Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 12-16 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 12 recites the limitation "a patient support deck" and “wherein the patient support deck converts to a wider patient support surface at one or more sections of the hospital bed”, while parent claim 1 already requires “a patient support deck” and “wherein the patient support deck converts to a wider patient support surface at one or more sections of the hospital bed.” It appears that applicant intended for Claim 12 to depend from Claim 7 and not Claim 1, as evidenced by the redundant aforementioned limitations. For prior art examination purposes, Examiner is interpreting Claim 12 as depending from Claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Poulos (US PG-Pub 2006/0053555).
Regarding Claim 1, Poulos discloses a hospital bed (10), comprising:
a base frame assembly (32);
an intermediate frame assembly (72 and 74), the intermediate frame assembly coupled to the base frame assembly;
a patient support assembly (19), the patient support assembly coupled to the intermediate frame assembly; and
a patient support deck (20), the patient support deck coupled to the patient support assembly,
wherein the intermediate frame assembly is raised to a raised position (see Fig. 2) and lowered to a lowered position (see Fig. 3) via a plurality of arm assemblies (146/148, 100/102) and a plurality of actuators (75 and 76) connected to the base frame assembly to allow the intermediate frame assembly to nest within the base frame assembly in the lowered position (see Fig. 3),
wherein the plurality of arm assemblies include a first arm assembly (146 and 148) and a second arm assembly (100 and 102) and the plurality of actuators include a head end actuator (75) and a foot end actuator (76), the first arm assembly connected to a head end of the intermediate frame assembly and the head end actuator, the second arm assembly connected to a foot end of the intermediate frame assembly and the foot end actuator (see Fig. 4 and para. [0088]), wherein the first arm assembly and the second arm assembly reside generally inline with the intermediate frame assembly (see Fig. 4),
further wherein the patient support deck is convertible to an expanding width bed configuration (see para. [0015]), wherein the patient support deck converts to a wider patient support surface at one or more sections of the hospital bed (see para. [0110]).
Regarding Claim 2, Poulos discloses wherein in a lowered-most position (Fig. 3), portions of the intermediate frame assembly are lower than portions of the base frame assembly (see phantom lines of arms 72 and 74 of the intermediate frame assembly positioned below base 32 in Fig. 3)
Regarding Claim 3, Poulos discloses wherein the patient support deck having a head deck section (202), an intermediate deck section (204), and a foot deck section (206), the head deck section located adjacent a head end of the hospital bed, the foot deck section located adjacent a foot end of the hospital bed, the intermediate deck section being between the head deck section and the foot deck section (see Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 4, Poulos discloses wherein the head deck section includes a first side head deck extender assembly (232) and a second side head deck extender assembly (234), the first side head deck extender assembly utilized to increase a width of the hospital bed at a first side of the hospital bed, and the second side head deck extender assembly utilized to increase the width of the hospital bed at a second side of the hospital bed (see para. [0110]) and further wherein the first and second side head deck extender assemblies are independently moveable from a first retracted position to a second expanded position (see Figs. 18 and 20, and para. [0112]).
Regarding Claim 5, Poulos discloses wherein the intermediate deck section includes a first side intermediate deck extender assembly (432) and a second side intermediate deck extender assembly (434), the first side intermediate deck extender assembly utilized to increase a width of the hospital bed at a first side of the hospital bed, and the second side intermediate deck extender assembly utilized to increase the width of the hospital bed at a second side of the hospital bed (see para. [0126]) and further wherein the first and second side intermediate deck extender assemblies are independently moveable from a first retracted position to a second expanded position (see Figs. 18 and 20, and para. [0128]).
Claim(s) 7-10, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Osborne (US PG-Pub 2002/0066142).
Regarding Claim 7, Osborne discloses a hospital bed (1210), comprising:
a base frame assembly (1232);
an intermediate frame assembly (1252), the intermediate frame assembly coupled to the base frame assembly; and
a patient support assembly (1214), the patient support assembly coupled to the intermediate frame assembly,
a weigh frame assembly (1248), the weigh frame assembly positioned between the intermediate frame assembly and the patient support assembly (see Figs. 92 and 95),
wherein the intermediate frame assembly is raised to a raised position (see Fig. 95) and lowered to a lowered position (see Figs. 96) via a plurality of arm assemblies (1254) and a plurality of actuators (1256) connected to the base frame assembly to allow the intermediate frame assembly to nest within the base frame assembly in the lowered position (see Fig. 96).
Regarding Claim 8, Osborne discloses wherein the plurality of actuators include a first actuator (1264) to raise and lower a head end of the intermediate frame assembly (see para. [0334]), and a second actuator (1266) to raise and lower a foot end of the intermediate frame assembly (see para. [0335]).
Regarding Claim 9, Osborne discloses wherein the plurality of arm assemblies include a first arm assembly (1258 and 1236) and a second arm assembly (1260 and 1262), the first arm assembly connected to a head end of the intermediate frame assembly and the first actuator, the second arm assembly connected to a foot end of the intermediate frame assembly and the second actuator (see Fig. 95).
Regarding Claim 10, Osborne discloses wherein the first arm assembly and the second arm assembly reside generally inline with the intermediate frame assembly (see Fig. 96).
Regarding Claim 17, Osborne discloses wherein the weigh frame assembly coupled to the intermediate frame assembly by a plurality of load cells or load beams (1322-1348, see para. [0349] and Fig. 93).
Regarding Claim 18, Osborne discloses wherein the patient support assembly coupled to the weigh frame assembly by a plurality of actuators (1264 and 1266) that raise and lower a head section (1220), an intermediate section (between 1220 and 1218), and a foot section (1218) of the hospital bed at various angular orientations (see Fig. 92).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12-16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Osborne (US PG-Pub 2002/0066142) in view of Poulos (US PG-Pub 2006/005355).
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood, Osborne discloses a patient support deck, the patient support deck coupled to the patient support assembly, the patient support deck having a head deck section (1220), a seat deck section (between 1220 and 1218), and a foot deck section (1218), the head deck section located adjacent a head end of the hospital bed , the foot deck section located adjacent a foot end of the hospital bed, the seat deck section being between the head deck section and the foot deck section (see Fig. 92). Osborne fails to disclose the patient support deck is convertible to an expanding width bed configuration, wherein the patient support deck converts to a wider patient support surface at one or more sections of the hospital bed. Poulos teaches a patient support deck is convertible to an expanding width bed configuration (see para. [0015]), wherein the patient support deck converts to a wider patient support surface at one or more sections of the hospital bed (see para. [0110] and [0126], utilizing head deck extenders 232/234 and seat deck extenders 432/434). Osborne and Poulos are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. patient supports. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the hospital bed of Osborne with the expanding width configuration bed of Poulos. The motivation would have been to create a wider patient support surface in order to allow for larger patients.
Regarding Claim 13, Osborne as modified teaches wherein the head deck section includes a first side head deck extender assembly (Poulos: 232) and a second side head deck extender assembly (234), the first side head deck extender assembly utilized to increase a width of the hospital bed at a first side of the hospital bed, and the second side head deck extender assembly utilized to increase the width of the hospital bed at a second side of the hospital bed (Poulos: see para. [0110]).
Regarding Claim 14, Osborne as modified teaches wherein the first and second side head deck extender assemblies are independently moveable from a first retracted position (Poulos: see Fig. 18) to a second expanded position (Poulos: see Fig. 20 and para. [0112]).
Regarding Claim 15, Osborne as modified teaches wherein the seat deck section includes a first side seat deck extender assembly (Poulos: 432) and a second side seat deck extender assembly (Poulos:434), the first side seat deck extender assembly utilized to increase a width of the hospital bed at a first side of the hospital bed, and the second side seat deck extender assembly utilized to increase the width of the hospital bed at a second side of the hospital bed (Poulos: see para. [0126]).
Regarding Claim 16, Osborne as modified teaches wherein the first and second side seat deck extender assemblies are independently moveable from a first retracted position (Poulos: see Fig. 18) to a second expanded position (Poulos: see Fig. 20, para. [0128]).
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,208,041. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite similar subject matter to the claims noted above, and covers in generally narrower format, the subject matter in the instant application. For example, Claim 1 of the patent discloses Claim 7 of the instant application with the additional limitation of “wherein in a lowered-most position, portions of the intermediate frame assembly are lower than portions of the base frame assembly.” A species anticipates a genus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 6, Poulos (US 2006/0053555) does not show “including a weigh frame assembly, the weigh frame assembly positioned between the intermediate frame assembly and the patient support assembly.” Figs. 2 and 4 of Poulos show reference numeral 34 indicating a “weigh frame assembly” located on the bottom side of base 32. Therefore, it cannot reasonably be considered positioned between the intermediate frame assembly (72 and 74) and the patient support assembly (14). With no motivation to modify Poulos as required by Claim 6, an obviousness rejection could not be made.
Regarding Claim 11, Osborne (US 2002/0066142) fails to disclose “wherein in a lowered-most position, portions of the intermediate frame assembly are lower than portions of the base frame assembly.” Fig. 96 of Osborne shows the hospital bed in a lowered-most position with reference numeral 1252 indicating the intermediate frame assembly and reference numeral 1232 indicating the base frame assembly. There is no indication that any portion of 1252 is lower than 1232. With no motivation to modify Poulos as required by Claim 11, an obviousness rejection could not be made.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC J KURILLA whose telephone number is (571)270-7294. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7AM-6PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/ERIC J KURILLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights