DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office action in response to the RCE filed 03/31/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3-7 are pending;
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are currently amended; claim 2 has been cancelled; claims 4, 6, and 7 were previously presented;
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected herein.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed 03/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below in the current Office action.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed 03/31/2026 are accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1, line 20, "with recess" appears to be --with the recess--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the limitation "[a] central locking mechanism of a side rail" in claim 1 (line 1) clearly positively recites the "side rail" and the component of the "side rail" (i.e., the "central locking mechanism"). As such, the "side rail" is considered as a required structure within the scope of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation "[a] central locking mechanism of a side rail" in claim 5 (line 1) clearly positively recites the "side rail" and the component of the "side rail" (i.e., the "central locking mechanism"). As such, the "side rail" is considered as a required structure within the scope of claim 5.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations "the central locking mechanism comprises a plurality of vertical braces each having a bottom end coupled to a longitudinal frame of a support deck on a bottom side of the longitudinal frame of the support deck, the longitudinal frame defining an enclosed interior" in claim 5 (lines 1-4) clearly positively recite the "support deck," the component of the "support deck (i.e., the "longitudinal frame"), and the components of the "longitudinal frame" (i.e., the "bottom side" and the "enclosed interior"). As such, the "support deck," the component of the "support deck (i.e., the "longitudinal frame"), and the components of the "longitudinal frame" (i.e., the "bottom side" and the "enclosed interior") are considered as required structures within the scope of claim 5.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations "wherein the rod is coupled to a locking element and a sliding element operatively controlled by a control lever" in claim 5 (lines 6-8) are considered as --wherein the rod is coupled to a locking element and a sliding element, wherein the sliding element is operatively controlled by a control lever--.
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, 3, and 4 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 claim 1, the limitations "the side rail comprising a plurality of vertical braces each having a bottom end coupled for articulation in relation to a longitudinal frame of a support deck" in claim 1 (lines 1-3) functionally recite the "support deck" and the component of the "support deck" (i.e., the "longitudinal frame") as functional elements that are not required structures within the scope of claim 1, since the limitations "for articulation in relation to a longitudinal frame of a support deck" appear to be functional or intended use. However, the "support deck" and the component of the "support deck" (i.e., the "longitudinal frame") are later positively recited in claim 1, "the longitudinal frame defining an enclosed interior" (claim 1, lines 3 and 4), "the lock control element comprising a stop including a recess positioned inside the longitudinal frame of the support deck" (claim 1, lines 5-7), "a rod extending through an inside of the longitudinal frame of the support deck" (claim 1, line 8), and "the locking element and the sliding element being controlled by a control lever supported in relation to the longitudinal frame of the support deck" (claim 1, lines 14 and 15), as required structures within the scope of claim 1. The positive recitations of the "support deck" and the component of the "support deck" (i.e., the "longitudinal frame") in claim 1 (lines 3-8, 14, and 15), following the functional recitations of the "support deck" and the component of the "support deck" (i.e., the "longitudinal frame") in claim 1 (lines 1-3), render the scope of claim 1 indefinite. It is not clear as to whether or not claim 1 positively requires the "support deck" and the component of the "support deck" (i.e., the "longitudinal frame") as required structures within the scope of claim 1. Applicant is advised to positively introduce the "support deck" and the component of the "support deck" (i.e., the "longitudinal frame") BEFORE the functional recitations in claim 1 (lines 1-3) or properly place the "support deck" and the component of the "support deck" (i.e., the "longitudinal frame") in intended use consistently throughout claim 1. For the purpose of examination, based on the positive recitations of the "support deck" and the component of the "support deck" (i.e., the "longitudinal frame") in claim 1 (lines 3-8, 14, and 15), claim 1 is considered as positively requiring the "support deck" and the component of the "support deck" (i.e., the "longitudinal frame") as required structures within the scope of claim 1. It is advised that the limitations "the side rail comprising a plurality of vertical braces each having a bottom end coupled for articulation in relation to a longitudinal frame of a support deck, the longitudinal frame defining an enclosed interior" in claim 1 (lines 1-4) be changed to --the side rail comprising a support deck having a longitudinal frame defining an enclosed interior, the side rail further comprising a plurality of vertical braces each having a bottom end coupled for articulation in relation to the longitudinal frame of the support deck--. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation "an inside" in claim 1 (line 8) is indefinite. It is not clear as to whether the limitation "an inside" in claim 1 (line 8) and the limitation "an enclosed interior" in claim 1 (line 4) refer to the same element or different elements. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 4, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuek et al. (US 7,107,637 B2), hereinafter Kuek, in view of Palmatier et al. (US 7,124,456 B2), hereinafter Palmatier.
Regarding claim 1, Kuek discloses a central locking mechanism (10, fig 2, excluding 35, 50, 60, 70, fig 2) of a side rail (10, 15, 20, fig 1), the side rail comprising a plurality of vertical braces (35, 50, fig 2) each having a bottom end coupled for articulation in relation to a longitudinal frame (20a, fig 1, see annotation, the front longitudinal frame of the mounting bracket 20) of a support deck (20, fig 1, see Figures 1-9), the central locking mechanism comprising: a lock control element (30, 75, fig 2) located at the bottom end of one of the vertical braces (see Figure 2), the lock control element comprising a stop (30, fig 2) including a recess (120, fig 3), and a rod (155a, fig 2, see annotation, the central rod of the locking plate 155, including the locking cog 180 and between the first end 160 and the second end 170) comprising a latch (180, fig 2) configured to engage the recess of the stop to connect the control element to the rod (see Figure 3), wherein the latch is coupled to a locking element (170, fig 2) and a sliding element (185, fig 2) by the rod (see Figure 2), the locking element and the sliding element being controlled by a control lever (265, fig 2) supported in relation to the longitudinal frame of the support deck (see Figures 1 and 2), wherein the control lever is operable to control the locking element to operate the sliding element to move the rod in a first direction to disengage the latch from the recess of the stop to unlock the vertical braces, permitting the vertical braces to be collapsed down, and in a second direction, opposite the first direction, to engage the latch with the recess of the stop to lock the vertical braces in an upright raised position (see Figures 1-9, the lock release lever 265 is capable of performing the above intended use).
[AltContent: textbox (20a – Longitudinal Frame)]
PNG
media_image1.png
652
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
582
888
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (155a – Rod)]
Kuek does not disclose the central locking mechanism, wherein the longitudinal frame of the support deck defines an enclosed interior, wherein the recess of the stop is positioned inside the longitudinal frame of the support deck, wherein the rod extends through an inside of the longitudinal frame of the support deck.
Palmatier teaches a central locking mechanism (187, 194, 196, 197, 198, 203, figs 27 & 28) of a side rail (see Figure 26), the side rail comprising a plurality of vertical braces (193, fig 18) each having a bottom end coupled for articulation in relation to a longitudinal frame (18a, fig 26, see annotation, the central longitudinal frame of the rail 18) of a support deck (18, fig 26), the longitudinal frame defining an enclosed interior (see Figure 28), the central locking mechanism comprising: a lock control element (187, fig 27) located at the bottom end of one of the vertical braces (see Figures 18 and 26-28), the lock control element comprising a stop (188, fig 27) including a recess (191, fig 28) positioned inside the longitudinal frame of the support deck (see Figure 28), and a rod (197, fig 27) and a locking element (203, fig 28) extending through an inside of the longitudinal frame of the support deck (see Figures 27 and 28).
PNG
media_image3.png
628
742
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (18a – Longitudinal Frame)][AltContent: arrow]
Kuek and Palmatier are analogous art because they are at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the longitudinal frame (Kuek: 20a, fig 1, see annotation) of the support deck (Kuek: 20, fig 1) with an enclosed interior (Palmatier: see Figure 28), position the recess (Kuek: 120, fig 3) of the stop (Kuek: 30, fig 2) of the lock control element (Kuek: 30, 75, fig 2), the locking element (Kuek: 170, fig 2), and the sliding element (Kuek: 185, fig 2) inside the longitudinal frame of the support deck (Palmatier: see Figure 28), and extend the rod (Kuek: 155a, fig 2, see annotation) through an inside of the longitudinal frame of the support deck (Palmatier: see Figure 28), as taught by Palmatier, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to keep the central locking mechanism at least partially within the longitudinal frame of the support deck to reduce the chances of contamination and/or enable easier cleaning of the hospital bed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kuek and Palmatier to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Kuek, as modified by Palmatier with respect to claim 1, teaches the central locking mechanism, but is silent as to whether or not the locking element is made of plastics or metal alloys.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the locking element (Kuek: 30, 75, fig 2) from plastics or metal alloys, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The motivation would have been to provide sturdiness and strength to the locking element for operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Kuek and Palmatier to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, wherein the bottom end of at least one of the vertical braces is coupled inside the longitudinal frame of the support deck to the lock control element on a bottom side of the longitudinal frame of the support deck (Palmatier: see Figures 2, 18, and 28).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuek et al. (US 7,107,637 B2), hereinafter Kuek, in view of Palmatier et al. (US 7,124,456 B2), hereinafter Palmatier, and Burst et al. (US 3,585,659), hereinafter Burst.
Regarding claim 5, Kuek, as modified by Palmatier (see above discussions with respect to claim 1), teaches a central locking mechanism (Kuek: 10, fig 2, excluding 35, 50, 60, 70, fig 2) of a side rail (Kuek: 10, 15, 20, fig 1), the central locking mechanism comprises a plurality of vertical braces (Kuek: 35, 50, fig 2) each having a bottom end coupled to a longitudinal frame (Kuek: 20a, fig 1, see annotation, the front longitudinal frame of the mounting bracket 20, as modified by, Palmatier: 18a, fig 26, see annotation, the central longitudinal frame of the rail 18) of a support deck (Kuek: 20, fig 1, as modified by, Palmatier: 18, fig 26) on a bottom side of the longitudinal frame of the support deck (Palmatier: see Figures 2, 18, and 28), the longitudinal frame defining an enclosed interior (Palmatier: see Figure 28), the bottom end of at least one of the vertical braces being coupled to a lock control element (Kuek: 30, 75, fig 2) comprising a stop (Kuek: 30, fig 2) through which a rod (Kuek: 155a, fig 2, see annotation, the central rod of the locking plate 155, including the locking cog 180 and between the first end 160 and the second end 170) comprising a latch (Kuek: 180, fig 2) goes (Kuek: see Figure 3), wherein the rod is coupled to a locking element (Kuek: 170, fig 2) and a sliding element (Kuek: 185, fig 2) operatively controlled by a control lever (Kuek: 265, fig 2), wherein the control lever is operable to control the locking element to operate the sliding element to move the rod in a first direction to disengage the latch from the stop to unlock the vertical braces, permitting the vertical braces to be collapsed down, and in a second direction, opposite the first direction, to engage the latch with the stop to lock the vertical braces in an upright raised position (Kuek: see Figures 1-9, the lock release lever 265 is capable of performing the above intended use).
Kuek, as modified by Palmatier (see above discussions with respect to claim 1), is silent as to whether or not the control lever is located outside the longitudinal frame of the support deck.
Burst teaches a central locking mechanism of a side rail (see Figures 1-3), the central locking mechanism comprises a plurality of vertical braces (30, 35, fig 1) each having a bottom end coupled to a longitudinal frame (19, fig 1) of a support deck (18, 19, fig 1), the central locking mechanism comprising a control lever (42, fig 3) located outside the longitudinal frame of the support deck (see Figures 1-6, e.g., the latch ear 46 of the latch 42 is located outside the mounting bracket 19).
Burst is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the control lever (Kuek: 265, fig 2) outside the longitudinal frame (Kuek: 20a, fig 1, see annotation, as modified by, Palmatier: 18a, fig 26, see annotation) of the support deck (Kuek: 20, fig 1, as modified by, Palmatier: 18, fig 26), as taught by Burst, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to enable the user to easily operate the control lever outside the longitudinal frame of the support deck. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kuek, Palmatier, and Burst to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, wherein the vertical braces and the control lever of the central locking mechanism are located outside the longitudinal frame of the support deck (Kuek: see Figure 1; Palmatier: see Figures 2, 18, and 28; Burst: see Figures 1-6).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the lock control element, the rod and the locking element are located inside the longitudinal frame of the support deck (Kuek: see Figure 1; Palmatier: see Figures 2, 18, and 28).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Guang H Guan whose telephone number is (571) 272-7828. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays (10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/G. H. G./Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631
