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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 on 12/25/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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) 2, 10-11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0101022 to Riley et al.
Claim 2, 10-11, and 17, Riley discloses a support comprising a deck 58 for supporting a mattress 60 thereon; a lift for raising or lowering said deck [0057][0058]; a sensor to generate sensor output indicative of a status of the patient support (68a-d)[0013][0059][0061]; and a control system including software logic capable of adjusting a height of said deck based on the sensor output indicative of the status of the patient support [0059]-[0062].
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) 3-4, 12, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0101022 to Riley et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0035057 to Receveur et al.
Claims 3-4, 12, 18-19, Riley discloses the patient support, but is silent to the control system limiting movement of said deck to a predetermined height. Receveur et al. discloses a patient support having operational parameters modified by setting narrow threshold values that are capable of limiting allowable ranges of adjustments to a predetermined height [0041]-[0052]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the operational parameters modified by threshold values disclosed in Receveur with the patient support of Riley with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have further allowed the control of the bed height and movement to allowable ranges of adjustment.
Claim(s) 5, 13-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0101022 to Riley et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0318720 to Connell et al.
Claim 5, Riley, as modified, discloses the patient support further comprising a user input 70 at said patient support in communication with said control system, but is silent to the control system ignoring a command at the user input. Connell discloses a patient support having a guard structure locking state and a control having a user input 122 with a security lockout to prevent bed functionality such as bed height and articulation or ignores commands at the user input [0044]-[0053];[0092]-[0095][0107]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the security lockout disclosed in Connell with the patient support of Riley with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have improved patient safety and prevent a patient from readily accessing bed functionality and controlling the patient support in a way that may hurt themselves or others.
Claims 13-14 and 20, Riley, as modified, discloses all of the structural limitation as stated above wherein the side rail of Connell is capable of movement between a raised and lowered position that is mounted relative to said deck, and said side rail being lockable [0031]-[0036] and including a controller capable of executing instructions such as calculating a height of the frame, obtain operational data from the patient support, collect data related to properties of the patient support such as status of the side rails [0045]-[0048].
Claim(s) 6-9 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0101022 to Riley et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0318720 to Connell et al., and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0035057 to Receveur et al.
Claims 6-9 and 15-16, Riley, as modified, discloses the patient support wherein Connell further comprises a side rail 110 capable of movement between a raised and lowered position that is mounted relative to the patient support deck with, and said side rail being lockable, wherein said status of said side rail is a locked status of said side rail, but is silent to the control system limiting movement adjustment between an allowable maximum height to a lower allowable maximum height. Receveur discloses a patient support having operational parameters modified by setting narrow threshold values that are capable of limiting allowable ranges of height [0041]-[0052]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the operational parameters modified by setting narrow threshold values disclosed in Receveur with the patient support of Riley with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have further allowed the control of the bed height and movement to allowable ranges of adjustment.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0101022 to Riley et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0318720 to Connell et al., and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6,208,250 to Dixon et al.
Claim 21, Riley, as modified, discloses the patient support, wherein the side rail is moveable between a raised position above the patient support deck, but is silent to an ultralow position fully below the patient support deck, and wherein the side rail is moveable longitudinally but not laterally while the side rail is moved between the raised position and the ultralow position. Dixon discloses siderails 34 that articulate from a raised position to a lowered position below a deck 22 wherein the side rail is moveable longitudinally but not laterally while the side rail is moved between the raised position and the ultralow position (fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the side rail articulation disclosed in Dixon with the side rail of Riley with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative articulation for the side rail of Riley.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0296607 to Stadlthanner et al. discloses a patient support having a sensor that determines the status of a patient and adjusts height of the bed.
U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0205501 to Robertson et al. discloses a patient support having a sensor that determines the status of a patient and adjusts height of the bed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDRICK C CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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 C. Mikowski can be reached on (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.
/FREDRICK C CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673