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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 8-12 have been examined in this application. Claims 1-7 are withdrawn based on Applicant’s election of Invention II in the response dated 3/20/2026. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to Applicant's “Amendments/Remarks” filed 7/7/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II (Claims 8-12) in the reply filed on 3/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/20/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Newly added rejections:
Claim 8 recites the following limitations in which there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim:
Line 4: "the respective raising and lowering link assemblies"
Line 5: “the motion control unit”
Regarding line 4: While “a plurality of raising and lowering link assembles” is introduced with proper primary antecedent basis later in line 26, this introduction should come prior to the limitation with secondary antecedent basis introduced in line 4 for proper claim construction.
Regarding line 5: While “a motion control unit” is introduced with proper primary antecedent basis in line 34, this introduction should come prior to the limitation with secondary antecedent basis introduced in line 5 for proper claim construction.
Existing/Previously Applied Rejections:
Claim 8 (as currently amended), in several locations, continues to be written in very narrative format. For example: “…that is a pressure ulcer critical pressure at which a pressure ulcer is likely to occur, just before the specific raising and lowering link module with a pressure having come close to the pressure ulcer critical pressure reaches the pressure ulcer critical pressure, not only movements are stopped for a preset certain residence time after lowering only the specific raising and lowering link module with the pressure having come close to the pressure ulcer critical pressure from an initial first vertical position…” The examiner respectfully requests clarification or amendments to place claim 8 in better format to conform with respect to US practice.
The term “having come close to the pressure ulcer critical pressure” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is subjective and unclear what value would be considered “close” to the pressure ulcer critical pressure (32 mmHg as defined by the claim itself).
Claims 9-12 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (claim 8).
Any determinations of Allowable Subject Matter outlined below are made with respect to a best understanding of Applicant’s claims notwithstanding the rejections presented above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as noted in greater detail above, but would otherwise be allowable in view of the closest art of record if amendments are provided which may obviate the rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) and claim objections as noted above.
Regarding independent claim 8, the closest art of record, KR 102076161, teaches a patient bed including a rotatable mat unit 300 pivotally mounted above a lateral base frame support 100/130 via connecting members 220, which broadly forms a raising/lowering parallelogram link similar to the requirement of claim 8. The reference also teaches a driving unit 210 which may read on the claimed “servo motor.” KR 102076161, however, is silent to the further inclusion of body pressure sensors, a motion control unit connected to the servo motor via wired and wireless communication. KR 102076161 is further silent with respect to the specific method of raising/lowering its link modules to specific independent vertical positions based on sensed pressure and reaching a critical ulcer pressure as required by claim 8.
European Patent Application 0374742 A1 to Di Blasi, considered to be the second closest reference to the claimed invention, teaches a keyboard-form resting surface having a series of transversely adjacent raising/lower elements controlled by motor operated parallelogram system 270 (see Fig. 5-6). However, De Blasi, does not teach the specific method of raising each link structure independently to specific heights based on sensed body pressure information as required by claim 8.
U.S. Patent 2,790,440 and U.S. Patent 2906259, both to Adair, teach a variable pressure cushion system for a bed, however, neither teaches nor fairly suggests a parallelogram link structure nor the specific method of raising each link structure independently to specific heights as required by claim 8.
GB Patent Application 2015872A (Girgis), teaches an anti-sore bed with a plurality of adjustable segments that are movable with respect one another and actuated by a crank handle. However, Girgis does not teach a parallelogram link structure nor the method of raising each link structure independently to specific heights as required by claim 8.
JP Patent 2003-24407 to Makino teaches a stretcher including a waist stretching portion having a parallelogram link (see Figs. 12-14), however, it does not have a plurality of links in parallel along the longitudinal surface of the bed. Further Makino is silent to the method of raising each link structure independently to specific heights as required by claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/7/2026, with respect to the Claim Objections and certain specific 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections applied in the Non-Final Rejection of 4/6/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Those objections and rejection have been removed. However, certain 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections were not sufficiently corrected and a updated set of rejections have been added with respect to the claim amendments. Please see additional detail above.
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 DAVID R HARE whose telephone number is (571)272-4420. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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.
Sincerely,
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
7/21/2026
Prosecution Insights