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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 4, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 17, 21-28 and 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,568,792 to Derenne et al. in view of US 7,200,894 to Block et al.
Re-claims 17 and 28, Derenne et al. teach a system and method comprising two or more casters (see wheels 58, 60, 62 and 64) and a controller 152, the casters are attached to a movable part (i.e. a hospital bed), the casters are switchable (or operable) by the controller 152 using a switching device (such as actuators 105 and 122) that switch the casters between a state in which one or more casters is pivot locked (actuator 122) and rotationally blocked (actuator 105) and a state in which there is no pivot locking or rotational blocking (as during movement of the bed, as is known in the art), additionally, at least one of the casters is switched to a state in which only one is pivot locked (see at least column 13 lines 6-23), the switchable casters are actuated electrically by an electric motor (105, see column 8 lines 42-43 and “stepper motor or servo motor”) and manually actuated (the manual actuation includes manual charging of a power supply) in the event of failure of an electrical power supply (see column 30 lines 48-67), application of force (on any portion of the frame having force sensors) or disconnecting the bed from an external power source is interpreted as an emergency switching actuation, upon which the controller releases one or more of the casters from a starting state in which the casters are pivot locked and rotationally blocked (such as state of being positioned in a room and plugged in), following a triggering event (i.e. sudden application of force or disconnection from the external power source, indicating a need for moving the bed, see also columns 21 lines 53-67 to column 22 lines 1-15) multiple switching states are automatically and sequentially assumed in a predetermined sequence by at least two casters (as this is the minimum required):
the casters are placed in a first switching state in which pivot locking and rotationally blocking have ceased (see at least column 12 lines 65-67 to column 13 lines 1-2, the free swivel mode is the cessation of the pivot locking mode), then into
a second state in which one or more casters are pivot locked (i.e. steer mode for at least two casters, see column 13 lines 6-23, determined after movement in a specific direction is determined) while allowing rotational movement of the wheels (such as when a pushing direction is determined by the controller, see at least discussions regarding figures 13-19), then into
a final switching state that when a predetermined time has elapsed without motion or movement of the movable part (i.e. bed), all the switchable casters (i.e. minimum of two) are transferred into a state of pivot locked and rotationally blocked (see column 17 lines 3-6 and figure 6). The application of force by the operator is the triggering event, as noted above (which is consistent with the instant invention, see paragraph 12 and how a manual switch can be omitted and the triggering event is an action by the operator, such as movement of the bed). However, Derenne et al. fail to teach the electric motor configured to act on an actuating shaft and configured to be used as a handle for manually carrying out a rotary actuation of the actuating shaft to switch the casters via a shift linkage.
Block et al. teach a moveable part 3 having casters 1 that pivot and roll, and the use of an electric motor 50 for controlling the pivot and rolling state of the caster. The electric motor acts upon an actuating shaft 20 to switch the casters via a shift linkage 21. In addition, the electric motor functions as a handle for manually carrying out a rotary actuation of the actuating shaft 20 (see figure 13 and column 7 lines 26-34). This provides for a purely mechanical means for manually controlling the state of the casters, thus having no reliance upon electrical energy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the moveable part (i.e. bed) of Derenne et al. with a purely manually actuated operation for controlling the state of the casters using the electric motor as a handle device as taught by Block et al., as this would have reduced the need for a separate handle and would have provided a means of controlling the casters without any electrical energy or operating electric motor.
Re-claims 21 and 31, Derenne et al. show at least the rotational blocking feature of the caster having a shift linkage (see figure 5A, and at least elements 106 and 110)
Re-claims 22 and 32, upon a successful directional lock of at least one of the casters, and a subsequent operation of moving the bed in a different direction (such as a force applied at points C or A as shown in figure 15, thus indicating a desire to turn the bed), the directional lock (or steer lock) is released (allowing the bed to be turned either rightward or leftward).
Re-claim 23, this switching state is carried out without a safety check, as Derenne et al. fail to indicate any type of safety check carried out prior to the change in switching state, and continued movement of the part (i.e. bed) does not require a re-entry of the security check or code.
Re-claim 24, Derenne et al. discloses predetermined time periods between operations, see column 16 lines 48-62 and a constant monitoring of the various sensors, thereby updating caster control based upon the current conditions (such as motion) of the bed, see column 21 lines 53-67 to column 22 lines 1-10.
Re-claims 25-27, Derenne et al. further disclose up to five caster wheels, specifically each corner having a caster wheel and a centrally located caster wheel that can be lowered or raised, the centrally located caster is drivable (i.e. powered, see column 11 lines 63-67 to column 12 lines 1-28).
Re-claim 33, Block et al. further teach the manual actuation includes a step of deliberately releasing a locking mechanism 56 that prevents manual rotation of the actuating shaft, before the electric motor can be used as the handle for the manual rotary actuation. This prevents unintended rotation of the electric motor relative to its normal position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when having provided the manually pivoted electric motor to Derenne et al. to have further included a releasable locking mechanism of the type taught by Block et al., thus preventing unwanted or unintended pivoting of the electric motor and consequently operation of the actuating shaft.
Claim(s) 19 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derenne et al. in view of Block et al. as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of US 2014/0076644 A1 to Derenne et al.
Re-claims 19 and 30, Derenne et al. fail to teach the triggering event is only effective after a security check that includes entering a code or response to a transponder.
Derenne et al. (‘644) a hospital bed system having a security feature as part of a caster wheel controller, in the form of a RFID tag (i.e. transponder) or an input code (see paragraph 92). This prevents inadvertent movement of the bed either accidentally or by a person not authorized to move the bed, and as such is seen as a safety feature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system of Derenne et al. (‘792) with a security check process or step as taught by Derenne et al. (‘644), thus providing an enhanced safety feature for the bed.
Claim(s) 18, 20, 29 and 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derenne et al. (US 10,568,792) in view of US 2014/0076644 A1 to Derenne et al. and in view of Block et al.
Re-claims 18, 20 and 29, Derenne et al. (‘792) teach a system and method comprising two or more casters (see wheels 58, 60, 62 and 64) and a controller 152, the casters are attached to a movable part (i.e. bed), the casters are switchable (or operable) by the controller 152 using a switching device (such as actuators 105 and 122) that switch the casters between a state in which one or more casters is pivot locked (actuator 122) and rotationally blocked (actuator 105) and a state in which there is no pivot locking or rotational blocking (as during movement of the bed, as is known in the art), additionally, at least one of the casters is switched to a state in which only one is pivot locked (see at least column 13 lines 6-23), the switchable casters are actuated electrically by an electric motor (105, see column 8 lines 42-43 and “stepper motor or servo motor”) and manually actuated (the manual actuation includes manual charging of a power supply) in the event of failure of an electrical power supply (see column 30 lines 48-67), application of force (on any portion of the frame having force sensors) or disconnecting the bed from an external power source is interpreted as an emergency switching actuation, upon which the controller releases one or more of the casters from a starting state in which the casters are pivot locked and rotationally blocked (such as state of being positioned in a room and plugged in), following a triggering event (i.e. sudden application of force or disconnection from the external power source, indicating a need for moving the bed, see also columns 21 lines 53-67 to column 22 lines 1-15) the casters are placed in a first switching state in which pivot locking and rotationally blocking have ceased (see at least column 12 lines 65-67 to column 13 lines 1-2, the free swivel mode is the cessation of the pivot locking mode), into a second state in which one or more casters are pivot locked while allowing rotational movement of the wheels (such as when a pushing direction is determined by the controller and a steer mode, see at least column 13 lines 6-23 and discussions regarding figures 13-19), upon a final switching state that when a predetermined time has elapsed without motion or movement of the movable part (i.e. bed), all the switchable casters (i.e. minimum of two) are transferred into a state of pivot locked and rotationally blocked (see column 17 lines 3-6 and figure 6). The application of force by the operator is the triggering event, as noted above (which is consistent with the instant invention, see paragraph 12 and how a manual switch can be omitted and the triggering event is an action by the operator, such as movement of the bed).
However, Derenne et al. fail to teach the triggering event is only effective after a security check that includes entering a code or response to a transponder (as per instant claim 20); or the electric motor configured to act on an actuating shaft and configured to be used as a handle for manually carrying out a rotary actuation of the actuating shaft to switch the casters via a shift linkage.
Derenne et al. (‘644) a hospital bed system having a security feature as part of a caster wheel controller, in the form of a RFID tag (i.e. transponder) or an input code (see paragraph 92). This prevents inadvertent movement of the bed either accidentally or by a person not authorized to move the bed, and as such is seen as a safety feature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system of Derenne et al. (‘792) with a security check process or step as taught by Derenne et al. (‘644), thus providing an enhanced safety feature for the bed.
Block et al. teach a moveable part 3 having casters 1 that pivot and roll, and the use of an electric motor 50 for controlling the pivot and rolling state of the caster. The electric motor acts upon an actuating shaft 20 to switch the casters via a shift linkage 21. In addition, the electric motor functions as a handle for manually carrying out a rotary actuation of the actuating shaft 20 (see figure 13 and column 7 lines 26-34). This provides for a purely mechanical means for manually controlling the state of the casters, thus having no reliance upon electrical energy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the moveable part (i.e. bed) of Derenne et al. with a purely manually actuated operation for controlling the state of the casters using the electric motor as a handle device as taught by Block et al., as this would have reduced the need for a separate handle and would have provided a means of controlling the casters without any electrical energy or operating electric motor.
Re-claims 34 and 36, as taught by Derenne et al., after successful triggering of the predetermined sequence and that one or more casters are pivot locked when in the second switching state (as would occur during a straight movement or dedicated directional movement of the moveable part, or bed, see column 13 and placement of the swivel in the “steer mode” which prevents free swivel of the caster), a change of direction requiring a released pivot locking (or steer-lock release) is carried out without a renewed security check, thus placing the casters in the release position allowing a new directional movement of the bed (see column 13 lines 6-9 and column 17 lines 52-67 to column 18 lines 1-3). At no point is it stated that a reentry of a security check is required for changing directional movement of the bed, nor would such a requirement make sense, as this would impede the movement of the bed from one location to another location.
Re-claim 35, Block et al. further teach the manual actuation includes a step of deliberately releasing a locking mechanism 56 that prevents manual rotation of the actuating shaft, before the electric motor can be used as the handle for the manual rotary actuation. This prevents unintended rotation of the electric motor relative to its normal position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when having provided the manually pivoted electric motor to Derenne et al. to have further included a releasable locking mechanism of the type taught by Block et al., thus preventing unwanted or unintended pivoting of the electric motor and consequently operation of the actuating shaft.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17-36 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Iiyama and Antrag each teach a moveable part having an electric motor for operating an actuating shaft of a caster.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128.
The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Robert Siconolfi, can be reached at 571-272-7124. The fax phone number for the
organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding
should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW /THOMAS J WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights