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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant has cancelled claims 14-20 and added new claims 21-24.
Newly submitted claims 21-24 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claims 21-24 cover the same subject matter as now cancelled claims 14-17 and are patentably distinct for the same reasons given in the restriction requirement of 10/22/2025. Namely, independent claim 14 recites the feature of the caster wheel brake rod without requiring all the elements of the patient support apparatus of group 1.
Accordingly, claims 21-24 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1149 filed 10/06/2023 & 11/07/2023. These IDS have been considered.
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 1-13 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 claim 1, the line 11 limitation “the base frame support” lacks antecedent basis. Line 3 recites the element “a base frame supporting the patient support mattress” (emphasis added). Is “the base frame support” the same element as “the base frame” of line 3? For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting them as the same element.
Claims 2-13 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are likewise rejected.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirose (US 2014/0352060).
Regarding claim 1, Hirose discloses in at least figures 1-3 a patient support (1) comprising a patient support mattress for supporting a patient's weight (no reference numeral, disclosed in ¶ [0052]), a base frame (100) supporting the patient support mattress (¶ [0049]) and a plurality of caster assemblies (8) connected to the base frame (100) (¶ [0055]), each caster assembly (8) comprising at least one caster wheel (11) (¶ [0066]) and a strain sensor plate (51) having a first weight bearing side (56a) that includes a flex spring (56a, 56b) with an annular shape (shape around 58 in center) that is located at least partially within an outer perimeter (bound by 56c) of the strain sensor plate (51) and a second weight bearing side (56c), wherein the first weight bearing side (56a) is operably coupled to the at least one caster wheel (11) and the second weight bearing side (56c) is operably coupled to the base frame support (100) (¶ [0072]), and wherein weight imparted from the base frame (100) passes from the second weight bearing side (56c) to the first weight bearing side (56a) (¶ [0072]).
Hirose’s support is a hospital bed rather than an operating table.
However, in this case the preamble does not limit the scope of the claim. While the preamble discloses an operating table, the claim body does not set out the necessary structure to perform this function. The claim body merely recites a support mattress, a base frame, a plurality of caster assemblies including a wheel and a strain sensor plate associated with each caster. See MPEP §2111.02(II). “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation").”
Regarding claim 2, Hirose discloses the strain sensor plate (51) includes a strain gauge (R1, R2, R3, R4) for measuring a magnitude of displacement (¶ [0074]).
Regarding claim 5, Hirose discloses in figures 3A and 3B the strain gauge (R1, R2, R3, R4) includes a pair of strain gauges (R1, R2, R3, R4) located symmetrically from a center line of the strain plate (51) (¶ [0074]).
Regarding claim 6, Hirose discloses the first weight bearing side (56a) and the second weight bearing side (56c) are offset in a horizontal direction (see figures 3A and 3B).
Regarding claim 7, Hirose discloses the flex spring (56a, 56b) is located entirely within the outer perimeter (bound by 56c) of the strain sensor plate (51) (see figure 3B).
Regarding claim 8, Hirose discloses the flex spring (56a, 56b) includes a freestanding portion defining the annular shape (portion surrounding bolt 58) and that extends from a coextensive portion of the strain sensor plate (51) and defines a curved channel within the outer perimeter (interior of 56a, see figure 3B).
Regarding claim 9, Hirose discloses the first weight bearing side (56a) and the second weight bearing side (56c) are integral (¶ [0072]).
Regarding claim 10, Hirose discloses the strain sensor plate (51) is symmetric along a center line extending through the first weight bearing side (56a) and the second weight bearing side (56c) (see symmetry of figure 3B).
Regarding claim 11, Hirose discloses a monitor in communication with the strain sensor plate (51) for presenting units of the weight imparted from the first weight bearing side (56a) to the second weight bearing side (56c) (monitor not shown, disclosed in (¶ [0085]).
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 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose in view of Childs et al. (US 2020/0060907; “Childs”).
Regarding claim 12, Hirose discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this depends.
Hirose is silent to one or more level sensors.
In the same field of endeavor, Childs teaches in figure 1 a patient support apparatus (20) for weighing a patient (¶¶ [0003]-[0004]) including one or more level sensors (88) (¶¶ [0038]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Childs’ level sensors in Hirose’s hospital bed for the purpose of providing a complete assessment of a patient’s position while complementing load cell measurements in order to improve accuracy (¶ [0039]).
Regarding claim 13, Childs further teaches the one or more level sensors (88) include a plurality of accelerometers (¶¶ [0038]-[0041]).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 12 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious an apparatus wherein the strain sensor plate defines a depression and a control unit in operable communication with the strain gauge is located in the depression in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
GB 2630593 discloses in figure 1C a strain plate associated with a caster wheel wherein the controller is mounted on the wheel rather than the strain plate. The remaining cited references all disclose wires going from the load cell to a master controller rather than a controller associated with each strain plate mounted on a depression in the strain plate.
Claim 4 would be allowable based on its dependence on claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0060916 discloses an operating table with load cells integrated into the caster wheels.
USPN 11,123,247 discloses a hospital bed with load cells integrated into the caster wheels.
US 2020/0401133 discloses a cart where specifically strain plates are integrated into caster wheels.
USPN 10,018,497 discloses a suitcase where specifically strain plates are integrated into caster wheels.
The remaining cited references represent the general state of the art of load cells in cast wheels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is (571)270-5914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855