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 Figures 1-10 (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on January 15, 2026 is acknowledged. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: ON page 10, the last line of the page, “a instruction” should read –an instruction--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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.
With regard to claim 1, the term “can” (three instances) in claim 1 introduces indefiniteness into the overall scope of protection sought by the claim. Examiner is unsure if the limitation following after 'can' is required or optional as the term "can” could be interpreted to express possibility. As such, Examiner suggests amending the claim to clarify or further remove the term from Claim 1.
With regard to claims 2-7, in that claims 2-7 depend, either directly or indirectly from claim 1, claims 2-7 are similarly rejected.
With regard to claim 8, the term “can” (one instance) in claim 8 introduces indefiniteness into the overall scope of protection sought by the claim. Examiner is unsure if the limitation following after 'can' is required or optional as the term "can” could be interpreted to express possibility. As such, Examiner suggests amending the claim to clarify or further remove the term from Claim 8.
With regard to claims 9-11, in that claims 9-11 depend, either directly or indirectly from claim 8, claims 9-11 are similarly rejected.
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) 1-3 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPAP 2009/0094744 (Benzo et al. hereinafter).
With regard to claim 1, insofar as claim 1 is definite, Benzo et al. discloses a care bed comprising a bed body,
the bed body comprising:
a first support part (63) for supporting a lower body; and
a second support part (62) for supporting an upper body,
wherein the bed body is divided into at least the first support part (63) and the second support part (62) in a width direction of the bed body (Fig.’s 3 and 5),
the first support part (63) is a movable body that can rotate around a rotation axis (65, 85) extending along a longitudinal direction of the bed body,
the second support part (62) is a movable body that can rotate around the rotation axis (65, 85),
the first support part (63) and the second support part (62) can rotate independently of each other (paragraphs [0065], [0068], [0069], [0074] and [0075]) around the rotation axis (65, 85), and
the rotation axis (65, 85) is located above the first support part (63) and the second support part (62).
With regard to claim 2, insofar as claim 1 is definite, Benzo et al. discloses the care bed according to claim 1, further comprising:
a first drive unit (11, Fig. 7) that rotates the first support part (63) around the rotation axis (65, 85); and
a second drive unit (11, Fig. 6) that rotates the second support part (62) around the rotation axis (65, 85).
With regard to claim 3, insofar as claim 1 is definite, Benzo et al. discloses the care bed according to claim 2, further comprising a control unit (5, 13, paragraphs [0137], [0142]) that generates a control signal to instruct operation of the first drive unit (11, Fig. 7) and the second drive unit (11, Fig. 6), and outputs the control signal to the first drive unit (11, Fig. 7) and the second drive unit (11, Fig. 6).
With regard to claim 8, insofar as claim 1 is definite, Benzo et al. discloses a care bed comprising a bed body,
the bed body comprising:
a first support part (63) for supporting a lower body; and
a second support part (62) for supporting an upper body,
wherein the bed body is divided into at least the first support part (63) and the second support part (62) in a width direction of the bed body (Fig.’s 3 and 5),
the first support part (63) is a movable body that can rotate around a rotation axis (65, 85) extending along a longitudinal direction of the bed body, and
the rotation axis (65, 85) is located above the first support part (63).
With regard to claim 9, insofar as claim 1 is definite, Benzo et al. discloses the care bed according to claim 8, further comprising a drive unit that rotates the first support part (63) around the rotation axis (65, 85).
With regard to claim 10, insofar as claim 1 is definite, Benzo et al. discloses the care bed according to claim 9, further comprising a control unit (5, 13, paragraphs [0137], [0142]) that generates a control signal to instruct operation of the drive unit and outputs the control signal to the drive unit.
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) 4-7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benzo et al.
With regard to claim 4, insofar as claim 4 is definite, Benzo et al. discloses all of the limitations except for wherein the control unit outputs a first signal to instruct rotation of the first support part to the first drive unit, and after the instruction is finished, the control unit outputs a second signal to the first drive unit and the second drive unit to instruct rotation of the first support part and the second support part to further increase a tilting angle of the first support part.
Benzo et al. discloses in paragraph [0068] that the bed can move in both vertical and lateral directions to modulate the patient support surface in various ways and paragraph [0100] discloses that the adjustable bed facilitates a wide variety of modulations of the patient support surface while paragraph [0105] discloses
These and other desired therapeutic effects can be achieved by acting on the preferably at least six independently movable points or segments of perimeter area, in conjunction with various movements of the articulating torso support base structure 2, hip support base structure 3 and leg support base structure 4. These six lateral points or segments of perimeter area are preferably positioned at or near areas of the patient support surface corresponding to the right shoulder, the left shoulder, the right waist or lower thorax, the left waist or lower thorax, the right hip, and the left hip of a patient resting on the patient support surface. The position of the lower-body supporting section 82 of the patient support surface 36 is indirectly affected by modulation of the other perimeter points or sections. In principle, the greater the number of independently movable vertices, the greater the number of possible configurations into which the patient support surface 36 can be modulated.
What this means is that how the bed is moved and the degree to which it is moved is dependent upon the care needed for a patient. It is known that the way in which the bed is moved and to what degree the portions of the bed are rotated determines the appropriate care for a patient. Therefore, the way in which the bed is moved and to what degree the portions of the bed are rotated is considered a result effective variable. Since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to make the apparatus of Benzo et al. with the control unit outputting a first signal to instruct rotation of the first support part to the first drive unit, and after the instruction is finished, the control unit outputs a second signal to the first drive unit and the second drive unit to instruct rotation of the first support part and the second support part to further increase a tilting angle of the first support part, rotation angles of the first support part and the second support part that respond to the second signal be the same (or different), a rotation angle at which the first support part rotates in response to the first signal is 2 to 5 degrees and/or rotation angles at which the first support part and the second support part rotate in response to the second signal is 2 to 5 degrees with the goal of improving patient outcomes. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 198).
With regard to claim 5, insofar as claim 5 is definite, the Benzo et al. modification with regard to claim 4 discloses the care bed according to claim 4, wherein rotation angles of the first support part (63) and the second support part (62) that respond to the second signal are the same.
With regard to claim 6, insofar as claim 6 is definite, the Benzo et al. modification with regard to claim 4 discloses the care bed according to claim 4, wherein a rotation angle at which the first support part (63) rotates in response to the first signal is 2 to 5 degrees.
With regard to claim 7, insofar as claim 7 is definite, the Benzo et al. modification with regard to claim 4 discloses the care bed according to claim 6, wherein rotation angles at which the first support part (63) and the second support part (62) rotate in response to the second signal is 2 to 5 degrees.
With regard to claim 11, insofar as claim 11 is definite, the Benzo et al. modification with regard to claim 4 discloses the care bed according to claim 10, wherein a rotation angle of the first support part (63) at which the first support part (63) rotates in response to the control signal is 2 to 5 degrees.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPAP’s 2023/0301853, 2019/0336369, 2016/0193098, 2016/0095773, 2016/0089287, 2015/0059094, 2014/0250598, 2014/0033434, 2006/0162079, 2006/0117479 and 2022/0160141 and USP’s 6,260,220, 5,208,928 and 4,195,829 disclose beds 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