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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 18 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 29 be found allowable, claim 30 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 17-32 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 claims 17, 18, 22, 28 and 29, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 17, 18, 28 and 29, the claims recite phrases “may be”, “may” and “can be” followed by steps, or processes. However, the phrases “may be”, “may” and “can be” render the claims indefinite as these phrases do not positively indicate that the later recited steps or processes are actually carried out. As such it is unclear what the applicant intends for patent coverage.
Claims 19-21, 23-27 and 30-32 are rejected due to their dependence upon claims 17, 18, 28 and 29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17, 21-28, 31 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,568,792 to Derenne et al.
Re-claims 17 and 28, Derenne et al. disclose 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 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 casters are electrically 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, 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, see at least discussions regarding figures 13-19), upon which when a predetermined time has elapsed without motion the casters are transferred into a state of pivot locked and rotationally blocked (see column 16 lines 48-61 and column 17 lines 3-8).
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.
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).
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) 18-20, 29 and 30 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.
Re-claims 18-20, 29 and 30, 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 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 casters are electrically 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, 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, see at least discussions regarding figures 13-19), upon which when a predetermined time has elapsed without motion the casters are transferred into a state of pivot locked and rotationally blocked (see column 16 lines 48-61 and column 17 lines 3-8). However, Derenne et al. fail to teach the triggering event is only effective after a security check.
Derenne et al. (‘644) a hospital bed system having a security feature as part of a caster wheel controller, in the form of a RF ID tag (i.e. transponder) or input code (see paragraph 92). This prevents inadvertent movement of the bed either accidently 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 hospital bed.
Conclusion
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
January 7, 2026
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616