DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The Amendments filed March 31st, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Totomeier et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20180110665); hereafter "Totomeier", in view of Shih et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20230200549); hereafter "Shih".
Regarding claim 1, Totomeier discloses (FIGS. 1-6B), a low-profile electric bed (Title: “Compact Profile Actuation System for an Adjustable Bed”), comprising: a stationary frame (correspondent 11a/11b/13a/13b; FIGS. 1); an upper frame (16; FIGS. 1-6B) having a side (correspondent sides of 12; FIGS. 1 and 1-6B) pivotally connected with the stationary frame (through 18; FIGS. 3A-6B), and two slide connecting portions (tracks 52; FIGS. 1-6B); a push frame (correspondent 21, 23-26, 28, 29, 50, 56,; FIGS. 1-3A) comprising a swivel rack (correspondent the complete framework including 23/24/50/56; FIGS. 2B-3A) and two moving arms (Correspondent 56; FIG. 2B); wherein the swivel rack includes a connecting rod (23; FIG. 2A) and two support arms (correspondent 50; FIG. 2B) disposed with two ends of the connecting rod (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-6B); wherein each of the two support arms is pivotally connected with the stationary frame via a first pivot 26; FIG. 2B; conveyed through FIGS. 1-6B), and pivotally connected with a push wheel (28; FIG. 1-3A) via a third pivot (correspondent 25; FIGS. 1-3A; wherein each of the two moving arms is pivotally connected with a roller (28; FIGS. 103A) via a fourth pivot (as conveyed through FIGS. 1-6A; defined as “wheel” in [0024] which would possess a pivot as a rotatable wheel); and an actuator (21; FIGS. 1-6B) having two ends pivotally and respectively connected with the stationary frame and the swivel rack (as clarified in [0019] “actuator 21 is attached from the head end rail 13a to a cross brace 23”) in a way that when the actuator gradually extends at a first stage, the two push wheels are in contact with the two slide connecting portions respectively (as conveyed in FIGS. 2A-4B), causing the swivel rack to swing about the first pivot and to drive the upper frame to swing {upward} relative to the stationary frame (as illustrated between FIGS. 2A-4B), and when the actuator further extends at a second stage (as conveyed between FIGS. 4B-6B), the two rollers (29; FIG. 2A-3B) are in contact with the two slide connecting portions respectively (as conveyed between FIGS. 4B-6B), and the swivel rack and the two moving arms collectively swing about the first pivot in a way that the two push wheels are disengaged from the two slide connecting portions (as conveyed between FIGS. 4B-6B), and the swivel rack and the two moving arms collectively drive the upper frame to swing further upward relative to the stationary frame (as conveyed between FIGS. 4B-6B).
However, Totomeier does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the two support arms is pivotally connected with one of the two moving arms via a second pivot, the third pivot is located between the first pivot and the second pivot, and the first, second and third pivots are located at three vertices of a triangle respectively; wherein each of the two support arms has a stopping portion configured in a way that when each of the two moving arms is rotated relative to associated one of the two support arms at a predetermined angle, the each of the two moving arms is stopped at the stopping portion of the associated one of the two support arms to prevent the each of the two moving arms from further rotation, and when the actuator further extends at a second stage, the two moving arms are respectively engaged with the two stopping portions, the two rollers are in contact with the two slide connecting portions respectively, such that when the upper frame is in a horizontal position, each of the two moving arms is rotatable relative to the corresponding support arm via the second pivot such that the push frame occupies a relatively reduced height.
Regardless, Shih teaches (FIGS. 1-9, and 12) a structure wherein each of two support arms (66; FIG. 9) is pivotally connected with one of the two moving arms via a second pivot (1; FIGS. 1-4 and 9); wherein each of the two support arms has a stopping portion (18/39; FIG. 5/6) configured in a way that when each of the two moving arms is rotated relative to associated one of the two support arms at a predetermined angle, the each of the two moving arms is stopped at the stopping portion of the associated one of the two support arms to prevent the each of the two moving arms from further rotation (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-9), and when the actuator further extends at a second stage, the two moving arms are respectively engaged with the two stopping portions (As illustrated in FIGS. 6 and 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the hinging frame segment of Shih (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-6, 9 and 12) into the push frame back supporting framework of Totomeier (as illustrated in FIGS. 4B, correspondent 56). Where the results would have been predictable as both Totomeier and Shih are concerned with bedding configurations and assemblies. Where furthermore it is considered that advantageously in use, a hinge of the type illustrated by Shih incorporated into the push frame of Totomeier (56 as the farthest extent analogous with Shih 66/70; FIG. 9), would avail a degree of impugnment prevention to the push frame. Wherein the flexure availed by Shih’s gravity assisted stop lock would conversely allow a considerable portion of the upper frame element (56) of Totomeier to flex upward in the event that when an object or a limb or such is between the members and moving framework in operation, the hinging portion of moving arm 56 will hinge upward as free to do so. Thereby reducing the possibly length/surface area that can clamp an object or limb and there thereby reducing the chance for injury to the user in use and improving the safety of Totomeier due to the fact Totomeier’s simple ‘actuator’ and push frame are hard constrained together by a bracket and the moving arm (56) is inflexible, and it is understood by Examiner that due to the geometrical constraints imposed on the push frame, a simple actuator would move until reaching destination, regardless of impugnment of the framework.
It is further considered that in availing the beneficial hinge of Shih as outlined above, the combination of Totomeier with Shih will avail the primary reference Totomeier its third pivot (Totomeier: correspondent 74; FIG. 9) is located between the first pivot (Totomeier: 26; FIG. 2B) and the second pivot (Shih: 66; FIG. 9), and the first, second and third pivots are located at three vertices of a triangle respectively (Totomeier: as is eminent by the triangular push frame member support and moving arms 50/56; FIG. 2B), and further when the actuator further extends at a second stage, the two moving arms (Totomeier: 56; FIG. 2B/Shih: 70; FIG. 5/6) are respectively engaged with the two stopping portions (Shih: 18/39; FIG. 5/6) the two moving arms are respectively engaged with the two stopping portions (Shih: as conveyed through FIGS. 5-6 and 12), the two rollers are in contact with the two slide connecting portions respectively (Totomeier: as is conveyed through FIGS. 3B/4B/5B/6B). Where it is further considered that the combination would achieve in its ordinary operation provide a geometry such that when the upper frame is in a horizontal position, each of the two moving arms is rotatable relative to the corresponding support arm via the second pivot such that the push frame occupies a relatively reduced height, by providing the requisite pivot hinges of Shih into Totomeier, while still availing the first engagement of the roller 28 in Totomeier.
Regarding claim 2, Totomeier in view of Shih discloses (Totomeier: FIGS. 1-6B) the low-profile electric bed as claimed on claim 1, wherein one of the two ends of the actuator is pivotally connected with the connecting rod of the swivel rack (Totomeier: as illustrated in FIGS. 1-6B; clarified in [0018-0019] correspondent hinges (18)); each of the two ends of the connecting rod is located between one of the two first pivots and one of the two third pivots (Totomeier: as illustrated in FIGS. 1-6B).
Regarding claim 3, Totomeier in view of Shih discloses (Totomeier: FIGS. 1-2B; Shih: FIGS. 9) the low-profile electric bed as claimed in claim 1, wherein when the upper frame is parallel to the stationary frame (Totomeier: as illustrated in FIGS. 1-2B), a distance between the third pivot (Totomeier: 28; FIG. 2B) and the slide connecting portion (Totomeier: 52; FIGS. 1-2B) is less than a distance between the first pivot and the slide connecting portion (Totomeier: as illustrated in FIG. 2B) and less than a distance between the second pivot and the slide connecting portion (as set forth in the combination prior, hinge 1 of Shih: FIG. 9; is considered to the distal end correspondent 56 of Totomeier analogously, where the emplacement thereof will locate the hinge/second pivot lower than the third hinge of the wheel 28 located at the vertex 25; FIGS. 2B of Totomeier).
Regarding claim 4, Totomeier in view of Shih discloses (Totomeier: FIGS. 1-3B) the low-profile electric bed as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first pivot and the third pivot are situated on a first imaginary surface (Totomeier: correspondent imaginary line correspondent 50; FIGS. 2B and 3B, and the second pivot and the third pivot are situated on a second imaginary surface (Totomeier: correspondent the imaginary line correspondent 56; FIGS. 2B and 3B) that is defined with the first imaginary surface an included angle ranging from 150.deg to 170.deg. Where Totomeier has clarified in [0022] and claim 4 “wherein the first portion and second portion have an angle of between 160° and 172°”. Where it has been held "[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original). And when the prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, but no specific examples falling within the claimed range are disclosed, a case by case determination must be made as to anticipation. In order to anticipate the claims, the claimed subject matter must be disclosed in the reference with "sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation under the statute." (MPEP 2131.03 is relevant). In the instant application and art, Totomeier explicitly identifies “160 degrees” which is within applicant’s claimed range and overlaps applicant’s claimed range. As such, Totomeier (in view of Shih) is considered to anticipate applicant’s claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Totomeier in view of Shih discloses (Totomeier: FIGS. 1-3B; Shih: FIGS. 5/6, 8, and 12) the low-profile electric bed as claimed in claim 4, wherein when the moving arm is stopped by the stopping portion (Shih: as conveyed in FIGS. 5/6), the fourth pivot is situated on the second imaginary surface. Wherein as set forth by the combination of Totomeier and Shih, the arm would be free to pivot upward (Shih: as illustrated in FIGS. 5/6 and 8) and flatten out when extent (Shih: As illustrated in FIGS. 6 and 12), and when extent and flattened out (as conveyed in FIG. 12 of Shih), the fourth pivot (correspondent Totomeier’s (29; FIGS. 2A-3B) will be situated on the same second imaginary line as the third pivot (Totomeier: 28/25; FIGS. 2A-3B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 17th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's allegations against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Particularly concerning arguments that Totomeier’s actuators and arms are not in a force-transmission linkage does not consider the combination of Totomeier with Shih, and respectfully does not acknowledge that the hinge of Shih achieves an analogous bent to it that Totomeier readily expresses, but more operatively freely and still able to achieve adequate support of a human body thereon.
Further particularly, although Examiner does respectfully acknowledge applicant’s introduction of additional matters into the claim, however applicant alleges (Remarks: pages 5-10) particularly that Totomeier in view of Shih fails to avail “wherein when the upper frame is in a horizontal position, each of the two moving arms is rotatable relative to the corresponding support arm via the second pivot such that the push frame occupies a relatively reduced height”. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this characterization/assertion as such limitation appears as though it would manifest as a natural consequence of the geometries provided by the combination of Totomeier with Shih, where Shih specifically provides a pivoting junction that enables hinging about the point of wheel/roller 28 in Totomeier as the combination sets forth, where such flexure would readily allow geometry/configuration such that when the upper frame is in a horizontal position, each of the two moving arms is rotatable relative to the corresponding support arm via the second pivot such that the push frame occupies a relatively reduced height (essentially understood as the two support arms rotating relative to each other when the apparatus is flat, which Shih demonstrated by providing a hinge that can flex partly in controlled directions, but otherwise achieving the requisite configuration of arms and hinges as applicant’s invention necessitates to achieve a similar operation capability; but for the clarity of the record such incorporation of Shih’s hinge is provided with rationale to particularly improve safety as outlined in the pertinent section, not necessarily space saving but would respectfully occur as a natural consequence of the features introduced.
Therefore, Examiner is respectfully not persuaded at the present time that Totomeier in view of Shih fails to anticipate or make obvious the claimed features of applicant’s invention and the 103 Rejections thereof are maintained for reasons of record and those set forth immediately prior.
Conclusion
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673