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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 20—39 have been examined in this application. Claims 1—19 have been canceled. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 05/15/2025 has been acknowledged by the Office.
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.
Claim 20 & 39 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.
Claim 20 & 30 recites the limitation "the torque tube" in the final paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
scale means for weighing
user interface means for providing controls
graphical user interface means for providing a menu
notification means for indicating armed, unarmed
mattress means for supporting a patient
in claim39.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 20, 23, 25—30, 33 & 35—38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S Patent Application 2007/0157385 A1 to Lemire et al. (Lemire hereafter).
As per claim 20, Lemire teaches:
A powered drive assembly for a patient support apparatus (204-Fig.10; para [0159])comprises: a frame including a pair of rails (210-Fig.9; para [0217]), and a crossmember interconnecting the pair of rails (238-Fig.9; para [0217]); a powered drive support platform pivotably coupled to the frame (228-Fig.10; para [0179]); a powered drive supported on the powered drive support platform and operable to provide a driving force when engaged with a floor (224-Fig.10; para [0180]);
a plurality of flanges (240-Fig.10; para [0182]) supported on a shaft (270-Fig.10; para [0183]) and rotatable about a first axis defined by the shaft (272-Fig.10; para [0183-184]: flange 240 moves about axle via 270 & 272); a powered actuator positioned on the frame (236-Fig.10; para [0183])and operable to cause rotation of the flanges about the first axis (236-Fig.10; para [0184]); and a bias (250-Fig.10; para [0179]) member secured to the torque tube (226-Fig.10; para [0179]), the bias member operable to move with the flanges when the flanges are rotated by the actuator (element 232 & 250; para [0184]), bias member configured to transfer the movement of the flanges to move the powered drive platform between an extended and retracted position (element 250; para [0184]).
As per claim 23, Lemire teaches:
The powered drive assembly of claim 20, wherein the actuator is pivotably coupled to the flanges (236-Fig.10; para [0184]) and pivotable about a fourth axis parallel to the first and second axes (para [0184]).
As per claim 25, Lemire teaches:
The powered drive assembly of claim 20, wherein the frame is configured to be supported on a base of a patient support apparatus (200-Fig.1).
As per claim 26, Lemire teaches:
The powered drive assembly of claim 25, wherein the rails are configured as downwardly opening channels (210-Fig.9; para [0217]: rail open channels extending downward).
As per claim 27, Lemire teaches:
The powered drive assembly of claim 20, further comprising: a control box including circuity for controlling the power drive (229 & 230-Fig.10; para [0179]).
As per claim 28, Lemire teaches:
The powered drive assembly of claim 27, wherein the circuitry includes a controller for the actuator (para [0373]) and a motor speed controller for controlling the speed of the power drive (para [0352]).
As per claim 29, Lemire teaches:
The powered drive assembly of claim 28, wherein the power drive comprises a wheel (224-Fig.10; para [0184]) and a drive motor operable to rotate the wheel (258-Fig.10; para [0182]).
As per claim 30, Lemire teaches:
A patient support apparatus (100-Fig.1; para [0163])
comprises: a base frame (200-Fig.1; para [0159]); and a powered drive assembly for a patient support apparatus (204-Fig.10; para [0159]), the powered drive assembly comprising: a frame including a pair of rails (210-Fig.9; para [0217]), and a crossmember interconnecting the pair of rails (238-Fig.9; para [0217]), the frame of the powered drive assembly supported on the base frame (200-Fig.10; para [0179]); a powered drive support platform pivotably coupled to the frame (228-Fig.10; para [0180]);
a powered drive wheel supported on the powered drive support platform and operable to provide a driving force when engaged with a floor (224-Fig.10; para [0180]); a plurality of flanges supported (240-Fig.10; para [0183]) on a shaft and rotatable about a first axis defined by the shaft (272-Fig.10; para [0183]); a powered actuator positioned on the frame and operable to cause rotation of the flanges about the first axis (236-Fig.10; para [0183]); and a bias member secured to the torque tube (226-Fig.10; para [0184]), the bias member operable to move with the flanges when the flanges are rotated by the actuator (250 & 232-Fig.10; para [0184]), bias member configured to transfer the movement of the flanges to move the powered drive platform between an extended where the powered drive wheel engages the floor and retracted position (250 & 232-Fig.10; para [0184]).
As per claim 33, Lemire teaches:
The patient support apparatus of claim 30, wherein the actuator is pivotably coupled to the flanges(236-Fig.10; para [0184]) and pivotable about a fourth axis parallel to the first and second axes(236-Fig.10; para [0184]).
As per claim 35, Lemire teaches:
The patient support apparatus of claim 30, wherein the bias member maintains the powered wheel in contact with resilient down pressure to maintain the wheel in engagement with the floor such (para [0184]) that the resilience of the bias member allows for the bias member to contract or extend over discontinuities in the floor (element 250; para [0184]).
As per claim 36, Lemire teaches:
The patient support apparatus of claim 30, further comprising: a control box including circuity for controlling the power drive (229 & 230-Fig.10; para [0179]).
As per claim 37, Lemire teaches:
The patient support apparatus of claim 36, wherein the circuitry includes a controller for the actuator (para [0373]) and a motor speed controller for controlling the speed of the power drive (para [0352]).
As per claim 38, Lemire teaches:
The patient support apparatus of claim 37, wherein the power drive comprises a wheel and a drive motor operable to rotate the wheel (258-Fig.10; para [0182]).
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) 21, 22, 24,31, 32 & 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2007/0157385 A1 to Lemire in view of U.S Patent Application 2008/0086815 A1 to Kappeler et al. (Kappeler hereafter).
As per claim 21, Lemire teaches: The powered drive assembly of claim 20.
Lemire does not teach, wherein the powered drive platform is pivotable about a second axis parallel to and spaced apart from the first axis.
Kappeler teaches: wherein the powered drive platform is pivotable about a second axis parallel to and spaced apart from the first axis (224-Fig.12A; para [0073]: rotatable about 236 parallel to 230).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Lemire (directed to a patient support provided with a power drive assembly) and Kappeler (directed to a patient support provided a drive platform is pivotable about a second axis parallel to and spaced apart from the first axis) and arrived at a patient support provided with a drive platform is pivotable about a second axis parallel to and spaced apart from the first axis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for pivoting movement about a generally horizontal second shaft to ensure good traction in order to be able to move the apparatus, even when the apparatus is transporting a heavy patient as taught in Kappeler (para [0073] & [0081]).
As per claim 22, Lemire teaches: The powered drive assembly of claim 20.
Lemire does not teach, wherein the bias member is pivotably coupled to the flanges and pivotable about a third axis parallel to the first and second axes.
Kappeler teaches: wherein the bias member (340-Fig.12A; para [0080]) is pivotably coupled to the flanges (340 & 292-Fig.12A; para [0080]) and pivotable about a third axis parallel to the first and second axes (310-Fig.12A; para [0080]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Lemire (directed to a patient support provided with a power drive assembly) and Kappeler (directed to a patient support provided with bias member is pivotably coupled to the flanges and pivotable about a third axis parallel to the first and second axes) and arrived at a patient support provided with a power drive assembly including a bias member is pivotably coupled to the flanges and pivotable about a third axis parallel to the first and second axes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to ensure good traction in order to be able to move the apparatus, even when the apparatus 10 is transporting a heavy patient as taught in Kappeler (para [0081]).
As per claim 24, Lemire teaches: The powered drive assembly of claim 23.
Lemire does not teach, wherein the third and fourth axes are not collinear.
Kappeler teaches, wherein the third (282-Fig.12A; para [0076]) and fourth axes are not collinear (236-Fig.12A; para [0073]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Lemire (directed to a patient support provided with a power drive assembly) and Kappeler (directed to a patient support provided with bias member is pivotably coupled to the flanges and pivotable about a third axis parallel to the first and second axes the third and fourth axes are not collinear) and arrived at a patient support provided with a power drive assembly including a bias member is pivotably coupled to the flanges and pivotable about a third axis parallel to the first and second axes the third and fourth axes are not collinear. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to ensure good traction in order to be able to move the apparatus, even when the apparatus 10 is transporting a heavy patient as taught in Kappeler (para [0081]).
As per claim 31, Lemire teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 30.
Lemire does not teach, wherein the powered drive platform is pivotable about a second axis parallel to and spaced apart from the first axis.
Kappeler teaches: wherein the powered drive platform is pivotable about a second axis parallel to and spaced apart from the first axis (224-Fig.12A; para [0073]: rotatable about 236 parallel to 230).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Lemire (directed to a patient support provided with a power drive assembly) and Kappeler (directed to a patient support provided a drive platform is pivotable about a second axis parallel to and spaced apart from the first axis) and arrived at a patient support provided with a drive platform is pivotable about a second axis parallel to and spaced apart from the first axis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for pivoting movement about a generally horizontal second shaft to ensure good traction in order to be able to move the apparatus, even when the apparatus is transporting a heavy patient as taught in Kappeler (para [0073] & [0081]).
As per claim 32, Lemire teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 30.
Lemire does not teach, wherein the bias member is pivotably coupled to the flanges and pivotable about a third axis parallel to the first and second axes.
Kappeler teaches: wherein the bias member (340-Fig.12A; para [0080]) is pivotably coupled to the flanges (340 & 292-Fig.12A; para [0080]) and pivotable about a third axis parallel to the first and second axes (310-Fig.12A; para [0080]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Lemire (directed to a patient support provided with a power drive assembly) and Kappeler (directed to a patient support provided with bias member is pivotably coupled to the flanges and pivotable about a third axis parallel to the first and second axes) and arrived at a patient support provided with a power drive assembly including a bias member is pivotably coupled to the flanges and pivotable about a third axis parallel to the first and second axes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to ensure good traction in order to be able to move the apparatus, even when the apparatus 10 is transporting a heavy patient as taught in Kappeler (para [0081]).
As per claim 34, Lemire teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 33.
Lemire does not teach, wherein the third and fourth axes are not collinear.
Kappeler teaches, wherein the third (282-Fig.12A; para [0076]) and fourth axes are not collinear (236-Fig.12A; para [0073]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Lemire (directed to a patient support provided with a power drive assembly) and Kappeler (directed to a patient support provided with bias member is pivotably coupled to the flanges and pivotable about a third axis parallel to the first and second axes the third and fourth axes are not collinear) and arrived at a patient support provided with a power drive assembly including a bias member is pivotably coupled to the flanges and pivotable about a third axis parallel to the first and second axes the third and fourth axes are not collinear. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to ensure good traction in order to be able to move the apparatus, even when the apparatus 10 is transporting a heavy patient as taught in Kappeler (para [0081]).
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2007/0157385 A1 to Lemire in view of U.S Patent Application 2008/0063003 A1 to O’Neal (O’Neal hereafter).
As per claim 39, Lemire teaches:
The patient support apparatus of claim 30, wherein the patient support apparatus further includes: a control network (para [0559]) including a plurality of nodes arranged with multiple levels and a nurse call system includes a node connected to the network of the patient support apparatus(para [0560-562]), wherein at least some of the nodes are wireless nodes (para [562]); scale means for weighing a patient and maintaining a weight history of the patient (para [562]); user interface means for providing controls to a user including graphical user interface means for providing a menu driven user interface for operating components of the patient support apparatus (para [0559]); notification means for indicating armed, unarmed (para [0643]), and patient position status through a plurality of different indicators (para[0589]); and mattress means for supporting a patient (para [0161]).
Lemire does not teach, and wherein each node maintains an independent public/private key pair such that a grandparent certificate authority maintains a chain of certificates linking each key to the public key of a parent or to a respective child to create a down-tree network of trust to be established.
O’Neal teaches and wherein each node maintains an independent public/private key pair (para [0469]) such that a grandparent certificate authority maintains a chain of certificates linking each key to the public key of a parent or to a respective child to create a down-tree network of trust to be established (para [0324]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Lemire (directed to a patient support provided with a power drive assembly) and O’Neal(directed to a control network wherein each node maintains an independent public/private key pair such that a grandparent certificate authority maintains a chain of certificates linking each key to the public key of a parent or to a respective child to create a down-tree network) and arrived at a patient support provided with a power drive assembly including a control network wherein each node maintains an independent public/private key pair such that a grandparent certificate authority maintains a chain of certificates linking each key to the public key of a parent or to a respective child to create a down-tree network. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to protect a patient’s data by using encryption via a public/private key mechanism as taught in O’Neal (para [048]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S Patent Application 2006/0059623 A1 to Karmer teaches: A bariatric transport is provided. The transport includes a bed area for use by a bariatric patient. The transport further includes a drive assembly that is operable to selectively drive the transport in forward and rearward directions and permit turning of the transport with little or no lateral movement of the transport. Leading and trailing stabilizing wheel assemblies are provided that are selectively moveable into and out of engagement with a supporting floor. Drive devices are also provided to provide selective elevating and lowering of various components of bariatric patient supports.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Deborah T Gedeon whose telephone number is (571)272-8863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am to 4:30pm EST.
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 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.
/D.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3673 05/02/2025
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights