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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments: “In the Advisory Action of June 22, 2026, Examiner Bailey stated the following: "The Examiner does note that the Examiner does consider the supporting surface of Herman in view of Frondorf and Wang to be facing towards a patient. If the Applicant disagrees the Examiner invites the Applicant to further elaborate their position in a timely filed RCE." The undersigned does not disagree with the Examiner's statement as far as it goes. However, the crux of the argument is not that Herman, Frondorf, and Wang lack a supporting surface that faces towards a patient, but rather, the argument is that none of Herman, Frondorf, and Wang disclose a supporting surface to which a phone holder is coupled and that also has a nurse call button coupled to this same surface with the nurse call button also facing towards the patient so as to be accessible to the patient for sending a nurse signal from the patient support apparatus. (Emphasis added) It is the dual items coupled to the recited supporting surface (i.e., the phone holder and the nurse call button) that is the distinguishing feature of amended claim 1 as compared to Herman, Frondorf, and Wang.”
Examiner’s Response to Arguments: The Examiner notes the Applicant’s position and appreciates the clarification and emphasis. However, in view of the disclosure of Herman which teaches a nurse call button and the further teachings of Osborn, the Examiner finds the new limitations to be unpatentable as presented in the rejection of claim 1 below.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 includes the limitations “the control panel facing away from a patient supported on the frame”, “a supporting surface that faces toward the patient”, and “a nurse call button coupled to the supporting surface and facing toward the patient”. All of these limitations make the claim unclear because the structure of the invention is tied to a position of a patient which is not fixed. For example, if the patient is supported on the frame by sitting at a foot end of the bed, the direction of the control panel will be different than if the patient is sitting with their torso supported by the head section of the bed. Clarification is requested.
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) 1-5, 7-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2011/0247135 – hereinafter Herman) in view of Frondorf et al. (US PG. Pub. No. 2007/0143920 – hereinafter Frondorf) further in view of Wang et al. (US Patent No. 5,305,381 – hereinafter Wang) further in view of Moster et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2005/0007258 – hereinafter Moster).
Regarding Claim 1:
Herman discloses a patient support apparatus (person support apparatus 10 of Herman) comprising: a frame (intermediate frame 22 of Herman), a head section (head portion 28 of Herman) coupled to the frame (paragraph [0021] of Herman – “The deck 24 can be movably coupled to the intermediate frame 22 and can include a head portion 28, a seat portion 30, and a foot portion 32. The head portion 28, the seat portion 30, and the foot portion 32 can be movably coupled with each other and/or the intermediate frame 22.”) and movable relative to the frame between raised and lowered angular positions (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0021] of Herman), the head section being configured to support at least a portion of a torso of a patient (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0021] of Herman which describes a head portion 28), [….], a phone holder (chamber 56 of Herman) coupled to a supporting surface (see annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Herman) that faces toward the patient so that the phone holder is accessible to the patient supported on the frame (see Fig. 2 of Herman which shows an external device ED1 supported by an accessory module 27 shown being accessible to a patient which would be supported on the surface shown in Fig. 2), the phone holder being configured to [hold] a mobile phone of the patient (see Fig. 2 of Herman), the phone holder including a first portion (front portion FP1 of Herman) configured to contact a bottom of the mobile phone (see Fig. 2 of Herman showing a ledge supporting a bottom of a mobile phone), [….].
PNG
media_image1.png
696
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Herman does not disclose a sensor operable to provide a sensor signal indicative of an angular position of the head section, an actuator that is operable to move the head section between the raised and lowered angular positions, a controller coupled to the sensor and to the actuator, the controller being configured to signal the actuator to move the head section, a head-of-bed angle (HOBA) indicator that illuminates to provide an indication regarding a threshold angle of the head section, and a control panel on which the HOBA indicator is viewable, the control panel facing away from a patient supported on the frame; the phone holder configured to securely cradle a mobile phone of the patient in an orientation having a display screen of the mobile phone oriented generally vertically so as to face toward the patient on the support apparatus, the phone holder including a first portion configured to contact an edge of the mobile phone, and the first portion including a notch through which a recharging plug is movable to couple to a recharging port of the mobile phone that is accessible in the notch, wherein the phone holder is configured so that at least one other edge of the mobile phone is free of obstruction from any part of the phone holder, and a nurse call button coupled to the supporting surface and facing toward the patient so as to be accessible to the patient for sending a nurse signal from the patient support apparatus.
In the same field of endeavor, Frondorf teaches a patient support apparatus (hospital bed 20 of Frondorf) comprising: a frame (intermediate frame 28 of Frondorf), a head section (head section 40 of Frondorf) coupled to the frame and movable relative to the frame between raised and lowered angular positions (paragraph [0030] of Frondorf – “The head section 40 is coupled to the intermediate frame 28 near a head end 50 of the seat section 42 for pivoting movement between a first position shown in FIG. 1 where the head section 40 is generally coplanar with the seat section 42 and a second position shown in FIG. 2 where the head section 40 is raised relative to the seat section 42.”), the head section being configured to support at least a portion of a torso of a patient (Fig. 2 of Frondorf shows head section 40 and seat section 42 pivotally adjacent one another and a torso of a human is positioned between the head and seat/buttocks), a sensor (head-of-bed angle sensor) operable to provide a sensor signal indicative of an angular position of the head section (alarm 154 of Frondorf indicating an angular position of the head section when the head section is below the threshold), an actuator that is operable to move the head section between the raised and lowered angular positions (paragraph [0046] of Frondorf - “head section actuator 130 for moving the head section 40 relative to the intermediate frame 28 between the first and second angular positions”), a controller coupled to the sensor and to the actuator (Fig. 5 of Frondorf shows the controller 132 connected to both the angle sensor and actuator), the controller being configured to signal the actuator to move the head section (paragraphs [0035] – [0036] of Frondorf – “The caregiver control panel 90 has a plurality of caregiver controls 92 including….head up/down controls 96” and “the controls 92 are coupled to a controller 132 of the bed 20”), a head-of-bed angle (HOBA) indicator that illuminates to provide an indication regarding a threshold angle of the head section (paragraph [0048] of Frondorf – “In the illustrated embodiment, the alarm 154 is both aural and visual. The aural alarm is located on the main circuit board (not shown) mounted on the intermediate frame 28 of the bed 20. The aural alarm may be, for example, a speaker or piezoelectric buzzer. The visual alarm is in the form of a message box 236 (FIG. 11) on the GCI 94 of the caregiver control panel 90 of the bed 20. The controller 132 may be configured to cause the message box 236 to flash to make it more noticeable to the caregiver. Alternatively or additionally, the visual alarm is in the form of a flashing light, such as a dome light of a nurse call system, located near a doorway of a hospital room where the bed 20 is located. Alternatively or additionally, the visual alarm may be a message or other viewable indicia which appears on a computer screen at a remote nurse station and/or the aural alarm may be produced at the remote nurse station by a sound producing device such as a speaker in a computer. In other embodiments, the alarm may be only a visual alarm or only an aural alarm;” and claim 21 of Frondorf - “wherein the visual alarm is in the form of a flashing icon on a graphical caregiver interface of the patient support apparatus”), and a control panel (CGI 94 of Frondorf – Fig. 3) on which the HOBA indicator is viewable (claim 21 of Frondorf), the control panel facing away from a patient supported on the frame (Fig. 1 of Frondorf shows panel 94 positioned on an exterior side of the side rail).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Herman (directed to a patient support comprising a phone holder) and Frondorf (directed to a patient support with HOBA indicator) with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because maintaining “a head-of-bed angle of 30 degrees is recommended in order to prevent pneumonia and the development of pressure ulcers” (see paragraph [0003] of Frondorf).
Herman and Frondorf do not disclose or make obvious the phone holder configured to securely cradle a mobile phone of the patient in an orientation having a display screen of the mobile phone oriented generally vertically so as to face toward the patient on the support apparatus, the phone holder including a first portion configured to contact an edge of the mobile phone, and the first portion including a notch through which a recharging plug is movable to couple to a recharging port of the mobile phone that is accessible in the notch, wherein the phone holder is configured so that at least one other edge of the mobile phone is free of obstruction from any part of the phone holder.
However, solving the same problem of orienting a mobile device (see the abstract of Wang), Wang teaches a phone holder (telephone cradle 1 of Wang) accessible to a [user], the phone holder configured to securely cradle a mobile phone (see the abstract of Wang – “A telephone cradle has ratcheting, sliding walls which engage a telephone and hold it securely”) of the [user] in an orientation having a display screen of the mobile phone oriented generally vertically (see the vertical orientation shown in Figs. 3-5 and 11 of Wang) so as to face toward the [user] […], the phone holder including a first portion (see annotated copy of Fig. 3 of Wang) configured to contact an edge of the mobile phone (see the bottom edge of the phone contacting the first portion as shown in annotated copy of Fig. 3 of Wang), and the first portion including a notch (see annotated copy of Fig. 3 of Wang) through which a recharging plug (17 of Wang) is moveable to couple to a recharging port (not shown but made obvious by the teaching that Wang is rechargeable with a connector cord 17 that would require a port) of the mobile phone that is accessible in the notch (as shown in Fig. 3 of Wang), wherein the phone holder is configured so that at least one other edge of the mobile phone is free of obstruction from any part of the phone holder (see the upper edge of the phone shown in Fig. 3 being free of obstruction from any part of the phone holder of Wang).
PNG
media_image2.png
572
419
media_image2.png
Greyscale
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Herman (directed toward a hospital bed with phone holder), Frondorf (directed toward a hospital bed with HOBA alarm) and Wang (directed toward a clamp style phone holder) with a reasonable expectation of success by including a clamping member as taught by Wang in the accessory module of Herman as modified by Frondorf. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because the ratcheting, sliding walls… engage a telephone and hold it securely (abstract of Wang) and enabling adjustment to a convenient position for the user (see Col. 5, lines 61-66 of Wang – “With a flex-cable mounting means, telephone cradle 1 may be adjusted to a convenient position for the driver or passenger”).
Herman, Frondorf and Wang do not disclose or make obvious a nurse call button coupled to the supporting surface and facing toward the patient so as to be accessible to the patient for sending a nurse signal from the patient support apparatus.
Although Herman does not explicitly disclose a nurse call button coupled to the supporting surface and facing toward the patient so as to be accessible to the patient for sending a nurse signal from the patient support apparatus, Herman does disclose “The accessory module 27 can be configured to transmit and/or receive a data signal and/or a power signal to/from an external device ED1 and/or the person-support apparatus 10. It should be appreciated that the accessory module 27 can transmit and/or receive a data signal and/or a power signal to/from a remote system (not shown) in communication with the accessory module 27, such as, a hospital network and/or a caregiver interface, such as, a nurse station, nurse call interface, remote device, an electronic medical device, or an electronic storage device.”
In the same field of endeavor, hospital beds (see the abstract of Moster), Moster teaches a support surface (see front face of the control unit 120 of Moster – Fig. 8) comprising a nurse call button (nurse call switch 130 of Moster) coupled to the supporting surface (Fig. 8 of Moster) and facing toward the patient so as to be accessible to the patient for sending a nurse signal from the patient support apparatus (paragraph [0050] of Moster- A nurse call switch 130 may be actuated by a thumb of the operator while the operator is gripping the handle 128. Nurse call switch 130 is illustratively illuminated when pressed.).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Herman (directed toward a hospital bed with phone holder), Frondorf (directed toward a hospital bed with HOBA alarm), Wang (directed toward a clamp style phone holder) and Moster (directed toward a nurse call button) with a reasonable expectation of success by adding a nurse call button to the support surface of Herman. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “the control units of the present invention can communicate with the nurse call system and/or with the electrical communication network of the hospital to transmit and receive information from remote locations” (paragraph [0072] of Moster).
Regarding Claim 2:
Herman in view of Frondorf, Wang and Moster make obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 1, wherein the threshold angle at which the HOBA indicator illuminates is 30 degrees (Frondorf: para [0038] “the head-of-bed angle is fixed (e.g., 30.degree)” and para [0048] “The visual alarm is in the form of a message box 236 (FIG. 11) on the GCI 94 of the caregiver control panel 90 of the bed 20. The controller 132 may be configured to cause the message box 236 to flash to make it more noticeable to the caregiver. Alternatively or additionally, the visual alarm is in the form of a flashing light, such as a dome light of a nurse call system, located near a doorway of a hospital room where the bed 20 is located”).
Regarding Claim 3:
Herman in view of Frondorf, Wang and Moster make obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sensor comprises at least one of the following: a potentiometer, an inclinometer, a limit switch, or an accelerometer (Frondorf: para [0009] which discloses use of a potentiometer, an inclinometer, a limit switch, or an accelerometer).
Regarding Claim 4:
Herman in view of Frondorf, Wang and Moster make obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sensor is included as a component of the actuator (Frondorf: para [0046] “In some embodiments, the head section actuator 130 for moving the head section 40 relative to the intermediate frame 28 between the first and second angular positions is a linear actuator or other type of motor (not shown) having a drive shaft. In such embodiments, the angle sensor 152 may comprises a shaft encoder (not shown) coupled to the drive shaft and coupled to the controller 132”).
Regarding Claim 5:
Herman in view of Frondorf, Wang and Moster make obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 4, wherein the actuator comprises an electrical linear actuator (Frondorf: para [0046] “In some embodiments, the head section actuator 130 for moving the head section 40 relative to the intermediate frame 28 between the first and second angular positions is a linear actuator or other type of motor (not shown) having a drive shaft.”).
Regarding Claim 7:
Herman in view of Frondorf, Wang and Moster make obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a touchscreen display carried by the frame and operable to display information regarding an angle of the head section (paragraph [0043] of Frondorf – “In some embodiments, the alarm on/off button 158 may be part of a touchscreen that the user touches directly (instead of via separate controls 120) to arm and disarm system 150.” – the “armed” or “disarmed” status as described in paragraph [0043] of Frondorf is considered to be displaying information about the angle since an “armed state” indicates that the angle is being monitored and the “disarmed” state indicates that the angle is not being monitored).
Regarding Claim 8:
Herman in view of Frondorf, Wang and Moster make obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control panel is located on a surface of a barrier of the patient support apparatus, the surface facing away from the patient supported by the frame (Frondorf: Fig. 1; the GCI is shown at 94 on a surface of a barrier facing away from the patient).
Regarding Claim 9:
Herman in view of Frondorf, Wang and Moster make obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to receive a signal from a remote computer to change the a function of the patient support apparatus between an on state and an off state (Frondorf: claim 13 “wherein the alarm on/off button is operable from a remote nurse control station.”).
Regarding Claim 10:
Herman in view of Frondorf, Wang and Moster make obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 1, wherein the threshold angle is selectable between first and second threshold angles (paragraph [0007] of Frondorf – “The threshold angle may include at least one fixed value (e.g., 30.degree.). The fixed threshold angle(s) may be stored in a memory associated with the controller. In some embodiments, the threshold angle may not be fixed but rather, may be selectable at any suitable angle. In some embodiments, the threshold angle may be selectable by a caregiver using the GCI of the bed. Alternatively or additionally, a caregiver may select the threshold angle by using a threshold angle selector located on a frame member or a siderail of the bed. Alternatively or additionally, the threshold angle selector may be located on a wireless hand unit or located on a hand unit coupled to the controller by a cable or located on a wall of a hospital room where the apparatus is located. Alternatively or additionally, the threshold angle may be selectable at a remote nurse control station.”).
Regarding Claim 11:
Herman in view of Frondorf, Wang and Moster make obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 10, wherein the threshold angle is selectable using a graphical caregiver interface of the patient support apparatus (paragraph [0007] of Frondorf – “In some embodiments, the threshold angle may be selectable by a caregiver using the GCI of the bed.)
Regarding Claim 12:
Herman in view of Frondorf, Wang and Moster make obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 1, wherein the phone holder is coupled to a first wall of a housing (first surface 38 of Herman - Fig. 2) and a second wall of the housing that faces in an opposite direction from the first wall (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Herman) […].
Herman does not explicitly disclose wherein the second wall of the housing that faces in an opposite direction from the first wall has at least one user input selectable to control a function of the patient support apparatus.
However, Frondorf teaches the second wall of the housing that faces in an opposite direction from the first wall has at least one user input selectable to control a function of the patient support apparatus (see the GCI 90 of Frondorf located on an exterior side of the siderail and see Fig. 2 of Herman showing the phone holder on an interior surface of the siderail).
PNG
media_image3.png
701
817
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13:
Herman in view of Frondorf, Wang and Moster make obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 12, wherein the user inputs comprises a plurality of buttons (paragraph [0043] of Frondorf – “In the illustrated embodiment, the alarm on/off button 158 is located on a home screen 200 (FIG. 8) of the GCI 94 of the caregiver control panel 90 of the bed 20. The alarm on/off button 158 located on the home screen 200 is a so called radio button that indicates whether system 150 is on (i.e., "armed") or off (i.e., "disarmed). The up and down scroll arrows of controls 120 of GCI 94 are used to highlight or select the various text options and the enter button of controls 120 is pressed to change the status of the system associated with the highlighted text. Each press of the enter button when the text is highlighted adjacent button 158 changes the state of the alarm system 150 between an "armed" state and a "disarmed" state.”).
Regarding Claim 14:
Herman in view of Frondorf, Wang and Moster make obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 13, wherein a first button of the plurality of buttons is selectable to signal the actuator to move the head section toward the raised position and a second button of the plurality of buttons is selectable to signal the actuator to move the head section toward the lowered position (head up/down controls 96 considered first and second buttons – see Fig. 3 and paragraph [0035] of Frondorf).
Regarding Claim 15:
Herman in view of Frondorf, Wang and Moster make obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 1, wherein the phone holder comprises a clamp (left wall 3, right wall 4 and the first portion as annotated in the annotated copy of Fig. 3 of Wang are considered the portions of the clamp) and the first portion is included as part of the clamp (left wall 3, right wall 4 and the first portion as annotated in the annotated copy of Fig. 3 of Wang are considered the portions of the clamp).
PNG
media_image2.png
572
419
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16:
Herman in view of Frondorf, Wang and Moster make obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 15, wherein the clamp comprises a pair of clamp members (walls 3, 4 and the annotated first portion of the annotated copy of Fig. 3 of Wang considered clamp members), one of which comprises the first portion (see the annotated copy of Fig. 3 of Wang showing the first portion and note that the Examiner considers the first portion to be one of the pair of clamp members).
Regarding Claim 17:
Herman in view of Frondorf, Wang and Moster make obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 16, wherein at least one clamp member of the pair of clamp members is spring loaded (Col. 5, lines 9-16 of Wang “FIG. 7 illustrates the sliding plate 36, ratchet pawl 34 and push button 8. Sliding plate 36 operates in conjunction with ratchet pawl 34 and release button 8. Sliding plate 36 has slots 39 and 40 through which studs 28 and 29, FIG. 6 extend, to provide guidance. Sliding plate 36 is spring-loaded by spring 41 acting against wall 42. That is, spring 41 biases wall 42 to open when the ratchet pawl 34 is released”) and movable to permit the phone holder to accommodate handheld phones of different sizes (Col. 1, lines 55-59 of Wang – “The walls are releasable so as to spring open. The use of such structure provides a cradle which is universally useful in holding most any size and shape of telephone, such as a two-way radio or cellular telephone and their battery pack.”).
Regarding Claim 20:
Herman in view of Frondorf, Wang and Moster make obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a housing (siderail body 34 of Herman) to which the phone holder is coupled (as shown in Figs. 1-2 of Herman), wherein the housing is formed to include a pair of spaced apart openings (annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Herman) defining a pair of grip handles in the housing (as shown in Fig. 1 of Herman), and wherein the phone holder is situated on the housing between the openings (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Herman).
PNG
media_image4.png
645
620
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2011/0247135 – hereinafter Herman) in view of Frondorf et al. (US PG. Pub. No. 2007/0143920 – hereinafter Frondorf) in view of Wang et al. (US Patent No. 5,305,381 – hereinafter Wang) in view of Moster et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2005/0007258 – hereinafter Moster) in view of Teng (US PG Pub. No. 2011/0279284).
Regarding Claim 6:
Herman in view of Frondorf, Wang and Moster make obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 1.
Herman, Frondorf, Wang and Moster do not disclose or make obvious wherein the HOBA indicator comprises a light emitting diode (LED).
However, in the same field of endeavor, sickbed angle control alarm (see the abstract of Teng), Teng teaches an angle alarm indicator comprising an LED (see paragraph [0021] and Fig. 4 of Teng showing LEDs 8 and 9).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined Herman (directed to a hospital bed with phone holder), Frondorf (directed to a hospital bed with HOBA indicator), Wang (directed to a clamp style phone holder), Moster (directed to a nurse call button) and Teng (directed to a HOBA alarm with an LED indicator) and arrived at a hospital bed with an LED alarm for a low HOBA. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g. utilizing LEDs for the light indicators) 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 (e.g. an indicator for an alarm with a long lasting and easily replaceable LED).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2011/0247135 – hereinafter Herman) in view of Frondorf et al. (US PG. Pub. No. 2007/0143920 – hereinafter Frondorf) in view of Wang et al. (US Patent No. 5,305,381 – hereinafter Wang) in view of Moster et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2005/0007258 – hereinafter Moster) in view of Dyle (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0343960).
Regarding Claim 18:
Herman in view of Frondorf, Wang and Moster make obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a housing to which the phone holder is coupled (side rail of Frondorf comprising the phone holder - Fig. 2) […].
Herman, Frondorf and Wang do not disclose or make obvious wherein the housing is formed to include a cord wrap around which slack of a cord to which the recharging plug is coupled is wrapped.
However, solving the same problem of electronic device storage (see the abstract of Dyle), Dyle teaches a housing is formed to include a cord wrap (cleat 16 of Dyle - Figs. 3-5) around which slack of a cord to which the recharging plug is coupled is wrapped (see Figs. 4-5 and paragraph [0005] – “the cord may be wrapped around a cleat”).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Herman (directed to a hospital bed with a phone holder), Frondorf (directed to a hospital bed with HOBA alarm), Wang (directed toward a clamp style phone holder), Moster (directed to a nurse call button) and Dyle (cleat for wrapping extra cord) with a reasonable expectation of success by adding a cleat to the phone holder of Herman on the hospital bed as modified by Frondorf, Wang and Moster. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because the cleat organizes a cord of an electronic device (see claim 9 of Dyle).
Regarding Claim 19:
Herman in view of Frondorf, Wang, Moster and Dyle make obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 18, wherein the cord wrap comprises a cleat (cleat 16 of Dyle) having first and second cleat arms (first and second wings 51 and 52 of Dyle) around which the cord is wrapped (Figs. 4-5 of Dyle).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG Pub. No. 2016/0324701 to Cambridge et al. is cited for teaching an accessory clamp for holding a tablet on a patient transport apparatus.
US Patent No. 9,072,637 to Puri et al. is cited for teaching a caddy for supporting a mobile phone on a patient support.
US Patent No. 5,461,673 to Coons is cited for teaching a phone mounted on the siderail of a hospital bed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA L BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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 at (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.
/AMANDA L BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights