DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 12/5/24. Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1-19 are rejected.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-43 of U.S. Patent No. 10,849,804.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each 6. other because the subject matter of the recited claims can be found entirely within the subject matter of the claims of the patented claims, with nearly identical language, including, inter alia, "a frame," "a plurality of extendable patient support panels," "a movement transmission," "a plurality of flexible transmission members," “a width adjustment actuator,” a cable core and a sheath surrounding the cable core,“ as well as various other structures which are recited in both the conflicting patent and the instant Application. The claims of the instant Application are therefore fully encompassed by the claims of the patent regardless of minor differences in the scope of the claims. Furthermore, to the degree to which the claims are different from the patented claims, the changes would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,186,247.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each 6. other because the subject matter of the recited claims can be found entirely within the subject matter of the claims of the patented claims, with nearly identical language, including, inter alia, "a frame," "a plurality of extendable patient support panels," "a movement transmission," "a plurality of flexible transmission members,” called flexible control cables in the conflicting patent, “a width adjustment actuator,” as well as various other structures which are recited in both the conflicting patent and the instant Application. The claims of the instant Application are therefore fully encompassed by the claims of the patent regardless of minor differences in the scope of the claims. Furthermore, to the degree to which the claims are different from the patented claims, the changes would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the recited claims can be found entirely within the subject matter of the claims of the patented claims. The claims of the instant Application are therefore fully encompassed by (and anticipated by) the claims of the patent regardless of the differing scope of the claims. Furthermore, to the degree to which the claims are different from the patented claims, the changes would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “…such that the at least one of the first and second endboard portions moves laterally towards when the at least one side section is moved laterally.“ This appears to be a grammatical error. For purposes of examination, the word “towards” has been disregarded. Appropriate correction is required.
In view of the above rejections the respective claims are rejected as best understood on prior art as follows:
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 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; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2017/0143566 to Elku et al. (“Elku”).
Claim 1. A bed comprising: a frame (Elku, Fig. 1); a plurality of extendable patient support panels (Elku, Fig. 20, #2031, 2032, 2033, 2034) mounted to the frame, each patient support panel comprising a central section (Elku, Fig. 6, deck #104 including #105, 107) and at least one side section (Elku, Fig. 20, #2031, 2032, 2033, 2034 are side sections) selectively movable laterally towards and away from the central section to adjust a width of the patient support panel (Elku, see Figs. 17-19), the at least one side section being slidably connected (Elku, see Figs. 17-19) to the central section; an extendable endboard (Elku, see Figs. 33A, 33B, 33C) mounted to the frame, the endboard comprising a first endboard portion and a second endboard portion (Elku, Fig. 32, #2106a, 2106b) slidably connected to the first endboard portion, the first and second endboard portions being movable laterally towards and away from each other to adjust a width of the endboard (Elku, see Figs. 33A, 33B, 33C); and a movement transmission assembly mechanically connecting at least one of the first and second endboard portions to the at least one side section such that the at least one of the first and second endboard portions moves laterally towards when the at least one side section is moved laterally (Elku, Fig. 74 #4060 and paragraphs [0400]-[0403]).
Claim 12. The bed of claim 1, wherein the endboard is adapted to be selectively extended and contracted simultaneously with the patient support panels at the same speed as the patient support panels (the bed of Elku is capable of the claimed movement, see at least paragraph [0243], notably, “the headboard may be driven by an actuator in which the two-pieces do slide”).
Claim 13. The bed of claim 1, wherein the endboard includes a horizontal guide rod slidably engaging the first and second endboard portions (Elku, Figs. 73-74 #4012, and paragraphs [0397]-[0398])
Claim 14. The bed of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the first and second endboard portions moves by a same given distance than the at least one side section (Elku, paragraphs [0017] and [0243]-[0244], the headboard extends to eliminate gaps between the headboard and side rails).
Claim 15. The bed of claim 1, wherein: the frame comprises an end frame member extending transversely to a longitudinal axis of the bed; the endboard is mounted to the end frame member; the endboard includes an extension member adapted to move laterally towards and away from the end frame member; and the first endboard portion is mounted to the extension member (Elku, Figs. 73-74 #4012, and paragraphs [0397]-[0398]).
Claim 16. The bed of claim 15, wherein the end frame member is hollow and houses the extension member (Elku, Figs. 73-74 #4012, and paragraphs [0397]-[0398]).
Claim 17. The bed of claim 1, wherein the first and second endboard portions overlap at least partially and are substantially complementary in shape such that the endboard maintains a same thickness (Elku, see Figs. 32-35).
Claim 18. The bed of claim 1, wherein one of the first and second endboard portions defines an internal cavity sized and shaped to receive and encase at least part of the other one of the first and second endboard portions (Elku, see Figs. 32-35).
Claim 19. The bed of claim 1, wherein the endboard is a headboard (Elku, Fig. 1 discloses a headboard).
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 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 of this title, 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2017/0143566 to Elku et al. (“Elku”).
Claim 12. The bed of claim 1, wherein the endboard is adapted to be selectively extended and contracted simultaneously with the patient support panels at the same speed as the patient support panels (to the degree that it is unclear if the bed of Elko provides simultaneous movement of endboards and support panels, the extendable portions of the bed are capable of being motor driven, see paragraph [0403], and the headboard is also capable of being motor driven; furthermore, Elku expresses the desire to “leave no gap” between the head board and siderail portions, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the bed such that the endboard/headboard extend and contract simultaneously with the bed width extension boards in order to eliminate the gaps between them).
Discussion of allowable subject matter
Regarding claims 2-11, Applicant’s claim limitations directed toward flexible transmission members, and their structural details, are not found in the prior art. Subject to the above double patenting rejections, independent claim 1 would be allowable if amended to include the limitations of claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached on 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.
/MYLES A THROOP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673