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 .
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 two square steel profiles that serve as stops when the patient is in a fully verticalized position (90°) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The Applicant’s numerous claim recitations of “a touchscreen (control interface) configured synchronizing the operation of the main and secondary motors to achieve movement trajectory required for the patient”, “a wheelchair-coupling assembly that secures the wheelchair to the bed base in a position perpendicular to a mattress by means of safety belts, for allowing direct transfer of the patient without physical effort”, “a rectangular profile that defines the pivot point with a bearing support on which a bearing and the main rotation axis of the bed are mounted”, “wherein the bed base, the tubular frame, the two square steel profiles are steel-sheet panels”, “wherein the main motors control the verticalization to 90° and the horizontalization of the patient without manual assistance, including multiple intermediate angles” were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 15-23 are rejected upon dependance on a rejected base claim.
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) 13-20 and 22, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 6,862,762 to Johnson et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0172789 to Elliot et al., and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6,058,533 to Nelson.
Claims 13-15 and 22, Johnson, as best understood, discloses a bed 10 comprising a frame 100 that supports a base of a mattress that is capable of rotating on a transverse axis and mounted on bearings defined by upright members (28A,28B), the upright members being mounted on a base frame 20, positioning the frame at a pivot point with a bearing; said frame features a rectangular carriage with a plurality of brackets being mounted to secure the frame; two brackets (104a,104b) act as pivot arms, providing support and capable of placing the bed in a knees-bent position; and two brackets (170,170C) for mounting motors (32,210); the frame is a flat surface capable of articulating to a knees-bent position, mounted on the base frame and secured to the plurality of brackets, the frame including four steel sheet panels reinforced around their perimeter with square steel side members (22A,22B), joined by bearings that provide two secondary pivot points (100A,130A) capable of allowing bent leg or seated positions; the frame is composed of a plurality of transverse rectangular members, and a plurality of bearings being mounted and rotating on the tubular frame, a substantially square base frame 20 wherein brackets support actuators, mounting wheels (24A-24D) inherently having shafts (fig. 2), and two square steel profiles defined by actuator support members (30A,30B) that are capable of limiting the frame when verticalizing the patient to the standing position [Abstract](col. 2 lines 6-63) (col. 3-4 lines 45-68 1-19) wherein the bed has a main pivot point that uses bearings to verticalize the patient and move them to the standing or lying position (col. 3-4 lines 50-68 & 1-19). Johnson is silent to a touch screen. Elliot discloses a bed-based controller 25 including a processor, programmable logic, memory devices, and algorithms to control and functions and conditions at the bed, a user interface 36 that includes a touch screen with a GUI configured to generate a variety of touchscreen images such as icons to control bed functions such as light or changing languages that are displayed [0081][0087]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine touch screen of Elliot with the bed of Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a user interface with means representing a prompt, condition, feature or function to control the bed of Johnson. Johnson is silent to a wheelchair coupling. Nelson discloses a bed having a wheelchair coupling 66. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the wheel chair coupling of Nelson with the bed of Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed positioning and receiving a wheel chair for the patient. Johnson is silent to the bed having a tubular profile, a galvanized steel material, employing screws, nuts or welds, and additional profiles or motors. Selecting from a plethora of known profiles, materials, means of attaching or additional profiles or motors is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select the modifications as stated above with the bed of Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an alternative and equivalent profiles, materials, and means to attach or actuate to construct the bed of Johnson.
Claim 16, Johnson, as best understood, discloses the bed wherein the main motors control the verticalization to 90° and the horizontalization of the patient without manual assistance capable of multiple intermediate angles (fig. 1-4).
Claim 17 Johnson, as best understood, discloses the bed wherein the secondary pivot points are for facilitating flexion of the seat section in coordination with the secondary motor (fig. 5).
Claim 18 Johnson, as best understood, discloses the bed wherein the main pivot points cooperate with the main motors, and the secondary pivot points cooperate with the secondary motors to generate a sitting position (fig. 5).
Claim 19 Johnson, as best understood, discloses the bed wherein activation of the main motors through the touchscreen is capable of generating verticalization and horizontalization movement by rotation of the main pivot point.
Claim 20 Johnson, as best understood, discloses the bed wherein Elliot discloses controller 25 including a processor, programmable logic, memory devices, and algorithms to control and functions and conditions at the bed such as programming the secondary motor to cyclically extend and retract a linear actuator coupled to the secondary pivot points in the leg section [0081].
Claim(s) 21, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 6,862,762 to Johnson et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0172789 to Elliot et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,058,533 to Nelson, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0138995 to Leib.
Claim 21, Johnson discloses the bed, wherein the secondary motor remains in an extended position and while the seat is in a contracted position, but is silent to main motors producing a cyclic rotation. Leib discloses a seat frame having a fly wheel motor in combination with a linear drive [0009]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the cyclical motor in Leiv with the bed of Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided lifting and rocking of the user in the bed of Johnson.
Claim(s) 23, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 6,862,762 to Johnson et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0172789 to Elliot et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,058,533 to Nelson, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,001,790 to Kuhn.
Claim 23, Johnson, as best understood, discloses the bed, but is silent to a removable cushion and bedpan. Kuhn discloses a bed having a removable cushion 74 for allowing insertion of a bedpan assembly 51 (fig. 9). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the cushion and bedpan in Leiv with the bed of Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a passage of excrement from the patient in the bed of Johnson.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As stated above, the Applicant’s numerous claim recitations of “a touchscreen (control interface) configured synchronizing the operation of the main and secondary motors to achieve movement trajectory required for the patient”, “a wheelchair-coupling assembly that secures the wheelchair to the bed base in a position perpendicular to a mattress by means of safety belts, for allowing direct transfer of the patient without physical effort”, “a rectangular profile that defines the pivot point with a bearing support on which a bearing and the main rotation axis of the bed are mounted”, “wherein the bed base, the tubular frame, the two square steel profiles are steel-sheet panels”, “wherein the main motors control the verticalization to 90° and the horizontalization of the patient without manual assistance, including multiple intermediate angles” were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and fail to comply with the written description requirement.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0300845 to Paz et al. discloses a multi-position bed capable of tilting along a transverse axis.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,345,632 to Langenaeken et al. discloses a bed tilting along a transverse axis that employs separate motors and multiple pivot points.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached on (571) 270-3654. 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 3679