical systems in Gallent, as the Foster cart 300 with the bar holding IV pumps 334 is self-contained relative to the bed save for a few connections to provide the cart with electricity and ventilator air (Foster; Figs. 6-10; col. 12, lines 54-68), which would not be beyond the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the modified device as needed. Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 24 in the third paragraph to page 25 in the fourth paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that Bayerlein teaches a fixed external desk to hold the syringe and infusion pumps, not a removable bar, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bayerlein is not being used to teach the removable bar as claimed, as the Foster reference already teaches the removable bar (cart 300 bar holding IV pumps 334, wherein the cart can be removably docked to the bed) (Foster; Figs. 9, 11; col. 5, lines 19-26; col. 12, lines 49-51). Rather, Bayerlein is simply used to teach the concept of holding both syringe and infusion pumps (infusion syringe pumps 9 and infusion pumps 12 are held) (Bayerlein; Fig. 3; col. 4, lines 5-15). Thus, this argument is moot, and the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 25 in the fifth paragraph to page 26 in the first paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that Beney does not teach actively managing and monitoring the DC power, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. actively managing and monitoring the DC power) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 26 in the second paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that Beney does not teach the power system/outlets integrated into a bed side rail, but rather an end member 16, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. the power system/outlets integrated into a bed side rail) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Secondly, the Beney end member 16 can be used to teach a bed side rail regardless, as it is a rail structure located at one of the four sides of the bed (Beney; Fig. 1). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 26 in the third paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that Gallant in combination with Beney would not teach DC power infrastructure of subsystem-specific converters, centralized batteries, monitoring, and alarms, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. DC power infrastructure of subsystem-specific converters, centralized batteries, monitoring, and alarms) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 26 in the fourth paragraph to page 27 in the third paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that the Vosters snake light is supported by a bar used for patient handling and mobility, whereas the claimed invention’s removable bar is a holder for syringe and infusion pumps with a DC power connection, and thus cannot be used with Gallant to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner is not using Vosters to teach the removable bar, as the Foster and Beney references already teaches the removable bar with outlets (Foster cart 300 bar holding IV pumps 334, wherein the cart can be removably docked to the bed; Beney d-c outlets 82 can be used for infusion control devices 102 in a portable mode) (Foster, Figs. 9 and 11, col. 5 lines 19-26, col. 12 lines 49-51; Beney, Figs. 1 and 4, col. 4 lines 49-68, col. 5 lines 1-11). Rather, Vosters is simply used to teach the idea of having an examination light on the end of a bar structure (snake lights 135 can be supported by an end of risers 13, 23 or frame bars 10, 20) (Vosters; Figs. 1, 4-5; col. 7, lines 50-51). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 27 in the fourth paragraph to page 28 in the second paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that Bodurka does not teach the side rails are mulit-functional smart modules integrating monitoring electronics, medical probes, ventilation interfaces, control keypads, and displays, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. the side rails are mulit-functional smart modules integrating medical probes, ventilation interfaces, and control keypads) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, it is the Brzenchek reference which teaches monitoring electronics/a monitoring system display in the side rail (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 12-13 and 20 above for details). Bodurka is instead used to teach the idea that a bed can have four side rails (four siderails 34) (Bodurka; Fig. 1). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 28 in the third paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that the side bars of Vosters are for support, and thus cannot be used to modify Gallant and teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner does not use the Vosters reference to teach the side bars/rails, as the four side rails are taught by the combination of Gallant and Bodurka (Gallant has one side rail assembly 322 coupled to the deck, and is modified by Bodurka to have four side rails total) (Gallant, Figs. 6-7, col. 7 lines 9-15; Bodurka, Fig. 1). Thus, this argument is moot, and the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 28 in the last paragraph to page 29 in the third paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues the combination of Gallant and Beney does not teach the integration of the monitoring electronic system, display, and probes, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Beney does teach the integration of the monitoring electronic system, display, and probes (the monitoring equipment would receive and process patient data from probes such as pulse and blood pressure, and display it on the visual monitor 104) (Beney; Figs. 1, 4; col. 4, lines 35-44, 63-68). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 29 in the last two paragraphs to page 30 in the first paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues the Foster reference’s ventilator has hoses instead of a breathing circuit or patient limb, is attached to the assembly separately, and has an adjustment mechanism for raising and lowering the ventilator, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the Foster ventilator’s two hoses 38 can be used to teach a breathing circuit, as they are for the ventilator 26 (Foster; Fig. 8; col. 7, lines 13-14). Secondly, the Applicant’s claimed invention does not preclude the patient ventilation system from being attachable or having an adjustment mechanism, and so those arguments are moot. Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 30 in the second paragraph to page 31 in the second paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues Foster does not teach the multifunctional side rails having a docking area with connection ports, patient probes, internal monitoring electronic system, monitoring display interface, control keypads or the base frame having a ventilation control box, gases control box, blower, backup oxygen cylinder, lifting actuators, drive wheel system, power boxes, batteries, and transit joints, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. the multifunctional side rails having a docking area with connection ports, patient probes, control keypads or the base frame having blower, backup oxygen cylinder, lifting actuators, drive wheel system, power boxes, batteries, and transit joints) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, Foster can still teach the gases control box and ventilation control box located at the base frame as recited in claims 17-18 (controller box 240 on base 104 which controls the flow of air and oxygen to the ventilator using electricity, air, and oxygen lines 226, 227, 228 and cables 32; ventilator 26 box with control panel 28, or alternatively controller box 240 which controls the flow of air and oxygen to the ventilator, both of which are attached to the base 104) (Foster; Fig. 8; col. 7, lines 9-13; col. 12, lines 58-68). Furthermore, Foster is not used to teach the multifunctional side rails having a docking area, internal monitoring electronic system, and monitoring display interface. Rather, it is the combination of Gallant with the Brzenchek reference which teaches those claimed limitations (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 12-14 above for details). Thus, this argument is moot, and the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 31 in the third to sixth paragraphs of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that Bayerlein teaches a fixed external desk to hold the syringe and infusion pumps, not a removable bar, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bayerlein is not being used to teach the removable bar as claimed, as the Foster reference already teaches the removable bar (cart 300 bar holding IV pumps 334, wherein the cart can be removably docked to the bed) (Foster; Figs. 9, 11; col. 5, lines 19-26; col. 12, lines 49-51). Rather, Bayerlein is simply used to teach the concept of holding both syringe and infusion pumps (infusion syringe pumps 9 and infusion pumps 12 are held) (Bayerlein; Fig. 3; col. 4, lines 5-15). Thus, this argument is moot, and the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 31 in the last paragraph to page 32 in the fourth paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues Beney does not teach multiple power conversion boxes/subsystem specific converters with a dedicated battery system/centralized batteries designed to manage different subsystems, or actively managing and monitoring the DC power with alarms, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. multiple power conversion boxes/subsystem specific converters with a dedicated battery system/centralized batteries designed to manage different subsystems, or actively managing and monitoring the DC power with alarms) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 32 in the fifth paragraph to page 33 in the second paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues the Vosters snake light is supported by a bar used for patient mobility and stability, whereas the claimed invention’s removable bar is a holder for syringe and infusion pumps with DC power connections, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner is not using Vosters to teach the removable bar, as the Foster and Beney references already teaches the removable bar with outlets (Foster cart 300 bar holding IV pumps 334, wherein the cart can be removably docked to the bed; Beney d-c outlets 82 can be used for infusion control devices 102 in a portable mode) (Foster, Figs. 9 and 11, col. 5 lines 19-26, col. 12 lines 49-51; Beney, Figs. 1 and 4, col. 4 lines 49-68, col. 5 lines 1-11). Rather, Vosters is simply used to teach the idea of having an examination light on the end of a bar structure (snake lights 135 can be supported by an end of risers 13, 23 or frame bars 10, 20) (Vosters; Figs. 1, 4-5; col. 7, lines 50-51). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 33 in the third and fourth paragraphs of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that Bodurka does not teach the side rails are mulit-functional smart modules integrating monitoring electronics, medical probes, ventilation interfaces, control keypads, and displays, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. the side rails are mulit-functional smart modules integrating medical probes, ventilation interfaces, and control keypads) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, it is the Brzenchek reference which teaches monitoring electronics/a monitoring system display in the side rail (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 12-13 and 20 above for details). Bodurka is instead used to teach the idea that a bed can have four side rails (four siderails 34) (Bodurka; Fig. 1). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 33 in the last two paragraphs to page 34 in the first paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that even though Fosters discloses components individually, it does not teach an integrated patient ventilation system as disclosed, or the specific configuration or functional integration of the various modules, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. the specific configuration or functional integration of the various modules) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, simply making individual components integral is a matter of obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 34 in the second and third paragraphs of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues Foster discloses separate oxygen lines and docking arrangements, and does not teach the specific integration or positioning of the gases inlet connector at the base frame edge, wherein the gases inlet connector, control box, ventilator, and base frame edge are integrated, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. the specific integration or positioning of the gases inlet connector at the base frame edge, wherein the gases inlet connector, control box, ventilator, and base frame edge are integrated) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, simply making individual components integral is a matter of obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 34 in the last paragraph to page 35 in the first two paragraphs of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues Foster does not teach the structural integration of the gases control box with both the main wall source and a backup air blower/replaceable cylinder directly at the base frame, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. the structural integration of the gases control box with both the main wall source and a backup air blower/replaceable cylinder directly at the base frame) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, simply making individual components integral is a matter of obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 35 in the third paragraph to page 36 in the first paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues Foster does not teach a flexible transit joint for routing hoses and cables between the base frame and patient surface frame in the modular way, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. a flexible transit joint for routing hoses and cables between the base frame and the patient surface frame in the modular way) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 36 in the second to fourth paragraphs of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues Foster does not teach the integration of the inspiration and expiration modules as part of the patient backrest, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. the integration of the inspiration and expiration module as part of the patient backrest, since claim 19 only recites the module’s integration with the patient ventilation system) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, simply making individual components integral is a matter of obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 36 in the last paragraph to page 39 in the first paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues Brzenchek does not teach a set of multiple specialized display screens integrated into different siderails for enabling direct interaction for both input and output with patient monitoring, ventilation, and safety systems, instead teaching a bed operation control screen in a siderail, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention for claims 12-13. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. a set of multiple specialized display screens integrated into different siderails for enabling direct interaction for both input and output with patient monitoring, ventilation, and safety systems) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, for claims 12-13, it is the combination of Beney and Brzenchek used to teach the claimed invention. Beney teaches a monitoring system display configured to display the vital signs of the subject (the monitoring equipment would receive and process patient data such as pulse and blood pressure, and display it on the visual monitor 104) (Beney; Figs. 1, 4; col. 4, lines 35-44, 63-68) and Brzenchek teaches such a display can be located at the side rail located on the left head-side of the subject (display screen 142 coupled to an outer side of a siderail 48 near the head and left side) (Brzenchek; Fig. 1; col. 12, lines 3-14). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 39 in the second paragraph to page 40 in the second paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues the combination of Gallant, Brzenchek, and Beney is silent on placing the docking area on the left head side rail, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Brzenchek teaches circuitry can be in any of the barriers 45, 46, 48, 50 of a bed 10 (Brzenchek; Fig. 1; col. 12, lines 3-14), which specifically includes a left head side rail (i.e. the Brzenchek left barrier 48, seen in Fig. 1). Therefore, the modified Gallent device’s circuitry, specifically the Beney outlets 92 and 94 from the end member 16, can be in a left head side rail as an alternate suitable barrier location which one of ordinary skill in the art could feasibly expect to perform similarly well. Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 40 in the last three paragraphs to page 41 in the fourth paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues Foster and Brzenchek do not teach the ventilator display in the outer side of a right head side rail as Brzenchek’s graphical user interface is instead for controlling bed functions and because ventilator displays are typically integrated with the ventilator control unit, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, Foster’s ventilator display is not directly integrated with the ventilator control unit (display 30 for monitoring the ventilator 26 is located up near the side guards 102, and is still in communication with the ventilator 26 and its control panel 28) (Foster; Fig. 8; col. 7, lines 9-10). Therefore, the combination of Foster and Brzenchek can teach the ventilator display in the outer side of a right head side rail (Foster display 30 for monitoring the ventilator 26, and Brzenchek teaches such a display screen 142 can be coupled to an outer side of a siderail 48 near the head and right side) (Foster, Fig. 8, col. 7 lines 9-10; Brzenchek, Fig. 1, col. 12 lines 3-14). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 41 in the last two paragraphs to page 42 in the first paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues Foster is silent with respect to a data connection at the head-end of the base frame, or communication between a ventilator control box and a wall-mounted monitor, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner does not use Foster to teach these claim limitations, instead using the Bodurka and Bostic references as detailed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 21 above, and thus this argument is moot. Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 42 in the second and third paragraphs of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues Bodurka and Bostic are silent with respect to providing a base-frame-supported data connection integrated with a ventilation control box and monitoring system, such that the ventilation control box communicates with a monitoring electronic system through the base-frame-supported data connection, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. a base-frame-supported data connection integrated with a ventilation control box and monitoring system, please note the claim 21 limitation of “couples to” is not equivalent to “integrated with”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Foster already teaches the ventilation control box (ventilator 26 box with control panel 28, or alternatively controller box 240 which controls the flow of air and oxygen to the ventilator) (Foster; Fig. 8; col. 7, lines 9-10, 20-25; col. 12, lines 58-68), while Bodurka and Bostic are used to further modify Foster to teach such medical equipment can communicate with the monitoring electronic system with a wall-mounted monitor through the base-frame-supported data connection (Bodurka second transceiver 108 of the patient support apparatus 20 is coupled to an edge of the head-end section of base 24; Bodurka second transceiver 108 of the patient support apparatus 20 is configured to message or communicate information from medical devices or sensors to the head wall unit 76 with room interface board 62; Bostic status board 34, which can be a wall-mounted display, wirelessly receives outbound data from the hospital bed 12) (Bodurka, Figs. 2-4, para. [0039], para. [0046], para. [0060], para. [0071]; Bostic, Fig. 2, para. [0035]). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 42 in the fourth paragraph to page 43 in the first paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would not think to modify Foster in view of Bodurka and Bostic as rearranging the communication system to a base-frame data connection would require significant structural modification, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The modification of Foster with Bodurka and Bostic would not be changing, eliminating, or interfering with the communication between the original Foster ventilator and its own control/display. Rather, it would be adding the additional structures of the monitoring electronic system with a wall-mounted monitor and the base-frame-supported data connection (Bodurka second transceiver 108 of the patient support apparatus 20 is coupled to an edge of the head-end section of base 24; Bodurka second transceiver 108 of the patient support apparatus 20 is configured to message or communicate information from medical devices or sensors to the head wall unit 76 with room interface board 62; Bostic status board 34, which can be a wall-mounted display, wirelessly receives outbound data from the hospital bed 12) (Bodurka, Figs. 2-4, para. [0039], para. [0046], para. [0060], para. [0071]; Bostic, Fig. 2, para. [0035]) for the purpose of allowing data from a patient support apparatus to be shared wirelessly without requiring a user to activate a designated control (Bodurka; abstract) as well as allowing for the data to be displayed for a user to view (Bostic; para. [0035]). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 43 in the third paragraph to page 44 in the second paragraph of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues the current combination of prior art does not teach a two-stage rail movement that specifically permits verification of probe connections before fully lowering the rail, and that the link and latch mechanism in a side rail of Adams may not allow the side rail with probes to be functional, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. a two-stage rail movement that specifically permits verification of probe connections before fully lowering the rail) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, please note that neither claim 22 nor claim 10 from which claim 22 depends recite anything about the side rails having probes, outlets, a docking area, sockets, or any other electrical wiring structures, and so the argument regarding the Adam’s mechanism link and latch preventing a side rail with probe connections from functioning is moot. Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
On page 45 in the second and third paragraphs of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues the current prior art of record does not teach the integrated design to enable uninterrupted intrahospital transport with continuous connection to all life-support systems with the detachment of external wall power and gases, and thus cannot be used to teach the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. the integrated design to enable uninterrupted intrahospital transport with continuous connection to all life-support systems with the detachment of external wall power and gases) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, simply making individual components integral is a matter of obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)). Thus, the current prior art of record can still be used to teach the Applicant’s invention as currently claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:00.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785