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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed May 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claim 11, Applicant argues that Ponsi fails to disclose first and second slots extending through an upper support surface and a lower surface. Examiner disagrees. Ponsi shows these slots clearly in Figures 7c and 7d.
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.
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPAP 2013/0205495 (Ponsi et al. hereinafter).
With regard to claim 11, Ponsi et al. discloses a patient support apparatus, comprising:
an upper frame defining a first slot (38) and a second slot (38), extending through an upper support surface and a lower surface (Fig.’s 7c and 7d each show an upper and lower support surface with slots, 31);
first and second mating connectors; and
a surface assembly (20) positionable on the upper support surface, wherein the surface assembly (20) includes:
an outer ticking (23);
a first strap (30, Fig. 1)(30, Fig. 1) extending from the outer ticking (23);
a second strap (30, Fig. 1) extending from the outer ticking (23), the first strap (30, Fig. 1) being on an opposing side of a centerline of the surface assembly (20) compared to the second strap; and
a strap connector (33) coupled to a distal end of each of the first strap (30, Fig. 1) and the second strap, wherein the first strap (30, Fig. 1) extends through the first slot (38) below the surface assembly (20) to engage the first mating connector and the second strap (30, Fig. 1) extends through the second slot (38) below the surface assembly (20) to engage the second mating connector to couple the surface assembly (20) to the upper frame.
With regard to claim 12, Ponsi et al. discloses the patient support apparatus of claim 11, wherein the first strap (30, Fig. 1) and the second strap (30, Fig. 1) extend from a bottom surface of the outer ticking (23), through the first and second slots (38), along the lower surface, and along first and second side surfaces, respectively, of the upper frame.
With regard to claim 13, Ponsi et al. discloses the patient support apparatus of claim 11, wherein the first and second mating connectors are coupled to the outer ticking (23).
With regard to claim 14, Ponsi et al. discloses the patient support apparatus of claim 11, wherein the first slot (38) and the second slot (38) extend between a head end and a foot end of the upper frame, and wherein the upper frame includes a head end segment, a foot end segment, and a base segment (Fig.’s 7c and 7d), and further wherein the first slot (38) and the second slot (38) are defined in the head end segment.
With regard to claim 15, Ponsi et al. discloses the patient support apparatus of claim 14, wherein a third slot (38) and a fourth slot (38) are defined in the foot segment, and wherein the surface assembly (20) includes a third strap configured to extend through the third slot (38) and a fourth strap configured to extend through the fourth slot (38).
With regard to claim 16, Ponsi et al. discloses the patient support apparatus of claim 14, wherein an engagement between the strap connectors (33) and the first and second mating connectors is maintained while permitting a sliding engagement between the surface assembly (20) and the upper support surface as the head end segment is rotated relative to the base segment to reduce bunching of the surface assembly (20) at a bend between the head end segment and the base segment.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ponsi et al. in view of USP 10,500,115 (Weedling hereinafter).
With regard to claim 1, Ponsi et al. discloses a patient support apparatus, comprising:
a frame assembly (14) including an upper frame having an upper support surface, a lower surface, and first and second side surfaces extending between the support surface and the lower surface;
a surface assembly (20) positioned on the upper support surface, wherein the surface assembly (20) includes:
an outer ticking (23);
first straps (30, Fig. 1) extending from the outer ticking (23) proximate to a head end of the surface assembly (20);
second straps (30, Fig. 1) extending from the outer ticking (23) proximate to a foot end of the surface assembly (20); and
a strap connector (33) coupled to a distal end of each of the first and second straps (30, Fig. 1), respectively; and
mating connectors coupled to at least one of the upper frame and the outer ticking (23), wherein the first and second straps (30, Fig. 1) are configured to extend along the first and second side surfaces (Fig.’s 7c, 7d and 8a-8d) to engage with the mating connectors to couple the surface assembly (20) to the upper frame, and wherein an engagement between the strap connectors (33) and the mating connectors is maintained while permitting a sliding engagement between the upper support surface and the outer ticking (23) as the upper frame articulates between multiple positions. The strap employs a hook and loop connection structure, doubling back on itself and therefore, the other of the hook and lop structure is connected to the strap and connected to the outer ticking.
Ponsi et al. does not disclose wherein the mating connectors are separate from the first and second straps.
Weedling teaches multiple straps (62-64) attached to a surface assembly (10) for moving patients wherein the mating connectors (buckles 60, 61) are separate from the straps (62-64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the apparatus disclosed by Ponsi et al. by providing that the wherein the mating connectors are separate from the first and second straps as taught by Weedling for the purposes of providing a known alternative means of connection with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ponsi et al. in view of Weedling and in further view of USPAP 2018/0125259 (Peterson et al. hereinafter).
With regard to claim 4, Ponsi et al. discloses all of the limitations except for wherein the mating connectors are magnets, and wherein the strap connectors are at least one of magnets and metal features.
Peterson et al. teaches a magnetic coupler for attaching a mattress to a bed frame (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Ponsi et al. so that the mating connectors are magnets, and wherein the strap connectors are at least one of magnets and metal features as disclosed in Peterson et al. for the purposes of providing an alternative connection method.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ponsi et al.
With regard to claim 21, Ponsi et al. discloses all of the limitations except for further comprising:
third and fourth mating connectors, wherein the upper frame defines a third slot and a fourth slot extending between the upper support surface and the lower surface, and wherein the surface assembly includes a third strap and a fourth strap, and further wherein the third strap extends through the third slot below the surface assembly to engage the third mating connector and the fourth strap extends through the fourth slot below the surface assembly to engage the fourth mating connector to couple the surface assembly to the upper frame.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide third and fourth mating connectors, wherein the upper frame defines a third slot and a fourth slot extending between the upper support surface and the lower surface, and wherein the surface assembly includes a third strap and a fourth strap, and further wherein the third strap extends through the third slot below the surface assembly to engage the third mating connector and the fourth strap extends through the fourth slot below the surface assembly to engage the fourth mating connector to couple the surface assembly to the upper frame, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 22-24 are 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.
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.
/AARON R EASTMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights