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 with traverse of the species as set forth in the reply filed on 6/3/26 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) as identified below, none of which are persuasive. Applicant does not agree that the various alternative arrangements contemplated or otherwise described in the specification are sufficient to necessitate electing between 16 different species groups. Applicant admits that there are over 52 million different possible combinations in the identified species groups. Examiner acknowledges applicant’s admission that the disclosure encompasses over 52 million different combinations, which is over 52 million distinct inventions. It is plain that an election of species requirement is therefore warranted and necessary based upon the disclosure. Applicant appears to argue that the claims do not address / include all of the species groups. It is noted in response that the requirement is directed toward disclosed species. Applicant argues that the assertion that the species include mutually exclusive characteristics is conclusory. Applicant is incorrect. Applicant’s explanation is not commensurate with applicant’s assertion. Again, the species are based upon the disclosure and not the claims; see above. Further, applicant admits that they are “base don alternatives contemplated in the detailed description portion of the specification” which is an admission that they are mutually exclusive alternatives. Further, they simply are mutually exclusive alternatives and applicant has not rebutted that whatsoever by asserting and explaining, for example, how any of the options are not mutually exclusive with the others. Regarding applicant’s comments as to search burden, it is plain that the species would require different searches. Hospital beds or stretchers with wheels compared to stretchers without wheels have different classifications, hospital bed vs. stretcher vs. cot vs. table vs. wheelchair vs. chair are completely different classifications, etc. Further, different search queries would clearly be required for the many different species either by virtue of inclusion or exclusion of the features at issue. If applicant believes that the prior art for one species would be applicable to others, applicant is welcome to state on the record that the species are obvious variants. It is exceptionally clear that a serious search burden exists of the 52+ million disclosed combinations.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to one or more nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/3/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Shih (US 20120174316 A1).
Re Claim 1
Shih discloses:
A patient support apparatus (see all figs) for use in treating patients with behavioral health indicia, the patient support apparatus comprising:
an intermediate frame (11);
a patient support deck having a deck section (12 and 13) arranged for movement relative to the intermediate frame between a plurality of deck section positions to define a plurality of predetermined patient support configurations (figs. 1, 6, 7, 9 show the configurations etc.); and
a limiter (fig. 6, combination of 14 and 20) interposed between the intermediate frame and the deck section (fig. 6) and including a track (see near the lead line for 252 at element 14 which defines the track) and a brace (20) movable along the track in response to movement of the deck section (figs. 3 – 7; see also fig. 1), wherein engagement between the brace and the track simultaneously permits movement of the deck section between the plurality of deck section positions and retains the deck section relative to the intermediate frame to prevent unauthorized movement of the deck section away from the plurality of predetermined patient support configurations (see all figs to see the progression of movement and the claimed recitation / function; see also claims 1-4, particularly claim 4; see 0006,0028,0030,0033).
Re Claim 2
Shih discloses:
wherein the track is operatively attached to the patient support deck (figs. 6-7).
Re Claim 3
Shih discloses:
wherein the track is operatively attached to the deck section for concurrent movement with the deck section between the plurality of deck section positions (see fig. 6 for attachment and see all figs. for movement etc; see mapping above).
Re Claim 4
Shih discloses:
wherein the brace is operatively attached to the intermediate frame (see fig. 5 for example; all of the elements are operatively attached to each other).
Re Claim 5
Shih discloses:
wherein the limiter includes a bracket (14) coupled to the deck section and defining the track (fig. 6).
Re Claim 1 (alternative mapping)
Shih discloses:
A patient support apparatus (see fig. 9) for use in treating patients with behavioral health indicia, the patient support apparatus comprising:
an intermediate frame (11);
a patient support deck having a deck section (12 and 13) arranged for movement relative to the intermediate frame between a plurality of deck section positions to define a plurality of predetermined patient support configurations (fig 9); and
a limiter (fig. 9, combination of 20 and the structure 14 unlabeled in fig. 9, but see other figures for the corresponding reference numeral) interposed between the intermediate frame and the deck section (fig. 9) and including a track (see near the lead line for 252 at element 14 which defines the track) and a brace (20) movable along the track in response to movement of the deck section (figs 9), wherein engagement between the brace and the track simultaneously permits movement of the deck section between the plurality of deck section positions and retains the deck section relative to the intermediate frame to prevent unauthorized movement of the deck section away from the plurality of predetermined patient support configurations (see fig. 9 re the progression of movement and the claimed recitation / function; see also claims 1-4, particularly claim 4; see 0006,0028,0030,0033,0037).
Re Claim 8
Shih discloses:
wherein the deck section is further defined as a foot section (fig. 9); and
wherein the patient support deck further includes a leg section pivotably coupled to the intermediate frame and to the foot section for concurrent movement with the foot section between the plurality of predetermined patient support configurations (fig. 9).
Re Claim 9
Shih discloses all of the below in fig. 9 as is common in the art:
wherein the foot section and the leg section each extend between respective first and second longitudinal ends;
wherein the intermediate frame includes a deck pivot mount;
wherein the leg section includes:
a first gatch pivot mount arranged adjacent to the first longitudinal end of the leg section and pivotably coupled to the deck pivot mount of the intermediate frame, and
a second gatch pivot mount arranged adjacent to the second longitudinal end of the leg section; and
wherein the foot section includes a third gatch pivot mount arranged adjacent to the first longitudinal end of the foot section and pivotably coupled to the second gatch pivot mount.
Re Claim 12
Shih discloses:
wherein the plurality of deck section positions include a raised position and a lowered position (see all figs; see both rejections of claim 1 above as either interpretation applies equally, see the relevant fig. 9 for the second interpretation and the other figs. for the first interpretation); and
wherein the track defines a first track end and a second track end (see rejections above; see figs. 6-7 and then see fig. 9), with the brace arranged for movement towards the second track end in response to movement of the deck section towards the lowered position (see rejections above; see figs. 6-7 and then see fig. 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10492968 B2 is considered the next best art of record – see the guide tracks etc. in figs. 2 – 3B, particularly at the foot section. US 10172753 B2 has tracks and limiters for movement facilitating lifting and lowering, albeit in a related yet distinct concept from applicant’s configuration which involves gatch positioning. US 2407892 A see paragraph 31.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SOSNOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7944. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM and 9 PM through 11:59 PM Monday through Friday, generally.
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.
/DAVID E. SOSNOWSKI/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights