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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-4 and 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrand (US Patent 5,023,967) in view of Poulos (US PG-Pub 2006/0059621).
Regarding Claim 1, Ferrand discloses a patient support tilt bed (100), comprising: a base frame (104); a patient support assembly (106) connected to the base frame, the patient support assembly having a separate moveable head section (164) and foot section (164) (see Fig. 14), wherein the head section is adjacent a head of the bed, the foot section is adjacent a foot end of the bed (see Fig. 3); the patient support assembly being rotatable to place the patient support assembly in a tilted position with the entire patient support assembly generally in-line in an orientation greater than 30 degrees (see Fig. 15). Ferrand fails to disclose a weighing system, the weighing system includes a load cell, the load cell does not contact a floor for the bed. Poulos teaches disclose a weighing system (34), the weighing system includes a load cell (36), the load cell does not contact a floor for the bed (see Fig. 6). Ferrand 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 filed to modify the tilt bed of Ferrand with the weight system of Poulos. The motivation would have been to measure the weight of a patient and determine if a patient is losing or gaining weight.
Regarding Claim 2, Ferrand discloses a release (see control related to hydraulic pump 633 in Fig. 74) to allow the patient support assembly to move from the tilted position to a generally horizontal position.
Regarding Claim 3, Ferrand discloses a plurality of casters (122) and a locking system (124) that stabilizes the bed prior to the patient support assembly being rotated into the tilted position (see Col. 12, Lines 6-13).
Regarding Claim 4, Ferrand discloses wherein the locking system is in a lock mode before allowing the patient support assembly to go into the tilted position (see Col. 12, Lines 6-13).
Regarding Claim 7, Ferrand discloses a caster (122), the caster is in contact with the floor when the patient support assembly is in the tilted position (see Col. 12, Lines 6-14).
Regarding Claim 8, Ferrand discloses plurality of siderails (220).
Regarding Claim 9, Ferrand discloses wherein the plurality of siderails has a first position and a second position (see Fig. 18).
Regarding Claim 10, Ferrand discloses a tilt frame (108) connected to the patient support assembly, the tilt frame being rotatable to place the patient support assembly in the tilted position.
Regarding Claim 11, Ferrand discloses wherein the tilt frame comprises a rigid longitudinal frame member to support the patient support assembly (see Fig. 3, including at least support plates 146).
Regarding Claim 12, Ferrand discloses wherein a tilt actuator (128, 134, and 144) rotates the patient support assembly (see Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 13, Ferrand discloses wherein the tilt frame is hingedly connected to the base frame (at u-joint 156 about axis 126, see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 14, Ferrand discloses an intermediate frame assembly (108) connected to the base frame, wherein one or more actuators raise and lower each end of the intermediate assembly (see Fig. 15).
Double Patenting
Claims 1-14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-53 of U.S. Patent No. 11,116,684. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application do not contain structure that signifies a patentable difference of the claims of the patent. The patent (see at least claims 37 and 48-50) describes the tilt bed as having a similar weighing system as that of the instant application’s claim 1 while also providing all of the structure required of instant application’s claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 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: Claims 5 and 6 require subject matter previously determined as allowable in parent application 17/496,525 (see Claims 21 and 22 as filed 12/20/2023 and subsequent Non-Final Rejection mailed 04/04/2024). Ferrand as modified fails to teach “wherein the locking system includes a brake lock function, when the patient support assembly is in the tilted position, the locking system prevents the brake lock function from becoming disengaged until the patient support assembly is rotated back to a generally horizontal position” or “wherein the locking system includes a first brake pedal, a second brake pedal, the first and second brake pedals are connected to the locking system, the first and second brake pedals independently control the locking system.” The locking system of Ferrand is merely adjustable legs 124 that are movable up and down so that the casters 122 can disengage or engage the floor, respectively. There is no prevention of the locking system from becoming disengaged or pedals connected to the locking system that independently control the locking system.
Conclusion
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