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 1-3, and 5-9 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20200359806); hereafter “Wang” in view of itself and Hornbach et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20060021144); hereafter "Hornbach", and Clenet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10646390); hereafter “Clenet”.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses (FIGS. 1-6) an electric bed, comprising: a base frame (correspondent to 110/10d/10c; FIG. 3) comprising two guide rails (correspondent interiors of 110; FIG. 1-6) extending parallel to a back-and-forth direction (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-6), wherein each of the two guide rails has a vertical wall, a top wall extending outwardly from at least a part of a top edge of the vertical wall, a bottom wall extending outwardly from at least a part of a bottom edge of the vertical wall, and a stopping wall extending upwardly from at least a part of the bottom wall (where Wang particularly clarifies “each side rail 10a or 10b is formed of a C-shape steel. In other embodiments, each side rail 10a or 10b is formed to have a trough or groove.” [0049] and “the roller 25 is received and moveable in the C-shape steel, or the troughs/grooves of two side rails 10a and 10b”; whereby a “C-shape” is known to have an enclosing trough or groove on top and bottom, as compared to a U-shape (also identified and distinguished in [0058] “the pair of swing arms 35a and 35b are formed in an H-shape form or a U-shape form”); and a sliding unit (correspondent 20a/20b/21-24; FIG. 3) comprising a frame (correspondent 22; FIG. 3, and plate 162; FIG. 2) located above the two guide rails (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-6), and two slide portions (correspondent front half portion 24/21) and rear half portion 24/23; FIG. 1-5) disposed on a bottom side of the frame (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-6), wherein the two slide portions are respectively and slidably disposed to the two guide rails in a way that the sliding unit is reciprocatingly slidable related to the base frame in the back-and-forth direction (as eminently demonstrated through FIGS. 1-6 and sliding back and forth between FIGS. 1 and 2); wherein each of the two slide portions includes a sliding frame (correspondent the respective half of 24 comprising 23 or 21 respectively; FIGS. 1-6) and a plurality of rollers (25; FIGS. 1-5) disposed on the sliding frame (as illustrated in FIGS. 2-5), abutted with the bottom wall of one of the two guide rails, and located between the vertical wall and the stopping wall of one of the two guide rails (as illustrated in FIGS. 2-5; and clarified in [0056]: “received and movable in the C-shape steel, or the troughs/grooves of the two side rails”); wherein at least a part of the sliding frame is located between the top wall and the stopping wall (as illustrated in FIGS. 3-4; where between can be understood as “amongst”; Merriam Webster: “between”); and wherein the stopping wall extends upwardly from the bottom wall to laterally confine the sliding frame and the rollers between the vertical wall and the stopping wall (wherein the C-shape steel and troughs, grooves would provide the requisite geometry of an upward extending wall maintaining the frame and wheels between the vertical wall and the stopping wall to so operate and retain as by trough or groove with a C-shape.
However, Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein an extending width of the bottom wall is greater than an extending width of the top wall, and for the consideration of convenience/compact prosecution also wherein the top and bottom walls are extending outwardly (correspondent respectfully to the body of the invention).
Regardless, Wang discloses the claimed invention except for the rails C-shape (top and bottom walls) extending outwardly (from center). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have reversed the orientation of the rails from inward facing to outward, since it has been held that mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. Where the results would have been predictable as Hornbach demonstrates an articulated and actuated bed with outward facing rails that a sliding frame engages (As illustrated in FIG. 5). Where furthermore there is a lack of criticality as to the orientation of the channels, as applicant’s particularly state in page 4, lines 1-11 “Specifically, the two top walls 15 extend respectively and outwardly from the two vertical walls 14 in opposite directions away from each other, and the two bottom walls 16 extend respectively and outwardly from the two vertical walls 14 in opposite directions away from each other. However, in another embodiment, the two top walls 15 may extend respectively and outwardly from the two vertical walls 14 towards each other, and the two bottom walls 16 may extend respectively and outwardly from the two vertical walls 14 towards each other”, effectively reciting either may be utilized.
Furthermore, Wang discloses the claimed invention except for either the upper wall being shorter than the bottom wall or the bottom wall being longer than the top wall. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have produced the top wall shorter than the bottom wall, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). Where the results would have been predictable as Clenet teaches and demonstrates (FIGS. 2A-2B and 4B) an outward facing rail (FIG. 4B) with bottom wall (44/42; FIG. 2B) longer than the top wall (35; FIG. 2B). Where there is a lack of criticality to the claimed feature, where applicant does not express how or why the walls being of different length are an improvement. However, examiner respectfully considers under reasonable common sense that a rail such as 2B of Clenet would reduce the amount of material necessary on the top of Wang’s C-channel and would improve manufacturing costs in making such shorter by using less material.
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of itself, Hornbach, and Clenet discloses (Hornbach: FIG. 4) the electric bed as claimed in claim 1, wherein the two top walls extend respectively and outwardly from the two vertical walls in opposite directions away from each other (as previously set forth in claim 1 prior with correspondence to FIG. 4 of Hornbach), and the two bottom walls extend respectively and outwardly from the two vertical walls in opposite directions away from each other (as previously set forth in claim 1 prior with correspondence to FIG. 4 of Hornbach).
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of itself, Hornbach, and Clenet discloses (FIGS. 1-6) the electric bed as claimed in claim 1, wherein the two top walls extend respectively and outwardly from the two vertical walls towards each other (as illustrated in FIGS. 2-5), and the two bottom walls extend respectively and outwardly from the two vertical walls towards each other (as illustrated in FIGS. 2-5).
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of itself, Hornbach, and Clenet discloses (FIGS. 1-6) the electric bed as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of the sliding frames comprises a bottom edge (correspondent the bottom edges of 24; FIGS. 1-6) located between the vertical wall and the stopping wall of one of the two guide rails (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-4; where between can be understood as “amongst”; Merriam Webster: “between”).
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of itself, Hornbach, and Clenet discloses (FIGS. 1-6) the electric bed as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of the sliding frames comprises a main section upper surface of 21/23; FIG. 1-4) disposed on the bottom side of the frame (As illustrated in FIG. 2 and 4), and an extension section (correspondent at least vertical lower half of 20a/20b; FIGS. 3-4) extending from the main section (As illustrated in FIGS. 2-4); the electric bed further comprises two support members (upper half of extension section 20a/20b; FIGS. 3-4), each of which is connected with the extension section of one of the sliding frames and the frame of the sliding unit (as illustrated in FIGS. 3-5).
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of itself, Hornbach, and Clenet discloses (FIGS. 1-6) the electric bed as claimed in claim 6, wherein the two support members are located above the two guide rails, respectively (As illustrated in FIGS. 2-5).
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of itself, Hornbach, and Clenet discloses (FIGS. 1-6) the electric bed as claimed in claim l, further comprising a back supporting unit (correspondent 35b; FIG. 3, and 161; FIGS. 1-2) pivotally connected with the sliding unit (as illustrated between FIGS. 1 and 2), a front linkage (correspondent 51a/51b; FIG. 3) having two ends pivotally connected with the base frame and the back supporting unit respectively (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-4), and an actuator (132; FIGS. 3-6) having two ends disposed on the sliding unit and the back supporting unit respectively (as illustrated in FIGS. 3-6 an conveyed in FIGS. 1-2, as indirectly connected to the sliding unit, and the back supporting unit) in a way that when the back supporting unit is driven by the actuator to swing upwardly, the sliding unit slides forward along the two guide rails (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-2; clarified in [0057]: “a back lifting actuator 132 pivotally connected between the back lifting bracket 135 and the first frame structure 110 for operably driving the back lifting bracket 135 to pivotally move in an upward rotating direction or a downward rotating direction relative to one of the first frame structure”).
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of itself, Hornbach, and Clenet discloses (FIGS. 1-6) the electric bed as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a rear frame (correspondent 163/164 in FIG. 1-2 and correspondent framework thereunder conveyed through FIGS. 3-5) pivotally connected with the base frame (as illustrated and demonstrated in FIGS. 1 and 2).
Response to Arguments
With regards to the presence of 102 Rejections, Applicant is correct and had previously overcome all 102 Rejections previously set forth in the non-final Office Action mailed August 29th, 2025 and should have been removed from the Final Office Action mailed January 6th, 2026. Examiner apologizes for this typographical/removal error and did such did not previously factor in the arguments (aside from acknowledging them overcome). Examiner has removed the previous 102 section which had been provided in the Final Office Action mailed January 6th, 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed March 31st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Particularly, although Examiner does acknowledge applicants have introduced additional subject matters not necessarily previously considered; concerning the inclusion of the stopping wall’s location and orientation, Wang does appear to avail this by firstly providing a C-shaped steel track and thereafter providing a “trough or groove” (previously cited in the rejection), and such would considerably form both a bottom wall and a raised vertical wall that is upwardly projected from the bottom wall as a trough or groove would reasonably avail in Wang. Where it is considered a “C-shape” is know to possess ends that skew or otherwise will (if extent) cross other parts of the steel/channel in profile, while what’s called a “U-shaped” steel would be parallel and not capable of skewing or crossing each other. Essentially, the C-shape already provides the requisite of an outer stopping wall that limits the channel only to entry likely at either open end of the channel, while “trough” or “groove” particularly respectfully appears to establish a channel with walls on either side, such walls in correspondence with those of the FIGS would therefore provide an upward protruding stopping wall. Where it is considered that “laterally confining” both the sliding frame and the rollers is achieved, even if only one is secured, because both are directly attached to each other, and the C-shaped steel/trough or groove would arrest the lateral movement of one would confine the lateral movement of the other (as “laterally confined” is considered to be understood as). It is considered, but not thoroughly investigated that merely claiming it is ”confined” might in fact be more obviating unless definitions known to the art dictate otherwise, as the frame is not completely confined to between the vertical wall and the stopping wall. However, this is merely speculative as this is respectfully not what applicant has claimed presently, but may prove assistive in obviating the prior art of record.
As such, the claims at present are respectfully maintained to be rejected under 103 with at least Wang in view of itself, Hornbach, and Clenet (among others).
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