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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 10,709,623 (hereinafter the ‘623 patent) is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Response to Amendments
The response filed October 16, 2025, has overcome the objections to the specification, drawings, and claims set forth in the non-final Office action mailed June 16, 2025 (hereinafter the Non-final). The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been overcome by the claim amendments, in combination with Applicant’s clarifying remarks (see Remarks, pg. 10). The claim amendments have also overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 251 with respect to recapture.
Accordingly, the objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and under 35 U.S.C. 251 with respect to recapture are withdrawn.
Reissue Declaration
The reissue declaration filed October 16, 2025, is defective because the additional joint inventors have not been listed on supplemental sheet(s) PTO/AIA /10. While it is not required that all joint inventors sign the same declaration document, the names of all joint inventors should be included with each declaration, by attaching supplemental sheet(s) PTO/AIA /10 naming the additional joint inventors and by checking the box at the bottom of pg. 2 of the reissue declaration form (PTO/AIA /05) to indicate that “Additional joint inventors are named” on the attached supplemental sheet(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 - Reissue Declaration
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth above.
Objections to Amendments - Informalities
In the claims filed October 16, 2025, status identifiers have been omitted for claims 2-5, 9-12, and 14. When original unamended claims are presented in the claim listing in a reissue application, these claims should be designated with the status identifier “Original.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 16, 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant notes that the prior examiner found the claims to be allowable during prosecution of the underlying ‘623 patent, and argues on this basis that no prior art, alone or in combination, teaches the claimed invention. In response, the present examiner notes that 37 CFR 1.176(a) states, in pertinent part, that “[a] reissue application will be examined in the same manner as a non-reissue, non-provisional application, and will be subject to all the requirements of the rules related to non-reissue applications.”
As explained in MPEP § 1445:
Accordingly, claims in a reissue application are subject to any and all rejections which the examiner deems appropriate. It does not matter whether the claims are identical to those of the patent or changed from those in the patent. It also does not matter that a rejection was not made in the prosecution of the patent, or could have been made, or was in fact made and dropped during prosecution of the patent; the prior action in the prosecution of the patent does not prevent that rejection from being made in the reissue application. Claims in a reissue application enjoy no ‘presumption of validity.’ In re Doyle, 482 F.2d 1385, 1392, 179 USPQ 227, 232-233 (CCPA 1973); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 n.4, 218 USPQ 385, 389 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Likewise, the fact that during prosecution of the patent the examiner considered, may have considered, or should have considered information such as, for example, a specific prior art document, does not have any bearing on, or prevent, its use as prior art during prosecution of the reissue application.
Therefore, the decisions of the previous examiner with respect to the prior art during prosecution of the ‘623 patent are not persuasive as to the patentability of the claims in this reissue application.
With respect to the prior art, Applicant argues that Kjellberg does not teach first and second ranges of motion of an upper body support frame relative to a support frame as recited in claim 1. As best understood by the examiner, Applicant argues that Kjellberg does not teach the “range of motion” limitations because: (I) the upper body support frame (10) of Kjellberg is not articulated with respect to the seat part (12) and the leg-supporting part (14) in the Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 positions (see Remarks, pg. 12); (II) in Applicant’s opinion, Kjellberg does not describe a direction of movement “from Figure 2 to Figure 1” or “from Figure 1 to Figure 3,” which the examiner equates to the first and second ranges of motion, respectively (see Remarks, pg. 12-13); and (III) even if Kjellberg is interpreted as having a range of motion from Fig. 2 to Fig. 1, this movement would not elevate the upper body support frame relative to the support frame (see Remarks, pg. 13). These issues will be addressed in turn.
I. First, in response to Applicant’s argument regarding articulation of the upper body support frame relative to the seat part and the leg-supporting part, the examiner notes that the rejected claims do not require articulation of the upper body support frame relative to a seat part or a leg-supporting part in the first and second ranges of motion. Rejected independent claims 1 and 15 are silent with respect to a seat part or a leg-supporting part. While dependent claims 6 and 20 introduce a thigh support section, these claims are also silent with respect to the relationship of the thigh support section to the upper body support frame in the first and second ranges of motion. Thus, the examiner maintains that the teaching of Kjellberg with respect to the first and second ranges of motion of the upper supporting frame is commensurate with the broad scope of the invention as claimed.
II. Second, in response to Applicant’s argument regarding direction of motion from Fig. 2 to Fig. 1 and from Fig. 1 to Fig. 3 of Kjellberg, the examiner maintains that Kjellberg clearly teaches these ranges of motion. Kjellberg teaches that the adjustable bed is “preferably infinitely variable” (col. 1:4). Figs. 2 and 3 show the “extreme positions” (col. 1:3-10) between which the bed is infinitely variable. Kjellberg is thus understood to teach that the upper body support frame (10) is configured rotate through the entire range of motion between the two extremes, including from the first extreme position shown in Fig. 2 through the neutral position shown in Fig. 1 to the second extreme position shown in Fig. 3, and reversibly from the second extreme position of Fig. 3 through the neutral position of Fig. 1 to the first extreme position of Fig. 2. This appears to the examiner to be a necessary condition in order for the bed to be “infinitely variable” between the two extreme positions as disclosed by Kjellberg, as further evidenced by Kjellberg’s description of the bed being configured in the extreme Fig. 2 position “or in an intermediate position between the latter and the neutral position” (col. 4:7-10) and in the extreme Fig. 3 position “or in an intermediate position between this and the neutral position” (col. 4:11-14). When the bed is adjusted through intermediate positions between the lowermost Fig. 2 position and the neutral Fig. 1 position, the upper body support frame (10) is rotatably elevated (i.e., raised) from the lower Fig. 2 position to the neutral Fig. 1 position. Similarly, when the bed is adjusted through intermediate positions between the neutral position and the uppermost Fig. 3 position, the upper body support frame (10) is rotatably elevated (i.e., raised) from the neutral Fig. 1 position to the higher Fig. 3 position.
III. Third, in response to Applicant’s argument that movement from the extreme Fig. 2 position to the neutral Fig. 1 position of Kjellberg would not elevate the upper body support frame relative to the support frame, the examiner notes that the rejected claims do not require that the first or second range of motion elevate the upper body support relative to the support frame. Rather, the claims require only that the elevating assembly have first and second ranges of motion “elevating the upper body support frame.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, consistent with Applicant’s specification, includes elevating, or raising, the upper body support frame from one position to another position. The term “elevating” is interpreted in the context of the rejected claims to refer to an upward movement of the upper body support frame (claimed as a function of the elevating assembly), not to a specific elevated relationship of the upper body support frame relative to the underlying support frame.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ermalovich et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. 2014/0201916, hereinafter Ermalovich) in view of Kjellberg et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,665,528, hereinafter Kjellberg).
Regarding claim 1, Ermalovich discloses an articulating bed (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 14-15) comprising a support frame (10) with a head end rail (36a), a foot end rail (36b), and side frame rails (34a, 34b); an upper body support frame (14) rotatably connected to a first cross member (38a) in the support frame (via standoffs 40a, 40b, and hinges 24); an elevating assembly (¶ 16) for the upper body support frame (14) having two angled arms (52a, 52b) attached to the first cross member (38a) with hinges (ends 53a, 53b being “pivotally attached,” ¶ 16) and a pair of wheels (rollers 56a, 56b) attached at an end of the angled arms (52a, 52b) distal from the hinges; and a first actuator (44) attached from the head end rail (36a) to a cross brace (spacer bar 54) extending between the angled arms (52a, 52b; ¶ 16), wherein the elevating assembly has a range of motion elevating the upper body support frame (14) in which the pair of wheels (56a, 56b) are in contact with the upper body support frame (14) to rotatably elevate the upper body support frame (14) about the hinges (see Ermalovich, Figs. 3-4; compare to Applicant’s disclosed relationship of the upper body support frame 16 to the angled arm hinges 26, Fig. 4B).
Ermalovich does not teach that the arms are angled with an additional pair of wheels at a vertex such that the first and second pairs of wheels are in contact with the tracks in respective first and second ranges of motion. However, Kjellberg teaches a similar articulating bed (Figs. 1-4) comprising an elevating assembly for an upper body support frame (10) having first and second angled arms (triangular furnishings 50; col. 3:3:72-4:15) coupled to a support frame (40) by hinges (48), a first pair of wheels (rolls 54, col. 3:75-4:7) attached to the angled arms (50) at a vertex (see Figs. 1-3), and a second pair of wheels (rolls 52) attached at an end of the angled arms (50), wherein the elevating assembly has a first range of motion (from the position of Fig. 2 to the position of Fig. 1) elevating the upper body support section (10) by rotation of the upper body support section in which the first pair of wheels (54) are in contact with longitudinal tracks (the tracks being “a horizontal part (e.g. the horizontal part of an L- or U-shaped girder) of the side girders of the back part 10,” col. 4:1-4) and a second range of motion (from the position of Fig. 1 to the position of Fig. 3) in which the second pair of wheels (52) are in contact with the longitudinal tracks, rotatably elevating the upper body support frame (10) about the hinges (48). See col. 4:7-14: “When the bed is in Trendelenburg position (Fig. 2) or in an intermediate position between the latter and the neutral position (Fig. 1), the supporting members 54 rest against the side girders of the back part 10, and when in the position shown in Fig. 3 or an intermediate position between this and the neutral position, the supporting members 52 only rest against the said side girders.” Kjellberg teaches that this configuration of the arms, wheels, and tracks facilitates efficient adjustment of the upper body support section to different angular positions (col. 1:74-2:7; 3:72-4:15). 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 invention of Ermalovich by configuring the arms to be angled with an additional pair of wheels (corresponding to the claimed first pair of wheels) attached at a vertex and configured to contact longitudinal tracks in the upper body support frame in a first range of motion of the elevating assembly, with the pair of wheels at the end of the arms (corresponding to the claimed second pair of wheels) configured to contact the tracks in a second range of motion, as taught by Kjellberg, in order to more efficiently adjust the upper body support frame to different angular positions (e.g., including an inclined Trendelenburg position).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Ermalovich teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Kjellberg further teaches the angled arms (50, Figs. 1-3) have a first portion (“one side of the triangle being substantially shorter than the two others,” col. 1:74-75) extending from the hinges (48) to the vertex (at location of roll 54) and a second portion (i.e., a second side of the triangle) extending from the vertex to the distal end (at location of roll 52).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Ermalovich teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2. Ermalovich further teaches the angled arm has an initial angle (Fig. 3) with respect to an extension axis of the first actuator (44) of at least 12 degrees in order “to prevent an aligned condition that would prevent extension of the actuator” (¶ 17). See Fig. 3, angle 41 being desirably “168 degrees or less,” ¶ 17, the supplementary angle between the actuator (44) and the arm (52a) being 12 degrees or more. The range of at least 12 degrees taught by Ermalovich overlaps the broadly claimed range of “at least 14.5⁰.” When modifying Ermalovich in view of Kjellberg, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the first portion of the angled arm at an initial angle with respect to the extension axis of the first actuator to be at least 14.5 degrees (within the range of at least 12 degrees taught by Ermalovich), in order to prevent an aligned condition that would prevent extension of the actuator.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Ermalovich teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 3. Kjellberg further teaches the first and second portions have an obtuse angle that is illustrated to be on the order of approximately 120 degrees. Kjellberg does not explicitly disclose an angle of between 160 and 172 degrees as required by the claim. However, Kjellberg discloses that the relative lengths of the sides of the triangle (col. 1:73-2:3) and thus also the angles between the sides are selected to optimize forces acting on the angled arms to elevate the upper body support frame (col. 2:4-7). Thus, the geometry of the angled arms, including the angle between the first and second portions, is understood to be a result effective variable. Moreover, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, when modifying Ermalovich in view of Kjellberg as discussed above, in modifying the angled arms to have an angle of between 160 and 172 degrees between the first and second portions, as it involves only changing the shape of the angled arms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Ermalovich by configuring the first and second portions of the angled arms to have an angle of between 160 and 172 degrees as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Ermalovich teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 4. Kjellberg further teaches the length of the first portion (i.e., the short side of the triangular furnishing 50) is shorter than the second portion (col. 1:73-75; see Figs. 1-3). Kjellberg does not explicitly disclose that the length of the first portion is at least 4/6 of the second portion as required by the claim. However, Kjellberg discloses that the relative lengths of the sides of the triangle (col. 1:73-2:3) are selected to optimize forces acting on the angled arms to elevate the upper body support frame (col. 2:4-7). Thus, the geometry of the angled arms, including the relative lengths of the first and second portions, is understood to be a result effective variable. Moreover, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, when modifying Ermalovich in view of Kjellberg as discussed above, in modifying the length of the first portion to be at least 4/6 of the second portion, as it involves only changing the shape of the angled arms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Ermalovich by configuring the length of the first portion to be at least 4/6 of the second portion as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, Ermalovich discloses an articulating bed (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 14-15) comprising a support frame (10) with a head end rail (36a), a foot end rail (36b), and side frame rails (34a, 34b); an upper body support section (14) rotatably connected to the support frame (via standoffs 40a, 40b, and hinges 24); an elevating assembly (¶ 16) for the upper body support section (14) having two angled arms (52a, 52b) coupled to the support frame (at central lateral rail 38a of frame 10) and a pair of wheels (rollers 56a, 56b) attached at an end of the angled arms (52a, 52b); and a first actuator (44) attached to the head end rail (36a) and configured to cause movement of the arms (52a, 52b), wherein the elevating assembly has a range of motion elevating the upper body support section (14) in which the pair of wheels (56a, 56b) are in contact with the upper body support section (14), rotatably elevating the upper body support section (14) about the hinges (see Ermalovich, Figs. 3-4; compare to Applicant’s disclosed relationship of the upper body support frame 16 to the angled arm hinges 26, Fig. 4B).
Ermalovich does not teach that the arms are angled with an additional pair of wheels at a vertex such that the first and second pairs of wheels are in contact with the tracks in respective first and second ranges of motion. However, Kjellberg teaches a similar articulating bed (Figs. 1-4) comprising an elevating assembly for an upper body support section (10) having first and second angled arms (triangular furnishings 50; col. 3:3:72-4:15) coupled to a support frame (40) with hinges (48), a first pair of wheels (rolls 54, col. 3:75-4:7) attached to the angled arms (50) at a vertex (see Figs. 1-3), and a second pair of wheels (rolls 52) attached at an end of the angled arms (50), wherein the elevating assembly has a first range of motion (from the position of Fig. 2 to the position of Fig. 1) elevating the upper body support section (10) by rotation of the upper body support section in which the first pair of wheels (54) are in contact with longitudinal tracks (the tracks being “a horizontal part (e.g. the horizontal part of an L- or U-shaped girder) of the side girders of the back part 10,” col. 4:1-4) and a second range of motion (from the position of Fig. 1 to the position of Fig. 3) in which the second pair of wheels (52) are in contact with the longitudinal tracks, rotatably elevating the upper body support section (10) about the hinges (48). See col. 4:7-14, emphasis added: “When the bed is in Trendelenburg position (Fig. 2) or in an intermediate position between the latter and the neutral position (Fig. 1), the supporting members 54 rest against the side girders of the back part 10, and when in the position shown in Fig. 3 or an intermediate position between this and the neutral position, the supporting members 52 only rest against the said side girders.” Kjellberg teaches that this configuration of the arms, wheels, and tracks facilitates efficient adjustment of the upper body support section to different angular positions (col. 1:74-2:7; 3:72-4:15). 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 invention of Ermalovich by configuring the arms to be angled with an additional pair of wheels (corresponding to the claimed first pair of wheels) attached at a vertex and configured to contact longitudinal tracks in the upper body support section in a first range of motion of the elevating assembly, with the pair of wheels at the end of the arms (corresponding to the claimed second pair of wheels) configured to contact the tracks in a second range of motion, as taught by Kjellberg, in order to more efficiently adjust the upper body support section to different angular positions (e.g., including an inclined Trendelenburg position).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Ermalovich teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 15. Kjellberg further teaches the angled arms (50, Figs. 1-3) have a first portion (“one side of the triangle being substantially shorter than the two others,” col. 1:74-75) extending from the support frame (at hinges 48) to the vertex (at location of roll 54) and a second portion (i.e., a second side of the triangle) extending from the vertex (at location of roll 54) to a distal end (at location of roll 52).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Ermalovich teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16. Ermalovich further teaches the angled arm has an initial angle (Fig. 3) with respect to an extension axis of the first actuator (44) of at least 12 degrees in order “to prevent an aligned condition that would prevent extension of the actuator” (¶ 17). See Fig. 3, angle 41 being desirably “168 degrees or less,” ¶ 17, such that the supplementary angle between the actuator (44) and the arm (52a) is 12 degrees or more. The range of at least 12 degrees taught by Ermalovich overlaps the broadly claimed range of “at least 14.5⁰.” When modifying Ermalovich in view of Kjellberg, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the first portion of the angled arm at an initial angle with respect to the extension axis of the first actuator to be at least 14.5 degrees (within the range of at least 12 degrees taught by Ermalovich), in order to prevent an aligned condition that would prevent extension of the actuator.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Ermalovich teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16. Kjellberg further teaches the first and second portions have an obtuse angle that is illustrated to be on the order of approximately 120 degrees. Kjellberg does not explicitly disclose an angle of between 160 and 172 degrees as required by the claim. However, Kjellberg discloses that the relative lengths of the sides of the triangle (col. 1:73-2:3) and thus also the angles between the sides are selected to optimize forces acting on the angled arms to elevate the upper body support frame (col. 2:4-7). Thus, the geometry of the angled arms, including the angle between the first and second portions, is understood to be a result effective variable. Moreover, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, when modifying Ermalovich in view of Kjellberg as discussed above, in modifying the angled arms to have an angle of between 160 and 172 degrees between the first and second portions, as it involves only changing the shape of the angled arms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Ermalovich by configuring the first and second portions of the angled arms to have an angle of between 160 and 172 degrees as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Ermalovich teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16. Kjellberg further teaches the length of the first portion (i.e., the short side of the triangular furnishing 50) is shorter than the second portion (col. 1:73-75; see Figs. 1-3). Kjellberg does not explicitly disclose that the length of the first portion is at least 4/6 of the second portion as required by the claim. However, Kjellberg discloses that the relative lengths of the sides of the triangle (col. 1:73-2:3) are selected to optimize forces acting on the angled arms to elevate the upper body support frame (col. 2:4-7). Thus, the geometry of the angled arms, including the relative lengths of the first and second portions, is understood to be a result effective variable. Moreover, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, when modifying Ermalovich in view of Kjellberg as discussed above, in modifying the length of the first portion to be at least 4/6 of the second portion, as it involves only changing the shape of the angled arms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Ermalovich by configuring the length of the first portion to be at least 4/6 of the second portion as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ermalovich in view of Kjellberg, in further view of Persson (Swedish Patent Document SE 503,216 C3, hereinafter Persson).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, the modified Ermalovich teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 1 and 15 respectively. Ermalovich further discloses a second actuator (64, Figs. 3-4) attached to the foot end rail (36b; ¶ 18), and a thigh support section (18) rotatable about hinges (28; ¶ 14) attached to the support frame (10). Ermalovich does not teach first and second legs as claimed. However, Persson teaches a similar articulating bed (Fig. 1) comprising a support frame (2) and a thigh support section (30), comprising a second actuator (48, Figs. 1-2, 4; pg. 5), a first leg (link arm 62) attached at a first end to a rotation point on an extension rod of the actuator (at end of drive means 50, Fig. 4), a second leg (link arm 64) connected to the first leg (62) at a rotation point on the first leg (at lower end of link arm 62, Fig. 4), the second leg (64) attached to a cross member of the support frame at a second rotation point (via ears 68, see Figs. 1-3d; the cross member of the support frame is most clearly shown in Fig. 1), the thigh support section (30) being rotatable about hinges (at ears 34, Fig. 1) attached to the support frame (2) and connected to a second end of the first leg (62) at a third rotation point (at ears 66, Figs. 3a-d) whereby compression of the first leg (62) by the second actuator (48) between the first and second rotation points causes the first leg (62) and second leg (64) to cooperatively rotate upward (see Figs. 3a-d), the first leg (62) urging the thigh support section (30) to rotate about the hinges (38; see pg. 5). Persson teaches that this is a simple, inexpensive, and space-saving mechanism for adjusting the thigh support section of the bed (as an improvement over prior art mechanisms that are “space consuming … complicated and expensive,” pg. 2; “Because the actuator drive means is arranged to operate in parallel with the bed bottom plane, the actuator will require very limited space at the bottom of the bed,” pg. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Ermalovich to include a first leg attached at a first end to a rotation point on the extension rod of the actuator and at a second end to the thigh support section at a third rotation point, and a second leg connected to the first leg at a rotation point on the first leg and to a cross member of the support frame at a second rotation point, such that compression of the first leg by the second actuator between the first and second rotation points causes the first and second legs to cooperatively rotate upward with the first leg urging the thigh support section to rotate about the hinges, as taught by Persson, so that the second actuator requires less operating space below the bed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 would be allowable if a corrected reissue declaration is filed to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 251 set forth above.
The reasons for allowance were set forth in the Non-final, see pg. 25-26.
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 Laura L. Davison whose telephone number is (571)270-0189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. ET.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at (571)272-6928. 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.
/Laura Davison/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/SARAH B MCPARTLIN/ /Patricia L Engle/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993 SPRS, Art Unit 3991