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 .
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.
Claims 21, 35, 36, 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0014911 to Ribble et al. With respect to claim 21, Ribble et al. '911 shows the claimed limitations of a bed system (200) attachable to a bed (100, 124) for turning a person, the bed system comprising a first element (210) and a second
element (208), the first element has an upper surface being substantially planar and the second element has a lower surface being substantially planar (as shown in Figures 2-4 and as described on page 4, in paragraphs 0055-0058), the lower surface of the second element (208) is attachable to a top surface of a bed base (124) of the bed, the first element (210) and the second element (208) being hingedly attached along a first hinge axis, the upper surface of the first element extends perpendicularly to the first hinge axis from a primary edge to a secondary edge of the first element (210) (also as shown in Figures 2-4 and as described on page 4, in paragraphs 0056 & 0057), wherein in a lowered rotational position (950) of the first element relative to the second element (208), a lowered distance between the secondary edge of the first element (210) and the lower surface of the second element is less than 8 cm (as shown in Figure 15 and as described on page 8, paragraph 0088), and wherein in a raised rotational position, a raised distance between the secondary edge of the first element (210) and the lower surface of the second element (208) is at least 5 cm more than the lowered distance (as shown in Figure 2 and as described on page 5, in paragraphs 0061 & 0062), the bed system (600) further comprises a first actuator attached to the first element (604) and/or the second element (602), the first actuator having a first actuating rod extendible and/or retractable perpendicular to the first hinge axis (defined by element 610) between a retracted actuator position and an extended actuator position (i.e., the first actuating rod alternately retracts or extends substantially vertically or upright relative to the horizontal first hinge axis defined by element 610), and the first actuating rod extending and/or retracting in a space between the first element (604) and the second element (602) to effectuate change of the rotational
position of the first element relative to the second element between the lowered rotational position and the raised rotational position (as shown in Figure 10 and as described on page 7, in paragraphs 0080 & 0084).
With respect to claims 35 and 36, the reference shows the claimed limitations wherein the first actuator is configured to actively extend the first actuating rod from the retracted actuator position to the extended actuator position, and wherein the first actuator is configured to release the first actuating rod (as described on page 1, in paragraph 0010; page 2, paragraph 0010 and on page 7, in paragraphs 0080 & 0084); and wherein the first actuator is configured to actively retract the first actuating rod from the extended actuator position to the retracted actuator position, and wherein the first actuator is configured to release the first actuating rod (also as described on page 1, in paragraph 0010; page 2, paragraph 0010 and on page 7, in paragraphs 0080 & 0084).
With respect to claims 38 and 39, the reference shows the claimed limitations of a bed comprising a bed base (124) with a top surface for supporting a mattress (100) (as shown in Figures 1 & 2 and as described on page 4, in paragraph 0058), the bed further comprising the bed system (200), wherein the second element (208) of the bed system is attached to the top surface such that the bed system is arranged between the bed base (124) and the mattress (100) (as shown in Figure 2 and as described on page 4, in paragraphs 0056 & 0057); and wherein the second element (208) is configured to be attached to the top surface at a position corresponding to the hip of the person, and optionally wherein a fourth element (208) is configured to be attached to the top surface at a position corresponding to the hip of the person (as shown in Figures 2 & 3 and as described on page 4, in paragraphs 0056 & 0057).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-25, 30-33 and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0151169 to Chicinas. With respect to claim 21, Chicinas '169 shows the claimed limitations of a bed system (1) attachable to a bed for turning a person, the bed system comprising a first element (4) and a second element (2), the first element has an upper surface being substantially planar and the second element has a lower surface being substantially planar (as shown in Figures 1 & 3 and as described on page 1, in paragraph 0019 and on page 2, in paragraphs 0024 & 0026), the lower surface of the second element (2) is attachable to a top surface of a bed base of the bed, the first element (4) and the second element (2) being hingedly attached along a first hinge axis (P1), the upper surface of the first element extends perpendicularly to the first hinge axis from a primary edge to a secondary edge of the first element (4) (as shown in Figures 2 & 3 and as described on page 1, in paragraphs 0014, 0015 & 0017 and on page 2, in paragraphs 0024 & 0026), wherein in a lowered rotational position of the first element (4) relative to the second element (2), a lowered distance between the secondary edge of the first element and the lower surface of the second element (2) is less than 8 cm (i.e., the first element 4 is in a horizontal position in the lowered rotational position as shown in Figure 3 and accordingly the distance is closed to 0 cm), the bed system (1) further comprises a first actuator (7) attached to the first element (4) and/or the second element (2), the first actuator having a first actuating rod extendible and/or retractable perpendicular to the first hinge axis (P1) between a retracted actuator position and an extended actuator position, and the first actuating rod extending and/or retracting in a space between the first element (4) and the second element (2) to effectuate change of the
rotational position of the first element relative to the second element between the lowered rotational position and a raised rotational position (as shown in Figures 1 & 3 and as described on page 1, in paragraph 0016 and on page 2, in paragraph 0026).
However, Chicinas '169 does not specifically disclose a condition wherein in the raised rotational position, a raised distance between the secondary edge of the first element (4) and the lower surface of the second element (2) is at least 5 cm more than the lowered distance. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bed system of Chicinas '169 with a raised rotational position in which a raised distance between the secondary edge of the first element and the lower surface of the second element is at least 5 cm more than the lowered distance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 22, Chicinas '169 further teaches the claimed limitations of a third element (5), the third element has an upper surface being substantially planar (as shown in Figures 1 & 3 and as described on page 1, in paragraph 0019 and on page 2, in paragraphs 0024 & 0026), the third element (5) and the second element (2) being hingedly attached along a second hinge axis (P2), preferably parallel to the first hinge axis (P1), the upper surface of the third element (5) extends perpendicularly to the second hinge axis from a primary edge to a secondary edge of the third element (as shown in Figure 3 and as described on page 1, in paragraphs 0015 & 0017 and on page 2, in paragraphs 0024 & 0026), wherein in a lowered rotational position of the third element (5) relative to the second element (2), a lowered distance between the secondary edge of the third element and the lower surface of the second element (2) is less than 8 cm (i.e., the third element 5 is in a horizontal position in the lowered rotational position and accordingly the distance is closed to 0 cm), the bed system (1) further comprises a second actuator (8) attached to the third element (5) and/or the second element (2), the second actuator having a second actuating rod extendible and/or retractable perpendicular to the second hinge axis (P2) between a retracted actuator position and an extended actuator position, and the second actuating rod extending and/or retracting in a space between the third element (5) and the second element (2) to effectuate change of the rotational position of the third element relative to the second element between the lowered rotational position and a raised rotational position (as shown in Figures 1 & 3 and as described on page 1, in paragraph 0016 and on page 2, in paragraph 0026). However, Chicinas '169 does not specifically disclose a condition wherein in the raised rotational position, a raised distance between the secondary edge of the third element (5) and the lower surface of the second element (2) is at least 5 cm more than the lowered distance. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bed system of Chicinas '169 with a raised rotational position in which a raised distance between the secondary edge of the third element and the lower surface of the second element is at least 5 cm more than the lowered distance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 23, Chicinas '169 further teaches the claimed limitation of a third element (5) and a fourth element (i.e., a right portion of element 2 as shown in Figures 1-3; accordingly, a left portion of element 2 also as shown in Figures 1-3 constitutes the second element), the third element (5) has an upper surface being substantially planar and the fourth element has a lower surface being substantially planar (as shown in Figures 1 & 3 and as described on page 1, in paragraph 0019 and on page 2, in paragraphs 0024 & 0026), the third element (5) and the fourth element being hingedly attached along a second hinge axis (P2), the upper surface of the third element (5) extends perpendicularly to the second hinge axis from a primary edge to a secondary edge of the third element (as shown in Figure 3 and as described on page 1, in paragraphs 0015 & 0017 and on page 2, in paragraphs 0024 & 0026), wherein in a lowered rotational position of the third element (5) relative to the fourth element, a lowered distance between the secondary edge of the third element and the lower surface of the fourth element is less than 8 cm (i.e., the third element 5 is in a horizontal position in the lowered rotational position and accordingly the distance is closed to 0 cm), the bed system (1) further comprises a second actuator (8) attached to the third element (5) and/or the fourth element, the second actuator having a second actuating rod extendible and/or retractable perpendicular to the second hinge axis (P2) between a retracted actuator position and an extended actuator position, and the second actuating rod extending and/or retracting in a space between the third element (5) and the fourth element to effectuate change of the rotational position of the third element relative to the fourth element between the lowered rotational position and a raised rotational position , wherein the lower surface of the fourth element is attachable to the top surface of the bed base of the bed (as shown in Figures 1 & 3 and as described on page 1, in paragraphs 0014 & 0016 and on page 2, in paragraph 0026). However, Chicinas '169 does not specifically disclose a condition wherein in the raised rotational position, a raised distance between the secondary edge of the third element (5) and the lower surface of the fourth element is at least 5 cm more than the lowered distance. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bed system of Chicinas '169 with a raised rotational position in which a raised distance between the secondary edge of the third element and the lower surface of the fourth element is at least 5 cm more than the lowered distance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 24, Chicinas '169 further teaches a condition wherein the first hinge axis (P1) and the second hinge axis (P2) are substantially parallel and wherein the first actuating rod and the second actuating rod are extending and/or retracting in substantially opposite directions, e.g. extending towards each other (as shown in Figures 1 & 3 and as described on page 2, in paragraph 0026).
With respect to claim 25, Chicinas '169 does not specifically disclose a condition wherein the first actuator (7) and the second actuator (8) are arranged side by side such that the first actuating rod and the second actuating rod are extending and/or retracting along substantially parallel offset directions. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bed system of Chicinas '169 with first and second actuators which are arranged side by side such that the first actuating rod and the second actuating rod are extending and/or retracting along substantially parallel offset directions, since such a modification would have been generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 30, Chicinas '169 does not specifically disclose a condition wherein the first actuating rod is not coupled to the first element (4) and is not coupled to the second element (2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the bed system of Chicinas '169 with a first actuating rod which is not coupled to the first element and to the second element, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
With respect to claims 31 and 32, Chicinas '169 does not specifically disclose conditions wherein a distance between the first hinge axis (P1) and the secondary edge of the first element (4) is more than 250 mm; and wherein the upper surface of the first element is formed by a first plate element having a thickness between 0.1 mm and 10 mm. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bed system of Chicinas '169 with a distance between the first hinge axis and the secondary edge of the first element being more than 250 mm; and with an upper surface of the first element being formed by a first plate element having a thickness between 0.1 mm and 10 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 33, Chicinas '169 further teaches a condition wherein the first element (4) and/or the second element (2) comprises an opening allowing at least a part of the first actuator (7) to protrude through the opening (as shown in Figures 1 & 3 and as described on page 2, in paragraph 0026).
With respect to claims 35 and 36, Chicinas '169 further teaches the claimed limitations wherein the first actuator (7) is configured to actively extend the first actuating rod from the retracted actuator position to the extended actuator position, and wherein the first actuator is configured to release the first actuating rod (as described on page 1, in paragraphs 0016 & 0017 and on page 2, in paragraphs 0024 & 0026); and wherein the first actuator (7) is configured to actively retract the first actuating rod from the extended actuator position to the retracted actuator position, and wherein the first actuator (7) is configured to release the first actuating rod (also as described on page 1, in paragraphs 0016 & 0017 and on page 2, in paragraphs 0024 & 0026).
With respect to claim 37, Chicinas '169 further teaches a condition wherein the first element (4) extends from a head side end to a foot side end along the first hinge axis (P1), and the bed system (1) comprising a first primary extension element (6) attached to the head side end of the first element (4), wherein the first primary extension element has an upper surface being substantially planar, and/or the bed system (1) comprising a first secondary extension element (6) attached to the foot side end of the first element (4), wherein the first secondary extension element has an upper surface being substantially planar (as shown in Figures 1 & 2 and as described on page 2, in paragraph 0024). However, Chicinas '169 does not specifically disclose a condition wherein the first primary extension element (6) and the first secondary extension element (6) are both flexibly attached to the first element (4). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bed system of Chicinas '169 with a first primary extension element and a first secondary extension element which are both flexibly attached to the first element, since such a modification would have been generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 38 and 39, Chicinas '169 further teach the claimed limitations of a bed comprising a bed base with a top surface for supporting a mattress (as shown in Figure 2 and as described on page 1, in paragraph 0014 and on page 2, in paragraph 0025), the bed further comprising the bed system (1), wherein the second element (2) of the bed system is attached to the top surface such that the bed system is arranged between the bed base and the mattress (also as shown in Figure 2 and as described on page 1, in paragraph 0014 and on page 2, in paragraph 0025); and wherein the second element (2) is configured to be attached to the top surface at a position corresponding to the hip of the person, and optionally wherein a fourth element (i.e., a right portion of element 2 as shown in Figures 1-3; accordingly, a left portion of element 2 also as shown in Figures 1-3 constitutes the second element) is configured to be attached to the top surface at a position corresponding to the hip of the person (also as shown in Figure 2 and as described on page 1, in paragraph 0014 and page 2, in paragraph 0025).
With respect to claim 40, Chicinas '169 further teaches the use of a control unit connected to the first actuator (7) and adapted to control extension and/or retraction of the first actuator (as described on page 1, in paragraphs 0016 & 0017 and as described on page 2, in paragraph 0024), but does not specifically disclose a condition wherein the control unit has a processing unit and electronic memory. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bed system assembly of Chicinas '169 with a control unit having a processing unit and electronic memory, since such a modification would have been generally considered as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribble et al. '911 in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,566,412 to Arnold. With respect to claims 26-29, Ribble et al. '911 do not specifically disclose conditions wherein the first element (210) has one or more first wedge structures facing the second element, the one or more first wedge structures being positioned to engage with the first actuating rod (372), such that extension or retraction of the first actuating rod causes engagement with the one or more first wedge structures and an oppositely arranged part of the second element (208) resulting in increase of the angle between the first element (210) and the second element; wherein the first actuating rod (372) is T-shaped having a longitudinal rod part extending along the direction of extension and/or retraction of the first actuating rod (372) and a transversal rod part at a distal end of the longitudinal rod part, wherein the one or more first wedge structures comprises a first primary wedge structure and a first secondary wedge structure being arranged on opposite sides of the longitudinal rod part of the first actuating rod (372), and wherein the one or more first wedge structures engage with the transversal rod part of the first actuating rod; wherein the one or more first wedge structures each comprises an engagement surface facing the second element (208), and wherein an engagement angle of the engagement surface relative to the upper surface of the first element (210) optionally is gradually decreasing towards the first hinge axis
and/or optionally has a magnitude of less than 45 degrees; and wherein the engagement of the first actuating rod (372) with the one or more first wedge structures results in change of the rotational position of the first element (210) relative to the second element (208) from the lowered rotational position to the raised rotational position. Arnold provides the basic teaching of a bed system (10) comprising a first element (14) and a second element (12) being hingedly attached along a first hinge axis (35a), and a first actuating rod (20, 21, 41) extending and/or retracting in a space between the first (14) and second (12) elements to effectuate change of the rotational position of the first element relative to the second element (12) between a lowered rotational position and a raised rotational position (as shown in Figures 1-3 and as described in column 2, lines 45-51 and in column 3, lines 51-63), wherein the first element (14) has one or more first wedge structures (44) facing the second element (12) (as shown in Figures 1-3 and as described in column 3, lines 51-63), the one or more first wedge structures being positioned to engage with the first actuating rod (20, 21, 41), such that extension or retraction of the first actuating rod causes engagement with the one or more first wedge structures (44) and an oppositely arranged part (40, 42) of the second element (12) resulting in increase of the angle between the first element (14) and the second element (also as shown in Figures 1-3 and as described in column 3, lines 51-63); wherein the first actuating rod (20, 21, 41) is T-shaped having a longitudinal rod part (20, 21) extending along the direction of extension and/or retraction of the first actuating rod and a transversal rod part (41) at a distal end of the longitudinal rod part, wherein the one or more first wedge structures (44) comprises a first primary wedge structure and a first secondary wedge structure being arranged on opposite
sides of the longitudinal rod part (20, 21) of the first actuating rod (20, 21, 41), and wherein the one or more first wedge structures (44) engage with the transversal rod part (41) of the first actuating rod (as shown in Figures 1-3 and as described in column 2, lines 45-51 & 63-64 and in column 3, lines 51-63); wherein the one or more first wedge structures (44) each comprises an engagement surface facing the second element (12) (as shown in Figures 1-3); and wherein the engagement of the first actuating rod (20, 21, 41) with the one or more first wedge structures (44) results in change of the rotational position of the first element (14) relative to the second element (12) from the lowered rotational position to the raised rotational position (also as shown in Figures 1-3 and as described in column 3, lines 51-63). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the bed system disclosed in Ribble et al. '911 with the one or more first wedge structures taught in Arnold with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing an alternative bed system arrangement which requires "fewer moving parts thereby reducing weight and cost" of the bed system as taught by Arnold (column 1, lines 62-65 and column 3, lines 59-63).
With further respect to claim 28, Ribble et al. '911 as modified by Arnold '412 does not specifically disclose a condition wherein an engagement angle of the engagement surface relative to the upper surface of the first element (23) optionally is gradually decreasing towards the first hinge axis (35a) and/or optionally has a magnitude of less than 45 degrees. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bed system of Ribble et al. '911 as modified by Arnold '412 with an engagement angle of the engagement surface relative to the upper surface of the first element which optionally gradually decreases towards the first hinge axis and/or optionally has a magnitude of less than 45 degrees, such as less than 35 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 30-32 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribble et al. '911. With respect to claim 30, Ribble et al. '911 does not specifically disclose a condition wherein the first actuating rod (372) is not coupled to the first element (210) and is not coupled to the second element (208). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the bed system of Ribble et al. '911 with a first actuating rod which is not coupled to the first element and to the second element, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
With respect to claims 31 and 32, Ribble et al. '911 does not specifically disclose conditions wherein a distance between the first hinge axis and the secondary edge of the first element (210) is more than 250 mm; and wherein the upper surface of the first element is formed by a first plate element having a thickness between 0.1 mm and 10 mm. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bed system of Ribble et al. '911 with a distance between the first hinge axis and the secondary edge of the first element being more than 250 mm; and with an upper surface of the first element being formed by a first plate element having a thickness between 0.1 mm and 10 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 40, Ribble et al. '911 does not specifically disclose a bed system assembly comprising the bed system (200), and a control unit having a processing unit and electronic memory, wherein the control unit is connected to the first actuator (368) and adapted to control extension and/or retraction of the first actuator. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bed system assembly of Ribble et al. '911 with a control unit having a processing unit and electronic memory, wherein the control unit is connected to the first actuator and adapted to control extension and/or retraction of the first actuator, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s arguments on page 7 of the amendment stating that the claim objections, claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) and claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 as indicated in the previous Office action have been fully overcome, the examiner respectfully agrees. Accordingly, these claim objections and claim rejections have been respectfully withdrawn.
Furthermore, in response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-10 and 13 of the amendment stating that the Office action “asserts that Figure 7 of Ribble meets each and every element of the instant claims”, the examiner respectfully agrees. As indicated above in paragraph 4 of this Office action and as specified in paragraph 10 of the previous Office action, Figures 2-4 and page 4, paragraphs 0055-0058 of the cited Ribble et al. ‘911 reference are clearly used to disclose the claimed limitations of a bed system (200) comprising a first element (210) and a second element (208) being hingedly attached along a first hinge axis as explicitly recited in Applicant’s independent claim 21. For clarification purposes, this current Office action does not refer to the actuator (368) of the mechanism illustrated in Figure 7 of Ribble et al. ‘911, and now refers to the actuator as described on page 7, in paragraph 0080 pertaining to the embodiment as shown in Figure 10 (which also comprises a single axis of rotation) and to the actuator as described on page 7, in paragraph 0084, which states:
“It should be appreciated that any of the adjustable frames described
above may be operable with an actuator, for example, a motor, a jack,
a screw jack, a hydraulic cylinder, a crank, or the like.”
Consequently, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 with respect to the cited Ribble et al. ‘911 reference have been respectfully maintained.
Lastly, with respect to Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-12 of the amendment stating that Chicinas “teaches away from the claimed self-contained architecture and is non-enabling with respect to a linear actuator”, the examiner also respectfully disagrees. As disclosed on page 2, in paragraph 0024 of the cited Chicinas ‘169 reference, the bed system (1) is “ready to be attached to an existing bed for turning a patient in order to avoid pressure sores.” Thus, the bed system of Chicinas ‘169, including the first element (4), the second element (2), and the first actuator (7) thereof, can reasonably be considered as a self-contained structure which is clearly designed to be fully integrated into an existing bed assembly. Accordingly, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to the cited Chicinas ‘169 reference have also been respectfully maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 34 is 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. As stated in paragraph 17 of the previous Office action, the examiner respectfully asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the respective bed systems of Ribble et al. ‘911 and Chicinas ‘169 to include the specific structural configuration and cooperation between the first element, the first opening, the second actuator, the third element, the third opening and the first actuator as recited in dependent claim 34.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: CN 119156193 A to Kock et al. is a foreign patent document which is in the same patent family as this application.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT G SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-7048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-11:30am and 2pm-7:30pm.
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 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.
/ROBERT G SANTOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights