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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 14, and 16 have been amended. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 12/15/2025
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC 112 Claim Rejections detailed in the Final Rejection filed on 8/14/2025 have been withdrawn in light of the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 12/15/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the adjective “smaller” is recited in claim 1 to describe the secondary circuit board. However, it is not explicitly stated what attribute of the secondary circuit board is “smaller” and what the secondary circuit board is being compared to. Therefore, the examiner suggests amending claim 1 to recite, “a primary circuit board disposed within the housing and a , the secondary circuit board being smaller in size than the primary circuit board”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-8 are further objected to for being dependent on claim 1.
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 9-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerhusen (US 20180333317 A1) in view of Bhimavarapu (US 10980689 B2), further in view of Kennedy (US 20210330526 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Zerhusen discloses a patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 10), comprising: a frame (base frame 20) having a head end (head end 14) and a foot end (foot end 12); a support arm (arm 66) operably coupled to the head end of the frame (See Fig. 1, arm 66 coupled at head end of base frame 20); a vertical support (flexible leg 158) operably coupled to the support arm (See Fig. 2, flexible leg 158 coupled to arm 66 with pivot 94 in between); and a housing (support structure 168) operably coupled to the vertical support and configured to retain an electronic device (See Fig. 2, support structure 168 coupled to end of flexible leg 158 housing), the housing including: a support mechanism (pair of bases 172, 174) configured to selectively support the electronic device on the housing (See Fig. 3, support structure 168 supporting tablet computer 170), the support mechanism defining: a shelf (pair of bases 172, 174); a dynamic engagement member (adjustable clamp 176); and a charging assembly (USB charging port 164) disposed proximate a rear side of the housing (“USB charging port 164 being secured to the frame member 175”; [0098]).
Zerhusen fails to explicitly disclose first and second magnetic features; and a charging assembly including a wireless charging feature and also a wired charging feature to charge the electronic device secured on the housing, wherein the first and second magnetic features are disposed on opposing sides of the wireless charging feature.
However, Bhimavarapu teaches first and second magnetic features (See Fig. 7, magnets 270); and a charging assembly to charge the electronic device secured on the housing (See Fig. 5 and 7, device 66 secured on housing while charging), wherein the first and second magnetic features are disposed on opposing sides of the wireless charging feature (See Fig. 7, magnets 270 on opposing sides of coil 262).
PNG
media_image1.png
320
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
462
194
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusen by adding the magnetic features taught by Bhimavarapu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “magnetically retain personal electronic device 66 directly against a mounting surface”; (Bhimavarapu, [Col. 12, Lines 62-63]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Zerhusen in view of Bhimavarapu fails to explicitly teach a wireless charging feature and also a wired charging feature.
However, Kennedy teaches a wireless charging feature and also a wired charging feature (See Fig. 2, wired interface 274 and inductive charging interface 276).
PNG
media_image3.png
546
712
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusen in view of Bhimavarapu by adding the wired and wireless charger taught by Kennedy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “facilitating charging of, different types of portable electronic devices”; (Kennedy, [0093]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 10, Zerhusen, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 10) of claim 9, further comprising: an outlet (PED charger port 618) configured to supply at least one of power and data to an electronic device connector (“personal electrical devices (PED’s) such as tablet computers, smart phones, music players, and the like can be recharged by plugging them into PED charger port 618”; [0128]).
Regarding Claim 11, Zerhusen, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 10) of claim 9.
Zerhusen fails to explicitly teach wherein the first and second magnetic features secure the electronic device to a forward wall of the housing and are disposed above and below a sensor of the charging assembly.
However, Bhimavarapu teaches wherein the first and second magnetic features secure the electronic device to a forward wall of the housing and are disposed above and below a sensor of the charging assembly (See Fig. 7, magnets 270 are positioned above and below coil 262, securing device 66 to mounting surface 252).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusen by adding the magnetic features taught by Bhimavarapu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “magnetically retain personal electronic device 66 directly against a mounting surface”; (Bhimavarapu, [Col. 12, Lines 62-63]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 13, Zerhusen, as modified, discloses the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 10) of claim 9, wherein the housing is in communication with a battery source operably coupled to said patient support apparatus (“system 602 is configured for bidirectional communication with MCB 606 of bed 10”; 0125]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerhusen (US 20180333317 A1) in view of Bhimavarapu (US 10980689 B2) in view of Kennedy (US 20210330526 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Rivera Paredes (US 20170110897 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Zerhusen, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 10) of claim 10.
Zerhusen in view of Bhimavarapu in view of Kennedy fails to explicitly teach the outlet includes a spring-loaded door that keeps the outlet covered when not in use.
However, Rivera Paredes teaches an outlet includes a spring-loaded door that keeps the outlet covered when not in use (“spring loaded door 24 for closing the port or opening 26 of the dedicated receiver 20 when the portable power bank 18 has been withdrawn for use”; [0022]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusen in view of Bhimavarapu in view of Kennedy by adding the spring door taught by Rivera Paredes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “keep dirt and debris from entering”; (Rivera Parades, [0030]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerhusen (US 20180333317 A1) in view of Bhimavarapu (US 10980689 B2) in view of Kennedy (US 20210330526 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Peek (US 6653816 B2).
Regarding Claim 14, Zerhusen, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 10) of claim 13.
Zerhusen in view of Bhimavarapu in view of Kennedy fails to explicitly teach a controller that monitors the battery source of said patient support apparatus and limits charging of the electronic device when a charge status of the battery source of said patient support apparatus falls below a pre-defined threshold
However, Peek teaches a controller (power management controller 306) that monitors a battery source of said patient support apparatus (“continually monitors the power demanded and the remaining cell 309 capacity”; [Col. 4, Lines 46-48]) and limits charging of the electronic device when a charge status of the battery source of said patient support apparatus falls below a pre-defined threshold (“when the capacity drops below a predetermined threshold…deactivate the accessories by toggling the power enable line 347”; [Col. 4, Lines 48-52]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined the invention of Zerhusen in view of Bhimavarapu in view of Kennedy and the invention of Peek and arrived at a patient support apparatus including charging capabilities wherein a controller can limit charging when necessary. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerhusen (US 20180333317 A1) in view of Bhimavarapu (US 10980689 B2) in view of Kennedy (US 20210330526 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Salzinger (US 20200119582 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Zerhusen, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 10) of claim 9.
Zerhusen in view of Bhimavarapu in view of Kennedy fails to explicitly teach a transmitting coil extends across a width of the housing and is configured to charge multiple electronic devices concurrently.
However, Salzinger teaches a transmitting coil extends across a width of the housing and is configured to charge multiple electronic devices concurrently (“charging device 400 includes a first surface 402 with two induction areas 420, 422”; [0034], See Fig. 4A).
PNG
media_image4.png
228
448
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusen in view of Bhimavarapu in view of Kennedy by adding the transmitting coil taught by Salzinger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “charging multiple devices simultaneously”; (Salzinger, [0027]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerhusen (US 20180333317 A1) in view of Kennedy (US 20210330526 A1), further in view of Peek (US 6653816 B2), further in view of Tam (US 20110254511 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Zerhusen discloses a user interface support assembly (user interface unit 160) for a patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 10) comprising: a vertical support (flexible leg 158); a housing (support structure 168) operably coupled with the vertical support (See Fig. 2, support structure 168 coupled to end of flexible leg 158 housing); at least one handle (pair of handles 180, 182) extending from the housing (See Fig. 3, handles 180, 182 extending from support structure 168); a support mechanism configured to selectively support an electronic device on the housing (pair of bases 172, 174), the support mechanism defining a shelf (pair of bases 172, 174) and a dynamic engagement member (adjustable clamp 176); and a charging assembly disposed proximate a rear side of the housing (“USB charging port 164 being secured to the frame member 175”; [0098]).
Zerhusen fails to explicitly disclose a charging assembly configured to wirelessly charge the electronic device and charge the electronic device with a wired connection; and at least one circuit board that controls a flow of power through the charging assembly and also a flow and speed of data and power available at an adjacent outlet, wherein the at least one circuit board monitors a battery source of said patient support apparatus and limits charging of the electronic device when a charge status of the battery source of said patient support apparatus falls below a pre-defined threshold
However, Kennedy teaches a charging assembly configured to wirelessly charge the electronic device and charge the electronic device with a wired connection (See Fig. 2, wired interface 274 and inductive charging interface 276).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusen by adding the wired and wireless charger taught by Kennedy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “facilitating charging of, different types of portable electronic devices”; (Kennedy, [0093]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Zerhusen in view of Kennedy fails to explicitly teach at least one circuit board that controls a flow of power through the charging assembly and also a flow and speed of data and power available at an adjacent outlet, wherein the at least one circuit board monitors a battery source of said patient support apparatus and limits charging of the electronic device when a charge status of the battery source of said patient support apparatus falls below a pre-defined threshold.
However, Peek teaches at least one circuit board (See Fig. 3, power demand resistors 344, 345, 346) that controls a flow of power through the charging assembly (“when the capacity drops below a predetermined threshold…deactivate the accessories by toggling the power enable line 347”; [Col. 4, Lines 48-52]), wherein the at least one circuit board monitors a battery source of said patient support apparatus (“continually monitors the power demanded and the remaining cell 309 capacity”; [Col. 4, Lines 46-48]) and limits charging of the electronic device when a charge status of the battery source of said patient support apparatus falls below a pre-defined threshold (“when the capacity drops below a predetermined threshold…deactivate the accessories by toggling the power enable line 347”; [Col. 4, Lines 48-52]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined the invention of Zerhusen in view of Kennedy and the invention of Peek and arrived at a user interface support assembly for a patient support apparatus including charging capabilities wherein a controller can limit charging when necessary. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Zerhusen in view of Kennedy in view of Peek fails to explicitly teach at least one circuit board controls a flow and speed of data and power available at an adjacent outlet.
However, Tam teaches at least one circuit board controls a flow and speed of data and power available at an adjacent outlet (“power manger circuit which is responsible for adjusting the amount of power that is consumed in the PD 10 (and which may be drawn from the external power supply 15)”; [0022]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined the invention of Zerhusen in view of Kennedy in view of Peek and the invention of Tam and arrived at a user interface support assembly for a patient support apparatus including charging capabilities wherein a controller can limit charging internally and from an adjacent outlet when necessary. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 17, Zerhusen, as modified, teaches the user interface support assembly (user interface unit 160) of claim 16 wherein the charging assembly is operably coupled with a charging indicator (“USB overlay 296 is positioned on the frame member 178 and provides indicia indicative of the operation of the USB charging port 164”; [0098]).
Regarding Claim 18, Zerhusen, as modified, teaches the user interface support assembly (user interface unit 160) of claim 17, wherein the charging indicator includes visual indicia that activates when the electronic device is charging (“USB overlay 296 is positioned on the frame member 178 and provides indicia indicative of the operation of the USB charging port 164”; [0098]).
Regarding Claim 19, Zerhusen, as modified teaches the user interface support (user interface unit 160).
Zerhusen in view of Kennedy fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one circuit board includes a controller that monitors the battery source.
How, Peek teaches at least one circuit board (See Fig. 3, power demand resistors 344, 345, 346) includes a controller (power management controller 305) that monitors the battery source (“continually monitors the power demanded and the remaining cell 309 capacity”; [Col. 4, Lines 46-48]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined the invention of Zerhusen in view of Kennedy and the invention of Peek and arrived at a user interface support assembly for a patient support apparatus including charging capabilities wherein a controller monitors the battery source. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 20, Zerhusen, as modified, teaches the user interface support assembly (user interface unit 160) of claim 16.
Zerhusen fails to explicitly teach the charging assembly includes an inductive coupling arrangement.
However, Kennedy teaches a charging assembly includes an inductive coupling arrangement (See Fig. 2, inductive charging interface 276)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusen by adding the inductance coupling arrangement taught by Kennedy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “facilitating charging of, different types of portable electronic devices”; (Kennedy, [0093]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 would be allowed, if rewritten to overcome the claim objections detailed above. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claims are determined to be allowable subject matter over the prior art of record because the teachings of references taken as a whole do not teach nor render obvious the combination set forth in Independent Claim 1.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, the prior art of Zerhusen (US 20180333317 A1) discloses a patient support apparatus comprising: a frame; a support arm coupled to the frame; a vertical support coupled to the support arm; and a user interface support assembly configured to retain an electronic device wherein the assembly comprises a charging assembly for charging the device. Further, the prior art of Zerhusen in view of Peek (US 6653816 B2) teaches a sensor for detecting a power draw to monitor a battery of the patient support, limit charging of the electronic device based on a battery charge threshold and activating a charging notification in the process. However, the prior art of Zerhusen in view of Peek and other references of record fails to explicitly teach a primary circuit board disposed within a housing and a smaller circuit board (inferring smaller in size than the primary board) having a planar extent arranged perpendicular to a planar extent of the primary circuit board while the charging assembly is disposed within the housing between the primary circuit board and the sensor.
Therefore, with the prior art failing to disclose the instant invention and an additional search, it is the Examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at and/or claimed this specific combination of features in the designed configuration based on the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached on (571) 272-8525. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673