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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification conflicts with the claimed invention of claims 8-1, 13, 14, and 16-17 because the specification discloses “A separate timing mechanism is absent in Figures 5-7, but a similar function is provided through the use of two actuators 68a, 68b, which enables synchronous pivoting of the support arms 80, 82 through the toggle point 94” and “In the embodiments of the timing mechanism 98 shown in Figures 8-10, the timing mechanism 98 comprises a timing link 100 movably coupled to the side rail 56 and disposed in a meshing relationship with the support arm assembly 66. Similar to the prior embodiment shown in Figure 7, the first gear 90 is fixed to the first support arm 80 to pivot about the first side rail pivot axis A and the second gear 92 is fixed to the second support arm 82 to pivot about the second side rail pivot axis C.” There does not appear to be teaching in the specification that there is an embodiment with two actuators and timing links. The Examiner suggests changing the status to a Continuation in Part should these new teachings be added.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the arrangement of claims 8-11 and 13-17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Based on the Applicant’s original disclosure, none of the embodiments with timing links include two actuators as shown in the Figs. and paragraph [0079]-[0080] which disclose “A separate timing mechanism is absent in Figures 5-7, but a similar function is provided through the use of two actuators 68a, 68b, which enables synchronous pivoting of the support arms 80, 82 through the toggle point 94” and “In the embodiments of the timing mechanism 98 shown in Figures 8-10, the timing mechanism 98 comprises a timing link 100 movably coupled to the side rail 56 and disposed in a meshing relationship with the support arm assembly 66. Similar to the prior embodiment shown in Figure 7, the first gear 90 is fixed to the first support arm 80 to pivot about the first side rail pivot axis A and the second gear 92 is fixed to the second support arm 82 to pivot about the second side rail pivot axis C.” No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-11 and 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12 January 2026.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that the Restriction Requirement is improper based on the arguments provided on pages 8-9 of the remarks filed 12 January 2026. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that “the assertion that “the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species” is conclusory and from the Applicant’s perspective is highly unlikely.” When comparing the many embodiments presented by the Applicant in the originally filed drawings, the mechanical configurations of the connection of the actuators and the arms vary greatly. It is very unlikely that prior art which teaches a gear mechanism within the siderail (embodiment of Fig. 7) would also teach an embodiment with a linear actuator which assists in the movement to the egress position (embodiment of Fig. 6A). Additionally, many of the embodiments of the invention don’t even move to the same positions as other embodiments. For example, compare Fig. 10, which includes a timing link 98 and enables translation of the siderail between a raised and lowered position, with the embodiment of Fig. 5D or 6A which both enable three different configurations including a raised, lowered and re-oriented position. Additionally, even if the Examiner found a broader claim to be allowable which would allow the Examiner to withdraw the restriction requirement, see the objections above which discuss the lack of original support for the timing links used in a siderail with first and second actuators.
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.
(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, 3-5, 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Castonguay et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2006/0090259 – hereinafter Castonguay).
Regarding Claim 1: Castonguay discloses the system comprising: a patient support apparatus (hospital beds discussed in paragraph [0001] of Castonguay) for supporting a patient (beds for supporting patients), the patient support apparatus including: a support structure (see paragraph [0008] of Castonguay which discusses mounting brackets for mounting to a bed frame and mounting brackets 165, 170 of Castonguay); a side rail (siderail 15 of Castonguay) movable relative to the support structure (compare Figs. 2-6 of Castonguay) between a raised position (Fig. 2 of Castonguay) and a lowered position (stowed position of Fig. 6 of Castonguay); a support arm assembly (comprising at least first and second support arms 20 and 30 of Castonguay) coupling the side rail to the support structure (see Figs. 2-6 of Castonguay), the support arm assembly including: a first support arm (first support arm 20 of Castonguay) pivotally coupled to the side rail about a first side rail pivot axis (upper pivot shaft 25 of Castonguay) and pivotally coupled to the support structure about a first frame pivot axis (pivot pin 70 of Castonguay), and a second support arm (first support arm 30 of Castonguay) spaced from the first support arm (as shown in Figs. 1-6 of Castonguay), the second support arm pivotally coupled to the side rail about a second side rail pivot axis (pivot shaft 35 of Castonguay) and pivotally coupled to the support structure about a second frame pivot axis (pivot pin 75 of Castonguay); and a first actuator (gas cylinder 95 of Castonguay) and a second actuator (spring 80 of Castonguay) each configured to move the side rail between the raised position and the lowered position (see paragraph [0031] of Castonguay – “As the siderail 15 is lowered, the load spring 80 reduces the apparent load or weight of the siderail 15 to the operator. The gas cylinder 95 acts as a damper to soften the drop of the siderail 15. In concert, the load spring 80 and gas cylinder 95 can lower the siderail 15 in a controlled fashion upon release by the operator.”).
Regarding Claim 3: Castonguay discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first actuator and the second actuator each engage a respective one of the support arms (see Figs. 2-6 of Castonguay which shows the spring 80 and gas cylinder 95 both attached to arms 20 and 30 via bottom cross member 40 of Castonguay) to pivot the one of the support arms to move the side rail between the raised position and the lowered position (see paragraph [0031] of Castonguay – “As the siderail 15 is lowered, the load spring 80 reduces the apparent load or weight of the siderail 15 to the operator. The gas cylinder 95 acts as a damper to soften the drop of the siderail 15. In concert, the load spring 80 and gas cylinder 95 can lower the siderail 15 in a controlled fashion upon release by the operator.”).
Regarding Claim 4: Castonguay discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the first actuator is coupled to the first support arm, and the second actuator is coupled to the second support arm (see Figs. 2-6 of Castonguay which shows the spring 80 and gas cylinder 95 both attached to arms 20 and 30 via bottom cross member 40 of Castonguay).
Regarding Claim 5: Castonguay discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the side rail is movable relative to the support structure between a first orientation (the raised position shown in Fig. 2 of Castonguay) and a second orientation (the stowed position shown in Fig. 6 of Castonguay), the first and second actuators configured move the side rail between the first and second orientations (see paragraph [0031] of Castonguay – “As the siderail 15 is lowered, the load spring 80 reduces the apparent load or weight of the siderail 15 to the operator. The gas cylinder 95 acts as a damper to soften the drop of the siderail 15. In concert, the load spring 80 and gas cylinder 95 can lower the siderail 15 in a controlled fashion upon release by the operator.”); and wherein the side rail comprises a handle (handle 145 of Castonguay) for user egress (via the handle enabling reorientation of the siderail of Castonguay) and wherein the handle changes orientation as the side rail is moved between the first and second orientations (since the siderail moves being first and second orientations and the handle is part of the siderail the handle also moves between different orientations; alternatively the handle expands and retracts as a user unlocks the siderail and therefore changes orientation).
Regarding Claim 7: Castonguay discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a timing mechanism (via the four bar mechanism formed by the side rail, arms 20,30 and bottom cross-member 40 of Castonguay) for synchronizing movement of the first and second support arms as the side rail moves between the raised position and the lowered position (as shown in the transition of the siderail between positions in Fig. 2-6 of Castonguay).
Regarding Claim 12: Castonguay discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the timing mechanism is integrated with the side rail and disposed in a meshing relationship with the support arm assembly (the examiner considers the timing mechanism to be the siderail body and the integral engagement with the arms 20, 30 creates a meshing relationship).
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.
Claim(s) 1 (alternatively) and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderpohl (US PG Pub. No. 2013/0086746) in view of Johnson et al. (CA 3229775 – hereinafter Johnson).
Regarding Claim 1: Vanderpohl discloses a system comprising: a patient support apparatus for supporting a patient (patient support apparatus of Vanderpohl – abstract), the patient support apparatus including: a support structure (upper frame 28 and bracket 84 of Vanderpohl); a side rail (barrier 58 of Vanderpohl – Fig. 5) movable relative to the support structure between a raised position (position of Fig. 5 of Vanderpohl) and a lowered position (the position of Fig. 7 or Fig. 8 of Vanderpohl); a support arm assembly (upper links 81,82 of Vanderpohl – Fig. 6) coupling the side rail to the support structure (as shown in Fig. 6 of Vanderpohl), the support arm assembly including: a first support arm (81 of Vanderpohl) pivotally coupled to the side rail (compare Figs. 5-8 of Vanderpohl) about a first side rail pivot axis (at axle 134 of Vanderpohl – see Figs. 5-9 of Vanderpohl which show the siderail pivoting with respect to the arms 81,82) and pivotally coupled to the support structure about a first frame pivot axis (86 of Vanderpohl – compare Figs. 6 and 7), and a second support arm (82 of Vanderpohl) spaced from the first support arm (see the space between arms 81-82 shown in at least Fig. 6 of Vanderpohl), the second support arm pivotally coupled to the side rail about a second side rail pivot axis (at axle 134 of Vanderpohl – see Figs. 5-9 of Vanderpohl which show the siderail pivoting with respect to the arms 81,82 – note that the first and second pivot axes overlap) and pivotally coupled to the support structure about a second frame pivot axis (86 of Vanderpohl – compare Figs. 6 and 7 and note that the first and second frame pivot axes overlap); and a first actuator (cylinder 113 of Vanderpohl) and [….] configured to move the side rail between the raised position (Figs. 5-6 of Vanderpohl) and the lowered position (Figs. 7-8 of Vanderpohl; paragraph [0062] of Vanderpohl – “Bed controller 76 is coupled electrically to actuator 100 and is configured to command the actuator 100 to move between the extended and retracted positions. As an example of use, patients and caregivers are able to control movement of the linkage 60 between the raised and lowered positions by using user interface 74 to input commands which are communicated to the bed controller 76 which in turn commands the actuator 100 to move as desired.”).
Vanderpohl does not disclose a second actuator configured to move the siderail between the raised and lowered position.
However, solving the same problem of raising and lowering, Johnson teaches replacing a single actuator with multiple actuators (see paragraph [00101] of Johnson – “Although a single linear actuator 190 is shown, multiple linear actuators 190 may be used to increase the lifting force in direction 132.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Vanderpohl (directed toward a siderail) and Johnson (directed toward a lift mechanism utilizing two actuators instead of one) with a reasonable expectation of success by utilizing two actuators of Vanderpohl instead of one. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “Although a single linear actuator 190 is shown, multiple linear actuators 190 may be used to increase the lifting force in direction 132.” (see paragraph [00101] of Johnson).
Regarding Claim 20: Vanderpohl in view of Johnson make obvious the system of claim 1, further comprising: an input device (interface 74 of Vanderpohl) for generating an input signal (input commands – paragraph [0062] of Vanderpohl); and a controller (controller 76 of Vanderpohl) in communication with the first actuator (paragraph [0062] of Vanderpohl – “As an example of use, patients and caregivers are able to control movement of the linkage 60 between the raised and lowered positions by using user interface 74 to input commands which are communicated to the bed controller 76 which in turn commands the actuator 100 to move as desired”) and the second actuator (made obvious by the combination of Vanderpohl and Johnson), and the input device (paragraph [0062] of Vanderpohl) and configured to receive the input signal from the input device to control the first actuator and the second actuator (made obvious by the combination of Vanderpohl and Johnson), based on the input signal (paragraph [0062] of Vanderpohl).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderpohl (US PG Pub. No. 2013/0086746) in view of Johnson et al. (CA 3229775 – hereinafter Johnson) further in view of Treon (US Patent No. 6,944,896).
Regarding Claim 19: Vanderpohl in view of Johnson make obvious the system of claim 20.
Vanderpohl in view of Johnson do not disclose or make obvious wherein the first actuator includes a motor and wherein the controller is configured to receive an output signal from the motor and to control operation of the motor by: determining an error value; applying the error value to at least one of a proportional (P), an integral (I), and a derivative (D) tuning parameter to generate a control signal designed to reduce the error value; and controlling the motor based on the control signal.
However, solving the same problem of driving movement of an element of a patient support (see the powered chair of Treon – Fig. 1), Treon teaches wherein the first actuator includes a motor (motor 24 of Treon) and wherein the controller is configured to receive an output signal from the motor and to control operation of the motor by: determining an error value; applying the error value to at least one of a proportional (P), an integral (I), and a derivative (D) tuning parameter to generate a control signal designed to reduce the error value; and controlling the motor based on the control signal (Col. 5, lines 5-18 of Treon - “The processor 60 optically or otherwise interfaces with and provides instructions to the motor control circuitry 34. The motor control circuitry 34 receives input from the motor voltage sensing circuitry 42 to determine a control signal that is directly proportional to the line voltage and/or the speed of the motor 24. Where applicable, the motor control circuitry 34 could alternatively receive a control signal from a voltage senor 33 that is directly proportional to line voltage. The motor control circuitry 34 further compares the control/speed signal to a stored reference voltage. If they do not match within predefined parameters, the controller 36 may generate an error signal. The motor control circuitry 34 processes the error signal to determine how to modulate the pulse width (and duty cycle) of the power signal” and Col. 7, lines 10-20 of Treon – “Where so configured at block 124, a control signal comprising an error signal may be initiated by motor control circuitry 34 in response to a discrepancy between the applied and reference voltages. The error signal generated at block 124 will automatically initiate modification of the duty cycle in proportion to a change in the line voltage, and in an embodiment discussed below, in proportion to a change in motor load. Where the determined voltage of the control signal is alternatively equal to or otherwise within acceptable tolerances of the reference voltage, the duty cycle of the power signal is maintained, as indicated at block 126 of FIG. 3.”).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Vanderpohl (directed toward a siderail for a patient support), Johnson (directed toward a lift mechanism utilizing two actuators instead of one) and Treon (directed toward a motor drive system with error calculation capabilities) with a reasonable expectation of success by substituting a cylinder actuator as taught by Vanderpohl with a motorized linear drive with error calculation capabilities as suggested by Treon. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because the error calculation capabilities enables the motor to maintain the desired speed of actuation (Col. 2, lines 35-42 of Treon).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderpohl (US PG Pub. No. 2013/0086746) in view of Johnson et al. (CA 3229775 – hereinafter Johnson) further in view of Zerhusen et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0257952 – hereinafter Zerhusen).
Regarding Claim 21: Vanderpohl in view of Johnson make obvious the system of claim 20, but do not disclose wherein the input device is located remotely from the patient support apparatus.
However, in the same field of endeavor, patient beds and controls (see the abstract of Zerhusen), Zerhusen teaches wherein the input device (remote cart 950 of Zerhusen) is located remotely from the patient support apparatus (see Fig. 105 of Zerhusen showing the cart being separate from the patient support apparatus).
However, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Vanderpohl (directed toward a siderail), Johnson (directed toward a lift mechanism utilizing two actuators instead of one), and Zerhusen (directed toward a patient support system with remotely located input device) with a reasonable expectation of success by coupling the controller of Vanderpohl as modified by Johnson to a caregiver universal remote cart as taught by Zerhusen. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to enable communication with multiple patient beds when moving room to room (paragraph [0010] of Zerhusen).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 18 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.
Regarding Claim 2: Castonguay or, alternatively, Vanderpohl in view of Johnson make obvious the siderail of claim 1 but do not disclose or make obvious the first and second actuators each disposed at least partially within the interior of the side rail. However, there is no suggestion in the prior art to modify either Vanderpohl as modified by Johnson or Castonguay to include the actuators each disposed at least partially within the interior of the side rail. It is old and well known in the art to include motors or solenoids within the interior of siderails for operating a latch which enables movement of the siderail from a raised or lowered position. However, claim 1 requires “a first actuator and a second actuator each configured to move the side rail between the raised position and the lowered position.” Having an automatic latch within the interior of the siderail to enable movement of the siderail to a lowered position does not move the siderail to the lowered position. Rather, either the force of gravity or a user’s applied force along with springs/dampers cause the movement of the siderail. Therefore the actuators are not considered actuatable latches and must be an actuator that directly moves the siderail.
Regarding Claim 18: Vanderpohl in view of Johnson make obvious the system of claim 20. However, Vanderpohl in view of Johnson do not disclose or make obvious wherein the controller is configured to operate the first and second actuators independently to move the first and second support arms in opposite directions to orient the side rail to an egress position different from the lowered position. Additionally, duplicating the actuators of Vanderpohl to distribute the load as taught by Johnson would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention but further modifying the actuators to move the first and second support arms in opposite directions would either break the invention of Vanderpohl or require a complete replacement of the siderail of Vanderpohl since the first and second arms of Vanderpohl cannot move in opposite directions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 3,930,273 to Stern is cited for teaching a four bar pivoting style siderail.
US Patent No. 3,971,083 to Peterson is cited for teaching a four bar pivoting style siderail.
JP 2016168098 to Ishikawa et al. is cited for teaching a siderail with an internally located actuator.
US PG Pub. No. 2016/0331617 to Stryker is cited for teaching a siderail which can be raised and lowered with an actuator which acts on an arm 330 to rotate the siderail between raised and lowered positions. Although no currently relied upon, the Examiner could reject at least the current claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 by modifying the embodiment of Fig. 13 of Stryker with the teaching of utilizing two actuators instead of one actuator for the purpose of decreasing the force output required by each individual motor or for the purpose of increasing reliability.
CN 109481188 to Zhang is cited for teaching a guardrail device with first and second actuators for moving the siderail.
US PG Pub. No. 2006/0021143 to Lemire is cited for teaching a lifting mechanisms comprising two individually operable motors 36, 36A.
US Patent No. 7,467,427 to Wu et al. is cited for teaching a handrail with gears.
US Patent No. 6,938,289 to Morin is cited for teaching a handrail with gears connected to the support arts for meshing engagement with a toothed rack.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA L BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 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, 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.
/AMANDA L BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights