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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (Claims 20-26 and 34-46) in the reply filed on 8/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of the Application
Claims 20-26 and 34-46 have been examined in this application. Claims 1-19 and 27-33 have been canceled. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 5/7/2025 has been acknowledged by the Office.
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.
Claim 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,310,903. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference/instant case are fully encompassed by the patented claim. Notably the instant claim recites a “moving section” which is considered to be a broader term for the similarly recited “rotation device” in the patented case. To the extent that differences may exist between the claims, they are minor and would have been well within the skill level of one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention. To the extent necessary, therefore, any such modifications that would be required would have been obvious. Examiner notes that the claim at issue is wholly encompassed and/or would have been obvious (see above) as compared to claim 1 in U.S. Patent No. 12,310,903.
Claim 21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,310,903.
Claim 22 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,310,903.
Claim 23 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,310,903.
Claim 24 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,310,903.
Claim 25 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,310,903.
Claim 26 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,310,903.
Claim 34 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,310,903. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference/instant case are fully encompassed by the patented claim. Notably the instant claim recites a “moving section” which is considered to be a broader term for the similarly recited “rotation device” in the patented case. To the extent that differences may exist between the claims, they are minor and would have been well within the skill level of one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention. To the extent necessary, therefore, any such modifications that would be required would have been obvious. Examiner notes that the claim at issue is wholly encompassed and/or would have been obvious (see above) as compared to claim 1 in U.S. Patent No. 12,310,903.
Claim 35 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,310,903.
Claim 36 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 & 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,310,903.
Claim 37 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,310,903.
Claim 38 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,310,903.
Claim 39 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,310,903.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites: “the caregiver” in line 10 which lacks proper antecedent basis. Suggest correction to: “a caregiver…”
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 recites: “the first predetermined period of time” which lacks proper antecedent basis. Suggest correction to: “the at least one predetermined period of time.”
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 34 recites: “A controller operable to control a moving section a patient support surface…” which should likely be: “A controller operable to control a moving section of a patient support surface…” for improved grammatical effect.
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites: “the caregiver” in line 7 which lacks proper antecedent basis. Suggest correction to: “a caregiver…”
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 40 recites: “that is withing a range…” which should likely be: “that is within[[g]] a range…” for improved grammatical effect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 20-26 and 34-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by to U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0117482 to Branson.
Regarding claim 20, Branson teaches: A patient support apparatus (See Abstract: “patient support surface” and Fig. 1, hospital bed 10), comprising:
a patient support surface (see Fig. 1 and 6, mattress 14) including a moving section (see Fig. 6, right and left air bladders 48, 50), and a controller operable to control the moving section (see Fig. 1 and 6, touch screen control system 12 and electrical control system 42), the controller including a processor (see Fig. 6, controller 44) and a non-transitory memory device (see para [0035]: “stored in memory”), the memory device including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to operate the moving section to perform a movement preview sequence (see Fig. 2-5 and para [0024-0030]),
wherein, during the movement preview sequence, the controller causes the moving section to move the patient support surface to a plurality of evaluation positions for at least one predetermined period of time (see Fig. 7, step 212 and 214, and para [0036]. See also Fig. 2-5, wherein desired [predetermined] time durations can be set for the rotation using display elements 82, 84, 86) wherein the at least one predetermined period of time enables the caregiver to assess a patient on the patient support surface at the plurality of evaluation positions (see Fig. 7, the examiner interprets that a given observer or caregiver may physically view/observe/assess the patient after the completion of step 214),
wherein the moving section moves the patient support surface to a flat position after the predetermined periods of time (see para [0025]: “A rotational dwell time is also associated with each of the rotational positions. The dwell time is the length of time the electrical control system 42 signals the pneumatic control system 46 to maintain the bladder system 47 in one of the patient rotational positions before signaling the pneumatic control system 46 to actuate the bladder system 47 to provide another of the patient rotational positions. The examiner notes that when the dwell time expires the patient support surface may return to its original/flat orientation) and
wherein, after the movement preview sequence, the caregiver is enabled to activate a movement sequence to move the patient support surface to a desired position over a movement period of time that is greater than the predetermined periods of time (see Fig. 2-5, and para [0025]: the length of the dwell time can be set by the dials 82/84/86 in both desired seconds and minutes. A caregiver or use may set a longer duration dwell time than one set initially).
Regarding claim 21, Branson teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 20, and additionally teaches: wherein, during the at least one predetermined period of time, the caregiver is enabled to cancel the movement preview sequence so that the controller returns the patient support surface to the flat position before an expiration of the first predetermined period of time (see Fig. 2, use of the “stop button” 66 may be used to cancel a rotational command).
Regarding claim 22, Branson teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 20, and additionally teaches: wherein: the moving section includes a left rotation bladder (see Fig. 6, left bladder 50) and a right rotation bladder (see Fig. 6, right bladder 48), the plurality of evaluation positions includes a left rotation position, wherein the left rotation bladder is inflated to a capacity greater than the right rotation bladder, and a right rotation position, wherein the right rotation bladder is inflated to a capacity greater than the left rotation bladder (see para [0021]: “For example, to rotate a patient on the mattress 14 toward the right, the pneumatic control system 46 deflates the right rotation bladder 48 located under the patient's right side and inflates the left rotation bladder 50 located under the patient's left side. Alternatively, only one of or a portion of the bladders of the bladder system 47 may be actuated by inflation or deflation to laterally rotate a patient on mattress 14 to different rotational positions.” In this example, the opposite bladder to the one that is inflated is deflated).
Regarding claim 23, Branson teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 22, and additionally teaches: wherein, in the flat position, the right rotation bladder and the left rotation bladder are inflated to substantially the same capacity (see Fig. 5, central rotational position 92).
Regarding claim 24, Branson teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 20, and additionally teaches: wherein the at least one predetermined period of time is within a range of 0 seconds to 30 seconds (see Fig. 2-4, the dwell time indicators 82/84/86 show ranges from 0 to 30 seconds as being settable. See also para [0031]).
Regarding claim 25, Branson teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 20, and additionally teaches: wherein a display (see Fig. 1-5, touch screen 40) includes buttons for the caregiver to enter initial movement parameters prior to the start of the movement preview sequence (see Fig. 2, patient display element 78 is used to control degree of rotation while elements 82/84/86 control dwell time at a particular rotation angle).
Regarding claim 26, Branson teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 25, and additionally teaches: wherein the initial movement parameters include the desired position (see Fig. 2, patient display element 78 is used to set the desired angle of rotation, see also para [0027]).
Regarding claim 34, Branson teaches: A controller (see Fig. 1 and 6, touch screen control system 12 and electrical control system 42) operable to control a moving section a patient support surface (see Fig. 1 and 6, mattress 14), the controller including a processor (see Fig. 6, controller 44) and a non-transitory memory device (see para [0035]: “stored in memory”), the memory device including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to operate the moving section to perform a movement preview sequence (see Fig. 2-5 and para [0024-0030]) including:
causing the moving section to move the patient support surface to a plurality of evaluation positions for at least one predetermined period of time (see Fig. 7, step 212 and 214, and para [0036]. See also Fig. 2-5, wherein desired [predetermined] time durations can be set for the rotation using display elements 82, 84, 86) wherein the at least one predetermined period of time enables the caregiver to assess a patient on the patient support surface at the plurality of evaluation positions (see Fig. 7, the examiner interprets that a given observer or caregiver may physically view/observe/assess the patient after the completion of step 214),
moving the patient support surface to a flat position after the predetermined periods of time (see para [0025]: “A rotational dwell time is also associated with each of the rotational positions. The dwell time is the length of time the electrical control system 42 signals the pneumatic control system 46 to maintain the bladder system 47 in one of the patient rotational positions before signaling the pneumatic control system 46 to actuate the bladder system 47 to provide another of the patient rotational positions. The examiner notes that when the dwell time expires the patient support surface may return to its original/flat orientation) and
after the movement preview sequence, enabling activation of a movement sequence to move the patient support surface to a desired position over a movement period of time that is greater than the predetermined periods of time (see Fig. 2-5, and para [0025]: the length of the dwell time can be set by the dials 82/84/86 in both desired seconds and minutes. A caregiver or use may set a longer duration dwell time than one set initially).
Regarding claim 35, Branson teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 34, and additionally teaches: wherein the movement preview sequence includes, during the at least one predetermined period of time, enabling the caregiver to cancel the movement preview sequence so that the controller returns the patient support surface to the flat position before an expiration of the first predetermined period of time (see Fig. 2, use of the “stop button” 66 may be used to cancel a rotational command).
Regarding claim 36, Branson teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 34, and additionally teaches: wherein: the moving section includes a left rotation bladder (see Fig. 6, left bladder 50) and a right rotation bladder (see Fig. 6, right bladder 48), the plurality of evaluation positions includes:
a left rotation position, wherein the movement preview sequence includes inflating the left rotation bladder to a capacity greater than the right rotation bladder (see para [0021]: “For example, to rotate a patient on the mattress 14 toward the right, the pneumatic control system 46 deflates the right rotation bladder 48 located under the patient's right side and inflates the left rotation bladder 50 located under the patient's left side. Alternatively, only one of or a portion of the bladders of the bladder system 47 may be actuated by inflation or deflation to laterally rotate a patient on mattress 14 to different rotational positions.” In this example, the opposite bladder to the one that is inflated is deflated), and
a right rotation position, wherein movement preview sequence includes inflating the right rotation bladder to a capacity greater than the left rotation bladder (see para [0021]: “For example, to rotate a patient on the mattress 14 toward the right, the pneumatic control system 46 deflates the right rotation bladder 48 located under the patient's right side and inflates the left rotation bladder 50 located under the patient's left side. Alternatively, only one of or a portion of the bladders of the bladder system 47 may be actuated by inflation or deflation to laterally rotate a patient on mattress 14 to different rotational positions.” In this example, the opposite bladder to the one that is inflated is deflated),
wherein, in the flat position, wherein the movement preview sequence includes inflating the right rotation bladder and the left rotation bladder to substantially the same capacity (see Fig. 5, central rotational position 92).
Regarding claim 37, Branson teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 34, and additionally teaches: wherein the at least one predetermined period of time is within a range of 0 seconds to 30 seconds (see Fig. 2-4, the dwell time indicators 82/84/86 show ranges from 0 to 30 seconds as being settable. See also para [0031]).
Regarding claim 38, Branson teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 34, and additionally teaches: wherein the movement preview sequences includes enabling the caregiver to enter initial movement parameters prior to the start of the movement preview sequence (see Fig. 2, patient display element 78 is used to control degree of rotation while elements 82/84/86 control dwell time at a particular rotation angle).
Regarding claim 39, Branson teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 38, and additionally teaches: wherein the initial movement parameters include the desired position (see Fig. 2, patient display element 78 is used to set the desired angle of rotation, see also para [0027]).
Regarding claim 40, Branson teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 20, and additionally teaches: wherein, in a first evaluation position of the plurality of evaluation positions, the moving section is rotated by an angle that is within[g] a range of 1 degree to 40 degrees (see para [0025 and 0027] and Figs. 2-4, “The rotational position may be set and displayed as, for example, a percentage of the full range of lateral rotation or the lateral rotational angle relative to the patient (or mattress 14) being laterally parallel to the base frame 16.” The examiner notes that a maximum rotation of 40 degrees is mentioned in para [0027]).
Regarding claim 41, Branson teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 40, and additionally teaches: wherein the angle of the moving section in the first evaluation position is selectable (see Fig. 2, patient display element 78 is used to control degree of rotation while elements 82/84/86 control dwell time at a particular rotation angle).
Regarding claim 42, Branson teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 40, and additionally teaches: wherein the moving section rotates about an axis extending in a longitudinal direction with respect to the patient support apparatus when moving to the first evaluation position (see Figs. 1-5, and para [0021]: a patient is rotated to the right or left on the mattress 14 as shown via display on Figs. 2-5, thus the axis of rotation is generally along a longitudinal centerline of the mattress 14).
Regarding claim 43, Branson teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 42, and additionally teaches: wherein the moving section lifts a right side of the patient when moving to the first evaluation position (see para [0021]: “For example, to rotate a patient on the mattress 14 toward the right, the pneumatic control system 46 deflates the right rotation bladder 48 located under the patient's right side and inflates the left rotation bladder 50 located under the patient's left side. Alternatively, only one of or a portion of the bladders of the bladder system 47 may be actuated by inflation or deflation to laterally rotate a patient on mattress 14 to different rotational positions” which showcases that an opposite rotation/tilt is possible).
Regarding claim 44, Branson teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 42, and additionally teaches: wherein the moving section lifts a left side of the patient when moving to the first evaluation position (see Fig. 3, left side of patient is lifted and para [0021]: “For example, to rotate a patient on the mattress 14 toward the right, the pneumatic control system 46 deflates the right rotation bladder 48 located under the patient's right side and inflates the left rotation bladder 50 located under the patient's left side).
Regarding claim 45, Branson teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 20, and additionally teaches: wherein the flat position corresponds to the moving section having an upper surface that is oriented horizontally (see Fig. 5, central rotational position 92).
Regarding claim 46, Branson teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 20, and additionally teaches: wherein the patient support surface comprises a mattress (see Figs. 1 and 6, mattress 14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited patents show rotational therapy beds with similar properties to the claimed invention. They show the general state of the art and are of general relevance with respect to the claimed subject matter
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R HARE whose telephone number is (571)272-4420. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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.
Sincerely,
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
8/28/2026
Prosecution Insights