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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 02/22/2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
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) 1-6, 10-13, and 15-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell (US 20170246065 A1) in view of Bly et al., hereinafter 'Bly' (US 20090094747 A1) and further in view of Cassagne (US 20150166191 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Connell teaches: A patient support apparatus (30 - Fig. 1) comprising: a base (34 - Fig. 1); a support frame supported by the base (36 - Fig. 1); a patient support deck (38 - Fig. 1) disposed on the support frame and defining a patient support surface (42 - Fig. 1); a lift assembly operatively arranged between the base and the support frame and configured to effect movement of the support frame relative to the base (170 - Fig. 7), the lift assembly including: a first link (76, 176, 178 - Figs. 5 and 7) and a second link (140, 240 - Figs. 5 and 7), but Connell does not explicitly teach, each defining a respective link aperture; a retention assembly disposed in each of the link apertures to pivotably couple the first link to the second link, the retention assembly comprising: a pin extending along a pivot axis to a pin end and disposed in each of the link apertures and defining a cross bore; a retention cap defining a cap aperture extending therethrough, wherein the retention cap is disposed on the pin with the cap aperture aligned with the cross bore; and a cross-pin disposed in the cross bore and protruding from the cap aperture configured to retain the retention cap to the pin and limit axial movement of the first and second links.
Bly teaches: each defining a respective link aperture (66 - Fig. 3); a retention assembly disposed in each of the link apertures to pivotably couple the first link to the second link (60 - Fig. 2), the retention assembly comprising: a pin (70 - Fig. 3) extending along a pivot axis (C - Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Connell to include link apertures and a retention assembly pivotably coupling the first link to the second link as taught by Bly. Such a modification merely applies a known pivot coupling structure to the lift assembly of Connell in order to reliably join adjacent links while permitting relative pivotal movement, which is a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Connell nor Bly teaches: to a pin end and disposed in each of the link apertures and defining a cross bore; a retention cap defining a cap aperture extending therethrough, wherein the retention cap is disposed on the pin with the cap aperture aligned with the cross bore; and a cross-pin disposed in the cross bore and protruding from the cap aperture configured to retain the retention cap to the pin and limit axial movement of the first and second links.
Cassagne teaches: to a pin end (48 - Fig. 2) and disposed in each of the link apertures and defining a cross bore (Fig. 2 showing cross bore); a retention cap (50 - Fig. 2) defining a cap aperture extending therethrough (Fig. 2 showing cross section of cap aperture), wherein the retention cap is disposed on the pin with the cap aperture aligned with the cross bore (Fig. 2); and a cross-pin (56 - Fig. 2) disposed in the cross bore and protruding from the cap aperture configured to retain the retention cap to the pin and limit axial movement of the first and second links (Para 0014 and 0020).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the retention assembly of Connell as modified by Bly with a pin defining a cross bore, a retention cap having an aperture aligned with the cross bore, and a cross-pin retaining the cap on the pin, as taught by Cassagne. Incorporating such features would have been an obvious design choice to improve axial retention of the pin and prevent unintended disassembly during operation, yielding no more than predictable results while enhancing reliability and ease of assembly.
In regards to Claim 2, Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 1, Cassagne further teaches, wherein the cross bore is arranged perpendicular to the pivot axis and wherein the pin end is received in the retention cap (Fig. 2 shows the cross bore perpendicular to the pivot axis to limit movement, and the pin end 48 received in the retention cap).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of assembling a patient support apparatus taught by Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne to arrange the cross bore perpendicular to the pivot axis and to receive the pin end within the retention cap as taught by Cassagne, because such an orientation predictably limits axial movement and improves retention of the pin during pivotal operation, yielding no more than expected mechanical results.
In regards to Claim 3, Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 2, Cassagne further teaches, wherein the pin comprises a pin flange opposite the pin end (46 - Fig. 2), and wherein the first link and the second link are arranged along the pin between the pin flange and the pin end (first and second link would be integrally arranged along the pin central to the pin flange and the pin end).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of assembling a patient support apparatus taught by Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne to provide the pin with a flange opposite the pin end and to arrange the first and second links along the pin between the pin flange and the pin end as taught by Cassagne, since flanged pins are a well-known means for axially locating components and preventing unintended disengagement.
In regards to Claim 4, Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 3, Cassagne further teaches, wherein the link aperture in the first link defines a first aperture diameter and the pin flange defines a pin flange diameter, and wherein the pin flange diameter is greater than the first aperture diameter (pin flange would always indicate a greater diameter to secure the system together, notably Para 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of assembling a patient support apparatus taught by Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne to configure the pin flange to have a diameter greater than the aperture diameter of the first link as taught by Cassagne, because such dimensional relationships are routinely employed to retain components on a pin and prevent axial passage through an aperture.
In regards to Claim 5, Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 1, Cassagne further teaches, wherein the retention cap comprises a retention body (extending portion from the largest section on left of Fig. 2) extending between a retention end (retention end is furthest away from 54 - Fig. 2) and a retention flange (retention flange is closest to 54 - Fig. 2) having a diameter larger than the retention end (retention flange, shown in Fig. 2, to be closest to the surface of '54', and is of a larger diameter), wherein the retention flange defines a flange face (48 - Fig. 2, threaded inner face) arranged to at least partially limit movement of the second link toward the retention end (Para 00116-0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of assembling a patient support apparatus taught by Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne to configure the pin flange to have a diameter greater than the aperture diameter of the first link as taught by Cassagne, because such dimensional relationships are routinely employed to retain components on a pin and prevent axial passage through an aperture.
In regards to Claim 6, Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 5, Cassagne further teaches, wherein the retention assembly further comprises a washer interposed in contact between the retention flange (54 - Fig. 2, Para 0019) and an engagement surface defined on the second link adjacent to the link aperture (inner surface of the washer 54 - Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of assembling a patient support apparatus taught by Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne to provide the retention cap with a retention body extending between a retention end and a larger-diameter retention flange defining a flange face arranged to limit movement of the second link, as taught by Cassagne, since flanged caps are commonly used to axially constrain linked components while maintaining pivotability.
In regards to Claim 10, Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 5, Cassagne further teaches, wherein an axis of the cap aperture is spaced from the flange face at a distance at least 1.5x greater than a diameter of the cross-pin (see Examiner's note below).
Examiner's Notes: Cassagne teaches a transverse pin received within a cross aperture of a mating component. Although Cassagne does not expressly state that the pin is “centered” within the aperture, the pin as disclosed necessarily occupies a centered position relative to the aperture to properly engage opposing walls and transmit load. Positioning a pin eccentrically within a cross aperture would compromise mechanical engagement and is contrary to ordinary mechanical design. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the cross pin substantially centered within the cross aperture, and provide a value of at least 1.5x greater than diameter of the cross-pin, as a matter of routine engineering practice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of assembling a patient support apparatus taught by Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne to space the cap aperture axis from the flange face by a distance at least 1.5 times greater than the diameter of the cross-pin, as a matter of routine mechanical design, because centered positioning and proportional spacing of transverse pins are necessary to ensure proper load transfer and secure engagement, and selecting such a ratio constitutes optimization of a result-effective variable.
In regards to Claim 11, Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 5, Cassagne further teaches, wherein a diameter of the pin is as least 1.25x greater than a diameter of the cross-pin (see Examiner's note below).
Examiner's Notes: With respect to Claim 11, Cassagne does not explicitly disclose a numerical ratio between the diameter of the pin and the diameter of the corresponding aperture. However, the relative sizing of a pin and aperture constitutes a result-effective variable that would have been routinely optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art depending on strength, load distribution, and durability requirements. Selecting a pin diameter that is at least 1.25 times greater than the referenced diameter represents a predictable variation within the range of ordinary mechanical design choices and would have been obvious to achieve increased structural integrity and resistance to shear.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of assembling a patient support apparatus taught by Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne to select a pin diameter that is at least 1.25 times greater than the diameter of the cross-pin, since relative sizing of pins is a result-effective variable routinely optimized based on strength, shear resistance, and durability requirements, and the claimed ratio represents a predictable variation within ordinary mechanical practice.
In regards to Claim 12, Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 1, Cassagne further teaches, wherein the lift assembly further comprises a bearing element disposed in the link aperture of the second link (38 - Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of assembling a patient support apparatus taught by Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne to include a bearing element disposed in the link aperture of the second link as taught by Cassagne, because bearings are commonly incorporated in pivot joints to reduce friction and wear while allowing smooth relative motion.
In regards to Claim 13, Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 12, Cassagne further teaches, wherein the bearing element is further defined as a plain bearing (bearing 38 shows no additional components - Fig. 2) comprising a bearing flange (wherein element 38 has a rim/flange on its edge that serves to guide rotation/swivel - per Para 0012-0013), and wherein the bearing flange is arranged between the first link and the second link (Fig. 2 shows it central thereto).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of assembling a patient support apparatus taught by Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne to configure the bearing element as a plain bearing having a bearing flange arranged between the first and second links, as taught by Cassagne, since flanged plain bearings are a well-known solution for maintaining axial positioning while permitting rotation.
In regards to Claim 15, Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 1, Cassagne further teaches, wherein the cross-pin is further defined as a rivet (see Examiner's note below).
Examiner's Note: The definition of 'rivet' is a metal pin that is used to fasten two pieces of leather, metal, etc. together, per Oxford Learner's Dictionary.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of assembling a patient support apparatus taught by Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne to define the cross-pin as a rivet, because a rivet is a known type of pin used to fasten components together, and selecting a rivet represents a predictable substitution of one known fastening element for another.
In regards to Claim 16, Connell teaches: A method of assembling a patient support apparatus (30 - Fig. 1) including a base (34 - Fig. 1) and a lift assembly (170 - Fig. 7) having a first link (76, 176, 178 - Figs. 5 and 7) and a second link (140, 240 - Figs. 5 and 7), but Connell does not explicitly teach, each defining a link aperture and supported by the base, the lift assembly further including a retention assembly including a pin defining a cross bore, a retention cap defining a cap aperture, and a rivet, the method comprising: inserting the pin into the link aperture of the first link and the second link; arranging the retention cap on an end of the pin; aligning the cap aperture with the cross bore; inserting the rivet through the cap aperture and the cross bore in an initial configuration; and deforming the rivet from the initial configuration to a secured configuration.
Bly teaches: each defining a link aperture (66 - Fig. 3) and supported by the base, the lift assembly further including a retention assembly including (60 - Fig. 2) a pin (70 - Fig. 3),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of assembling a patient support apparatus taught by Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne to modify the method of assembling a patient support apparatus taught by Connell to include inserting a pin into link apertures of a first link and a second link as taught by Bly, because Bly teaches link apertures and pin-based pivot coupling in a lift assembly, and combining these teachings merely applies known assembly steps to achieve predictable pivotable connection of the links.
Connell nor Bly do not explicitly teach, defining a cross bore, a retention cap defining a cap aperture, and a rivet, the method comprising: inserting the pin into the link aperture of the first link and the second link; arranging the retention cap on an end of the pin; aligning the cap aperture with the cross bore; inserting the rivet through the cap aperture and the cross bore in an initial configuration; and deforming the rivet from the initial configuration to a secured configuration.
Cassagne teaches: defining a cross bore (Fig. 2 showing cross bore), a retention cap (50 - Fig. 2) defining a cap aperture (Fig. 2 showing cross section of cap aperture), and a rivet (56 - Fig. 2, see Examiner's definition from Claim 15), the method comprising: inserting the pin into the link aperture of the first link and the second link (Fig. 2); arranging the retention cap (50 - Fig. 2) on an end of the pin (48 - Fig. 2); aligning the cap aperture with the cross bore (Fig. 2 showing cross bore and alignment); inserting the rivet through the cap aperture and the cross bore in an initial configuration (the self-locking nut 50 corresponds to a first anti-rotation system, Para 0021); and deforming the rivet from the initial configuration to a secured configuration (and the pin 56 corresponds to a second anti-rotation system, Para 0021).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly method of Connell as modified by Bly to include forming a cross bore in the pin, arranging a retention cap on an end of the pin, aligning a cap aperture with the cross bore, inserting a rivet through the aligned apertures, and deforming the rivet to a secured configuration as taught by Cassagne, because Cassagne teaches such fastening steps to axially retain the pin, and incorporating these steps represents the predictable use of known securing techniques to prevent axial disengagement during operation.
In regards to Claim 17, Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne teaches: The method of claim 16, Cassagne further teaches, wherein the pin extends along a pin axis (Fig. 2, out of the page) from a pin flange (46 - Fig. 2) to a pin end (48 - Fig. 2), and wherein the cross bore is arranged proximate to the pin end (Fig. 2 showing the cross bore local to the pin end 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of assembling a patient support apparatus taught by Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne to position the cross bore proximate to the pin end along the pin axis as taught by Cassagne, since locating a transverse retention feature near an end portion facilitates secure fastening while maintaining effective axial retention.
In regards to Claim 18, Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne teaches: The method of claim 16, Cassagne further teaches, wherein the retention assembly further includes a bearing element (38 - Fig. 2) having a bearing flange (wherein element 38 has a rim/flange on its edge that serves to guide rotation/swivel - per Para 0012-0013), and further comprising a step of inserting the bearing element in the link aperture of the second link with the bearing flange arranged between the first link and the second link (Fig. 2 shows the bearing element 38 central between first and second link).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of assembling a patient support apparatus taught by Connell in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne to include a bearing element having a bearing flange and to insert the bearing element between the first and second links during assembly as taught by Cassagne, incorporating bearings during assembly is a routine step to improve joint performance and longevity.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Bly' (US 20090094747 A1) in view of Cassagne (US 20150166191 A1).
In regards to Claim 20, Bly teaches A retention assembly (60 - Fig. 1) for a pivoting connection (66 - Fig. 1) of a lift assembly (90 - Fig. 2) for a patient support apparatus (10 - Fig. 1), the retention assembly comprising: a pin (70 - Fig. 3) extending along a pivot axis (C - Fig. 3), but Bly does not explicitly teach, from a pin flange to a pin end and defining a cross bore proximate to the pin end; a retention cap comprising a retention body extending between a retention flange and a retention end with a cap aperture defined in the retention body, wherein the retention cap is disposed on the pin end with the cap aperture aligned with the cross bore; and a cross-pin disposed in the cross bore and protruding from the cap aperture configured to retain the retention cap to the pin and limit axial movement of the pivoting connection.
Cassagne teaches: from a pin flange (46 - Fig. 2) to a pin end (48 - Fig. 2)and defining a cross bore (Fig. 2 showing cross bore) proximate to the pin end; a retention cap (50 - Fig. 2) comprising a retention body (extending portion from the largest section on left of Fig. 2) extending between a retention flange(retention flange is closest to 54 - Fig. 2) and a retention end (retention end is furthest away from 54 - Fig. 2) with a cap aperture defined in the retention body (Fig. 2 showing cross section of cap aperture), wherein the retention cap is disposed on the pin end with the cap aperture aligned with the cross bore (Fig. 2); and a cross-pin (56 - Fig. 2) disposed in the cross bore and protruding from the cap aperture configured to retain the retention cap to the pin and limit axial movement of the pivoting connection (Para 0014 and 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the retention assembly of Bly to include a pin extending from a pin flange to a pin end and defining a cross bore proximate to the pin end as taught by Cassagne, because Cassagne teaches such a pin configuration for use in pivoting connections, and incorporating a cross bore represents a known structural modification to facilitate axial retention using a transverse securing element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7-9, 14 and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to Claim 7, which states that the retention cap includes a pair of resilient tangs radially spaced from each other about an axis to define a pair of gap reliefs, wherein the pair of resilient tangs are biased toward each other and are in abutment with the pin. Although Connell, in view of Bly and further in view of Cassagne, generally discloses retention structures for pivoting connections, the cited references do not teach or suggest the claimed configuration of resilient tangs. In particular, the prior art fails to disclose a retention cap that includes a pair of resilient tangs that are radially spaced from each other about an axis so as to define gap reliefs, while also being biased toward each other and in abutment with the pin. The cited references do not describe resilient tangs that are structured and arranged to provide both radial spacing and biasing toward one another to maintain abutment with the pin.
In regards to Claim 14, recites that a link aperture in a second link defines a second aperture diameter and that a bearing flange defines a bearing flange diameter, wherein the bearing flange diameter is greater than the second aperture diameter. Although Connell, in view of Bly and Cassagne, discloses links and bearing structures, the cited references do not teach or suggest the claimed dimensional relationship between the bearing flange diameter and the second aperture diameter. Specifically, the prior art does not disclose that the bearing flange diameter is greater than the diameter of the link aperture in the second link. This dimensional relationship provides a structural stop and retention function that prevents unintended disengagement during operation, which is not described or suggested by the cited references. The prior art lacks any teaching or motivation to modify the disclosed structures to include this specific diameter relationship.
In regards to Claim 19, recites a method wherein the retention cap includes a pair of resilient tangs radially spaced from each other about an axis and biased toward each other into abutment with the pin to at least partially resist relative movement between the retention cap and the pin. Although Connell, Bly, and Cassagne disclose retention elements in connection with pivoting structures, the cited references do not teach or suggest using resilient tangs that are radially spaced and biased toward each other to actively resist relative movement between a retention cap and a pin in the manner claimed. The prior art does not disclose or suggest that such resilient tangs are configured to provide resistance to relative movement through biased abutment with the pin, nor does it disclose the functional cooperation between the tangs and the pin as recited in the claim. The claimed method step therefore relies on a structural configuration that is absent from the cited references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barthelt (US 20100017965 A1) teaches: A hospital bed having longitudinal rails, between which levers are supported. The levers are fixed on an axle tube that extends between the two longitudinal rails. The longitudinal rails are locally reinforced with respect to their wall thickness on the side situated adjacent to the axle tube by means of reinforcing plates welded thereto. A round rod extends through through-holes in the two longitudinal rails and the axle tube. For this purpose, the longitudinal rails are provided with through-holes that extend through the reinforcing plate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, 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.
/MADISON EMANSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673