Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/916,028

ATTACHMENT SYSTEM FOR PATIENT SUPPORT APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 15, 2024
Examiner
EASTMAN, AARON ROBERT
Art Unit
3673
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Hill-Rom Services, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
697 granted / 878 resolved
+27.4% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
905
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
40.9%
+0.9% vs TC avg
§102
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
§112
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 878 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of the species of Fig. 12 (claims 1, 4, 7, 8 and 11-16) in the reply filed on January 2, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 17-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 2, 2026. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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) 1, 8 and 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 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. With regard to claim 8, Ponsi et al. discloses the patient support apparatus of claim 1, wherein the upper frame defines slots (38), and wherein the first straps (30, Fig. 1) and the second straps (30, Fig. 1) are configured to extend through the slots (38) to engage the mating connectors. 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), wherein the upper frame includes an upper support surface and a lower surface; 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) to engage the first mating connector and the second strap (30, Fig. 1) extends through the second slot (38) 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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ponsi et al. in 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPAP’s 2020/0360206, 2020/0323718, 2021/0353476, 2021/0186230, 2010/0050339, 2013/0192001, 2016/0279005, 2012/0186587, 2018/0310734 and 2015/0052684 as well as USP’s 7,975,330, 7,849,533, 6,652,140, 10,500,115, 8,856,985, 7,739,758, 7,243,382, 3,135,971, 1,559,119, 1,642,140, 3,672,364, 5,974,606, 6,957,455, 6,708,356, 1,963,739 and 2,677,834 each disclose bedding connections similar to that claimed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON R EASTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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. /AARON R EASTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 15, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595767
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENGINE WEAR REDUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584423
TURBINE AND TURBOCHARGER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577881
TURBINE SHROUD ASSEMBLIES WITH ANTI-MIGRATION SEALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571410
BRACE FOR CEILING DROP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571329
ALTERING STRUCTURAL RESPONSE OF TWO-PIECE HOLLOW-VANE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+18.5%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 878 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month