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 1-22 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 08/13/2025 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 states: 'one more indents', however to provide clarity to the claim, the following amendment is suggested 'one or more indents'
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim Young (KR 20240069994 A).
In regards to Claim 1, Kim Young teaches: A side rail assembly (10 - Fig. 1) for a medical bed (100 - Fig. 1) comprising: a support rail connected to the medical bed (20 - Fig. 2), the support rail comprising: a slot (51 - Fig. 3) disposed along an exterior surface the support rail (81 shown to be in a vertical exterior surface); and one or more indents positioned within the slot (52 - Fig. 3); a carrier slidably connected to the support rail (40 - Fig. 3), the carrier comprising a guide pin configured to slidably abut the slot (pin shown to be inserted in Fig. 3); and a side rail connected to the carrier (30 - Fig. 1), wherein the guide pin is urged into the one or more indents when the guide pin is aligned with the one more indents (shown in Fig. 3 to be inserted into the one or more indents 52 and is aligned in the phantom lines shown), thereby allowing rotation of the side rail to a raised position and restricting movement of the carrier along the support rail (Fig. 6 shows rotation of the side rail from a lowered to a raised position, and carrier 40 has restricted movement to only complete motion in one plane yet can be further restricted by locking the carrier 40 into its vertical position).
In regards to Claim 2, Kim Young teaches: The side rail assembly of claim 1, further comprising a hinge (60 - Fig. 3) connected between the carrier and the side rail (Fig. 3), the hinge configured to rotate between a raised position and a lowered position (Fig. 6).
In regards to Claim 3, Kim Young teaches: The side rail assembly of claim 2, wherein the hinge comprises: a top arm (61 - Fig. 3) having a first latch (61b - Fig. 3); and a bottom arm (62 - Fig. 3) having a second latch rotatably connected to the bottom arm (62a - Fig. 3), wherein the second latch is configured to engage the first latch when the hinge is rotated into the raised position (Fig. 3 and 5a).
Examiner's Note: A latch as defined from Lack Lock US is a type of mechanical fastener that is used to join two (or more) objects or surfaces together while allowing for the regular or eventual separation of the objects or surfaces. (www.latchlock.us/what-is-a-latch/)
In regards to Claim 5, Kim Young teaches: The side rail assembly of claim 3, wherein a torsional element is connected between the carrier and the bottom arm (63 - Fig. 4), wherein the torsional element is configured to provide rotational resistance of the hinge when the hinge is moved from the raised position to the lowered position ('A spring 63 is installed in the first hinge connection part 61b or the second hinge connection part 62a so that the vertical rod guide part 62 can be angularly moved to be folded or unfolded, restored to its original state, and provided with a buffering function.').
In regards to Claim 16, Kim Young teaches: A side rail assembly (10 - Fig. 1) for a medical bed (100 - Fig. 1) comprising: a support rail connected to the medical bed (20 - Fig. 2), the support rail comprising: a slot (51 - Fig. 3) disposed along an exterior surface the support rail (81 shown to be in a vertical exterior surface); and one or more indents positioned within the slot (52 - Fig. 3); a carrier slidably connected to the support rail (30 - Fig. 1), the carrier comprising a guide pin configured to slidably abut the slot (pin shown to be inserted in Fig. 3); and a side rail connected to the carrier (Fig. 3), wherein the guide pin is urged into the one or more indents when the guide pin is aligned with the one more indents (shown in Fig. 3 to be inserted into the one or more indents 52 and is aligned in the phantom lines shown), thereby restricting movement of the carrier along the support rail (Fig. 6 shows rotation of the side rail from a lowered to a raised position, and carrier 40 has restricted movement to only complete motion in one plane yet can be further restricted by locking the carrier 40 into its vertical position).
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) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim Young (KR 20240069994 A) in view of Welling et al., hereinafter 'Welling' (US 20010032362 A1)
In regards to Claim 13, Kim Young teaches: The side rail assembly of claim 1, Kim Young does not explicitly teach, further comprising a magnetic sensor recessed into the support rail, the magnetic sensor configured to detect a magnetic field source connected to the carrier.
Welling teaches: further comprising a magnetic sensor (1578 - Fig. 106) recessed into the support rail, the magnetic sensor configured to detect a magnetic field source connected to the carrier (Para 0412: 'According to the preferred embodiment of the present disclosure, sensor 1578 is a Hall effect field sensor that detects change in the characteristics of a magnetic field generated by pedal 1556. A magnet 1580 is positioned on sensor portion 1564 of each pedal 1556 in a position spaced apart from sensor 1578. Sensor 1578 detects the change in position of magnet 1580 during movement of the respective pedal 1556 by detecting the change in magnetic field. Based on this change in magnetic field, sensor 1578 sends a signal indicative of the up, down, or neutral positions of the respective pedal 1556 to controller 1579.').
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Kim Young side rail assembly to incorporate the Welling recessed magnetic sensor configured to detect a magnetic field source connected to the carrier. Welling expressly teaches using a recessed Hall effect magnetic sensor to detect the position of a magnet and generate a corresponding signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating Welling’s magnetic sensing arrangement into Kim Young side rail assembly would have predictably provided reliable, non-contact detection of the carrier position while maintaining the intended operation of the side rail assembly.
In regards to Claim 14, Kim Young in view of Welling teaches: The side rail assembly of claim 13, Welling further teaches, wherein the magnetic sensor is positioned a predetermined distance from the one or more indents (1578 shown to be at a distance from one or more indents).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to position the magnetic sensor of the modified Kim Young side rail assembly a predetermined distance from the one or more indents as taught by Welling. Welling expressly teaches spacing the magnetic sensor from the corresponding structure to enable reliable detection of changes in the magnetic field. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that providing such predetermined spacing would have predictably ensured accurate magnetic field detection and consistent operation of the sensing system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4, 6-12, 15, and 17-22 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:
In regards to Claim 4, the prior art of Kim Young, either alone or in combination with the prior art of record, fails to teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious a hinge further comprising a pulling member configured to rotate the second latch away from the first latch. The Kim Young latch mechanism is configured such that the latches are either interconnected to permit normal hinge operation or are completely disengaged for disassembly. As such, Kim Young does not disclose or suggest a separate pulling member that actively rotates the second latch away from the first latch while maintaining the functional relationship of the hinge. The claimed pulling member provides a distinct release mechanism that is structurally and functionally different from the Kim Young interlocking/disassembly arrangement, and therefore is neither taught nor suggested by the cited prior art.
In regards to Claim 6, the prior art of Kim Young in view of Kim Byung, either alone or in combination, fail to teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious a lock assembly comprising a rotor rotatably connected to an exterior surface of the hub, the rotor having one of a pair of helical slots and a pair of ramps; a pin assembly extending through the central aperture, the pin assembly configured to engage one of the pair of helical slots and the pair of ramps, whereby rotation of the rotor about the hub moves the pin assembly within the hub outwardly and away from the carrier; and a spring configured to urge the pin assembly toward the carrier, as recited. While Kim Byung discloses a locking assembly including a hub, the reference does not teach or suggest the claimed rotor and cooperating helical slot/ramp arrangement that translates rotational motion into axial movement of the pin assembly, nor the spring-biased pin assembly operating in the claimed manner. These features define a specific cam-actuated locking mechanism that is absent from the cited references. Accordingly, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the particular structural and functional relationship of the claimed lock assembly.
In regards to Claim 17, Kim Young in view of Kim Byung, either alone or in combination, fail to teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious a lock assembly comprising a hub connected to the carrier, the hub having a central aperture; a rotor rotatably connected to an exterior surface of the hub, the rotor having one of a pair of helical slots and a pair of ramps; a pin assembly extending through the central aperture, the pin assembly configured to engage one of the pair of helical slots and the pair of ramps, whereby rotation of the rotor about the hub moves the pin assembly within the hub outwardly and away from the carrier; and a spring configured to urge the pin assembly toward the carrier, as recited. While Kim Byung discloses a locking assembly including a hub, the reference does not teach or suggest the claimed rotor and cooperating helical slot/ramp arrangement that converts rotational movement into axial translation of the pin assembly, nor the spring-biased pin assembly operating in the claimed manner. These structural features define a specific cam-actuated locking mechanism for selectively securing the carrier that is neither taught nor suggested by the cited references. Accordingly, the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the particular lock assembly recited in Claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tessmer (US-20170172829-A1) teaches: A patient support system comprises a patient support apparatus for patients. The patient support apparatus comprises a base and a patient support surface supported by the base. The patient support apparatus also comprises side rails that move between raised and lowered positions. One or more actuators are coupled to each of the side rails. A controller communicates with the actuators to raise and lower the side rails, either without any manual assistance from the user, or with manual assistance from the user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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.
MADISON MATTHEWS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/MADISON MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
06/25/2026
Prosecution Insights