CTNF 19/270,002 CTNF 96949 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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—20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 07/15/2025 has been acknowledged by the Office. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 recites: “the minimum force F2 is a range” examiner suggest amending to “the minimum force F2 is in a range” . Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-36 AIA Claim(s ) 1—8 and 12—16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,390,378 in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0258655 A1 to Jutras (Jutras hereafter) . 08-36 AIA Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,390,378 in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0258655 A1 to Jutras . 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. The instant case drops the limitations of U.S. Patent No 12,390,378 claim 1 such as : -said lift assembly including a first leg and a second leg, said second leg being pivotally mounted to said first leg at a medial portion thereof to form an inverted Y-shaped leg assembly when unfolded - said lift assembly being configured to be raised from a lowermost configuration according to a starting force SF that is less than a maximum force F1 when raising said frame relative to said base after said lift assembly is raised from said lowermost configuration The instant application adds the following limitation: - the first leg including a first slot and a second slot, the second slot being linked to the second leg via a sliding pivotal connection; - and an actuator mounted in the lift assembly between a first pivot connection with the first leg and the first slot, the actuator, the first slot, and the second slot providing a mounting configuration to produce a maximum force. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined U.S. Patent No. 12,390,378 (directed to a patient support provided with a base frame lift assembly actuator configured to raise the support system for the lower most configuration) and added the features of Jutras (directed to a patient support including a lift mechanism 18-Fig.4c provided with a first and second leg including first and second slots 63-Fig.4c; para [0063] and an actuator 60-Fig.4c providing a mounting configuration to produce a maximum force) and arrived at a patient support provided with a base frame lift assembly actuator configured to raise the support system for the lower most configuration including . an actuator mounted in the lift assembly between a first pivot connection with the first leg and the first slot, the actuator, the first slot, and the second slot providing a mounting configuration to produce a maximum force. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to permits the main frame 12 and mattress platform 14 to be inclined about a transverse inclination axis (such as to incline the bed for example if it becomes necessary to raise or lower the patients feet with respect to their head, or vice versa), without causing any longitudinal displacement of the main frame 12 and platform 14 subassembly as taught in Jutras (para [0053]) . 08-36 AIA Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,390,378 in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0258655 A1 to Jutras . 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 except the instant application recites: ( instant case : of| patented case : according to) ( instant case : the| patented case : said) 08-36 AIA Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,390,378 in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0258655 A1 to Jutras . 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. The instant case drops the limitations of U.S. Patent No 12,390,378 claim except: said second leg being pivotally mounted to said first leg at a medial portion thereof to form an inverted Y-shaped leg assembly when unfolded; The instant application recites: ( instant case : is| patented case : being) 08-36 AIA Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,390,378 in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0258655 A1 to Jutras . 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. The instant application adds the following limitation: ( instant case : wherein the actuator, the first slot, and the second slot provide 1) a minimum force.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined U.S. Patent No. 12,390,378 (directed to a patient support provided with a base frame lift assembly actuator configured to raise the support system for the lower most configuration) and added the features of Jutras (directed to a patient support including a lift mechanism 18-Fig.4c provided with a first and second leg including first and second slots 63-Fig.4c; para [0063] and an actuator 60-Fig.4c providing a mounting configuration to produce a maximum force) and arrived at a patient support provided with a base frame lift assembly actuator configured to raise the support system for the lower most configuration including . an actuator mounted in the lift assembly between a first pivot connection with the first leg and the first slot, the actuator, the first slot, and the second slot providing a mounting configuration to produce a maximum force. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to permits the main frame 12 and mattress platform 14 to be inclined about a transverse inclination axis (such as to incline the bed for example if it becomes necessary to raise or lower the patients feet with respect to their head, or vice versa), without causing any longitudinal displacement of the main frame 12 and platform 14 subassembly as taught in Jutras (para [0053]) . 08-36 AIA Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,390,378 in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0258655 A1 to Jutras . 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 except the instant application recites: ( instant case : of| patented case : according to) ( instant case : the| patented case : said) ( instant case : range of 55% to 65%| patented case : range of 50% to 70%) 08-36 AIA Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,390,378 in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0258655 A1 to Jutras . 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 except the instant application recites: ( instant case : of| patented case : according to) ( instant case : the| patented case : said) ( instant case : wherein the starting force SF is| patented case : said lift assembly in said lowermos t configuration and w he rein said starting force SF is) 08-36 AIA Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,390,378 in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0258655 A1 to Jutras . 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 except the instant application recites: ( instant case : of| patented case : according to) ( instant case : the| patented case : said) ( instant case : wherein the starting force SF is| patented case : said lift assembly in said lowermost configuration and wherein said starting force SF is) 08-36 AIA Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,390,378 in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0258655 A1 to Jutras . 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 except the instant application recites: ( instant case : of| patented case : according to) ( instant case : the| patented case : said) 08-36 AIA Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,390,378 in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0258655 A1 to Jutras . 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. ( instant case : the| patented case : said) The instant case drops the limitations of U.S. Patent No 12,390,378 claim 1 such as: -said second leg being pivotally mounted to said first leg at a medial portion thereof to form an inverted Y-shaped leg assembly when unfolded; - said lift assembly being configured to be raised from a lowermost configuration according to a starting force SF that is less than a maximum force F1 when raising said frame relative to said base after said lift assembly is raised from said lowermost configuration -to produce said maximum force F1 when raising said frame occurring after said lift assembly is raised from said lowermost configuration -and wherein said minimum force F2 is in a range of 50% to 70% of said maximum force F1. The instant application adds the following limitation: -the first leg including a first slot and a second slot, the second slot being linked to the second leg via a sliding pivot connection; - actuator mounted in the lift assembly between a first pivotal connection with the first leg and the first slot, the actuator, the first slot, and the second slot providing a mounting configuration to produce a maximum force Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined U.S. Patent No. 12,390,378 (directed to a patient support provided with a base frame lift assembly actuator configured to raise the support system for the lower most configuration) and added the features of Jutras (directed to a patient support including a lift mechanism 18-Fig.4c provided with a first and second leg including first and second slots 63-Fig.4c; para [0063] and an actuator 60-Fig.4c providing a mounting configuration to produce a maximum force) and arrived at a patient support provided with a base frame lift assembly actuator configured to raise the support system for the lower most configuration including . an actuator mounted in the lift assembly between a first pivot connection with the first leg and the first slot, the actuator, the first slot, and the second slot providing a mounting configuration to produce a maximum force. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to permits the main frame 12 and mattress platform 14 to be inclined about a transverse inclination axis (such as to incline the bed for example if it becomes necessary to raise or lower the patients feet with respect to their head, or vice versa), without causing any longitudinal displacement of the main frame 12 and platform 14 subassembly as taught in Jutras (para [0053]) . 08-36 AIA Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,390,378 in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0258655 A1 to Jutras . 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. The instant case drops the limitations of U.S. Patent No 12,390,378 claim except: said second leg being pivotally mounted to said first leg at a medial portion thereof to form an inverted Y-shaped leg assembly when unfolded; The instant application recites: ( instant case : the| patented case : said) ( instant case : is| patented case : being) 08-36 AIA Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,390,378 in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0258655 A1 to Jutras . The claims at issue are identical . 08-36 AIA Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,390,378 in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0258655 A1 to Jutras . The claims at issue are identical . 08-36 AIA Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,390,378 in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0258655 A1 to Jutras . 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. The instant case drops the limitations of U.S. Patent No 12,390,378 claim except: wherein said actuator is mounted in said lift assembly with a mounting configuration to produce said starting force SF. The instant application recites: ( instant case : the| patented case : said) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1—3, 12, 13 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a )(1) as being an ticipated by U.S Patent Application 2016/0302985 A1 to Tessmer (Tessmer hereafter). As per claim 1, Tessmer teaches: A patient support apparatus (10-Fig.2; para [0143]) comprising: a base (12-Fig.2; para [0153]) ; a frame supported relative to the base (14-Fig.2; para [00143]) , the frame configured to support a deck for supporting a patient thereon (14-Fig.2; para [00141]) ; a lift assembly for raising or lowering the frame relative to the base (18-Fig.2; para [00143]) and being pivotally coupled to the frame at an upper end thereof and pivotally coupled to the base at a lower end thereof (para [0144]) ; the lift assembly including a first leg (44 & 32-Fig.2; para [0153]) and a second leg (20, 32-Fig.2; para [0153]) , the first leg including a first slot (54b-Fig.2; para [0153]) , and a second slot (26b-Fig.2; para [0153]) , the second slot being linked to the second leg via a sliding pivotal connection (20 & 26-Fig.2; para [0153]) ; and an actuator (36 & 38—Fig.2) mounted in the lift assembly between a first pivot connection with the first leg and the first slot (26, 36 & 54b-Fig.2; para [0149]) , the actuator, the first slot, and the second slot providing a mounting configuration to produce a maximum force F1 when raising the frame occurring after the lift assembly is raised from a lowermost configuration of the lift assembly (see annotated Fig.23) . PNG media_image1.png 572 1005 media_image1.png Greyscale As per claim 2, Tessmer teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 1, wherein the maximum force F1 occurs prior to reaching a mid-stroke of the lift assembly (para [0160]). As per claim 3, Tessmer teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second leg is pivotally mounted to the first leg at a medial portion (20, 32-Fig.4; para [0153]) thereof to form an inverted Y-shaped leg assembly when unfolded (20, 32-Fig.4; para [0153]). As per claim 12, Tessmer teaches: A patient support apparatus (10-Fig.2; para [0143]) comprising: a base (12-Fig.2; para [0153]); a frame supported relative to the base (14-Fig.2; para [00143]) , the frame configured to support a deck for supporting a patient thereon (14-Fig.2; para [00141]) ; a lift assembly for raising or lowering the frame relative to the base ( 18-Fig.2; para [00143]) and being pivotally coupled to the frame at an upper end thereof and pivotally coupled to the base at a lower end thereof (para [0144]) ; the lift assembly including a first leg and a second leg (20-Fig.2; para [0153]) , the first leg including a first slot and a second slot (26b-Fig.2; para [0153]) , the second slot being linked to the second leg via a sliding pivot connection (26-Fig.2; para [0153]) ; and an actuator (36 & 38—Fig.2) mounted in the lift assembly between a first pivotal connection with the first leg and the first slot, the actuator, the first slot, and the second slot (26 & 36-Fig.2; para [0149]) providing a mounting configuration to produce a maximum force F1 (see annotated Fig.23 above) , a minimum force F2 when raising or lowering the frame (see annotated Fig.23 above) , and a starting force SF at a lowermost configuration of the lift assembly that is less than the maximum force F1 (see annotated Fig.23 below). PNG media_image2.png 425 596 media_image2.png Greyscale As per claim 13, Tessmer teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 12, wherein the second leg being pivotally mounted to the first leg at a medial portion (20, 32-Fig.4; para [0153]) thereof to form an inverted Y-shaped leg assembly when unfolded (20, 32-Fig.4; para [0153]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4, 6, 7 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2016/0302985 A1 to Tessmer . As per claim 4, Tessmer teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 1, wherein the actuator, the first slot, and the second slot provide 1) a minimum force F2 when lowering the frame or raising the frame after the lift assembly is raised from the lowermost configuration (see annotated Fig.23 above). Tesmmer as shown in embodiments Fig 1-23 does not teach and 2) [a starting force] at the lowermost configuration that is less than the maximum force F1. However an alternative embodiment Fig. 24 – 44 of Tessmer teaches: [a starting force] when said lift assembly in said lowermost configuration (para [0183]; Fig.44). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Tessmer first embodiment (directed to a patient support provided with a lift assembly configured to lift the frame from a lower most configuration) and Tessmer second embodiment (directed to a patient support provided with a lift assembly configured to lift the frame from a lower most configuration including a starting force at a lowermost configuration greater than a maximum force) and arrived at a patient support provided with a lift assembly configured to lift the frame from a lower most configuration including a starting force at a lowermost configuration greater than a maximum force. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide the greatest force necessary to lift the system at its lowest position as taught in Tessmer second embodiment (para [0183]). As per claim 6, Tessmer teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 4, wherein the actuator is mounted in the lift assembly with a mounting configuration to produce the starting force SF, wherein the starting force SF is in a range of 95% to 99% of the maximum force F1 (annotated Fig.23). PNG media_image2.png 425 596 media_image2.png Greyscale As per claim 7, Tessmer teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 4, wherein the actuator is mounted in the lift assembly with a mounting configuration to produce the starting force SF, wherein the starting force SF is about 97% of the maximum force F1 (annotated Fig.23) . PNG media_image2.png 425 596 media_image2.png Greyscale As per claim 15, Tessmer teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 12. Tessmer as shown in embodiments Fig 1-23 does not teach, wherein the minimum force F2 occurs at a maximum height of the lift assembly. However an alternative embodiment Fig.24 -44 of Tessmer teaches wherein the minimum force F2 occurs at a maximum height of the lift assembly ( Fig. 44 para [0183]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Tessmer first embodiment (directed to a patient support provided with a lift assembly configured to lift the frame from a lower most configuration) and Tessmer second embodiment (directed to a patient support provided with a lift assembly configured to lift the frame from a lower most configuration including a minimum force F2 occurs at a maximum height of the lift assembly) and arrived at a patient support provided with a lift assembly configured to lift the frame from a lower most configuration including a starting force at a lowermost configuration greater than a maximum force. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide the greatest force necessary to lift the system at its lowest position as taught in Tessmer second embodiment (para [0183]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim(s ) 9, 10 & 17 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2016/0302985 A1 to Tessmer in view of U.S Patent Application 2013/0036550 A1 to Bly (Bly hereafter). As per claim 9, Tessmer teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 1. Tessmer does not teach, wherein the second slot includes a non-linear path that guides the sliding pivotal connection for the second leg. Bly teaches , wherein the second slot includes a non-linear path that guides the sliding pivotal connection for the second leg (66-Fig.4; para [0026]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Tessmer first embodiment (directed to a patient support provided with a lift assembly configured to lift the frame from a lower most configuration) and Bly (directed to a patient support provided with a lift assembly configured to lift the frame including a first and second leg in a Y shape provided with a second slot that includes a linear path) and arrived at a patient support provided with a lift assembly configured to lift the frame from a lower most configuration including first and second leg in a Y shape provided with a second slot that includes a linear path. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to minimize loading on the actuator 90 or to minimize any jolting movement to the occupant as taught in Bly (para [0026]). As per claim 10, Tessmer teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 1. Tessmer does not teach, wherein the actuator is coupled to the first slot via a second sliding pivot connection. Bly teaches wherein the actuator is coupled to the first slot via a second sliding pivot connection (48-Fig.4; para [0028]: actuator 90 coupled to first slot 48 via pivot connection 50). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Tessmer first embodiment (directed to a patient support provided with a lift assembly configured to lift the frame from a lower most configuration) and Bly (directed to a patient support provided with a lift assembly configured to lift the frame including a first and second leg in a Y shape provided with a second slot that includes a linear path) and arrived at a patient support provided with a lift assembly configured to lift the frame from a lower most configuration including first and second leg in a Y shape provided with a second slot that includes a linear path. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to allow the leg assembly to rotate counterclockwise about pivot axis D and thereby lower frame as taught in Bly (para [0028]). As per claim 17, Tessmer teaches: A patient support apparatus (10-Fig.2; para [0143]) comprising: a base (12-Fig.2; para [0153]) ; a frame supported relative to the base, the frame configured to support a deck for supporting a patient thereon (14-Fig.2; para [00141]) ; a lift assembly for raising or lowering the frame relative to the base and being (18-Fig.2; para [00143]) pivotally coupled to the frame at an upper end thereof and pivotally coupled to the base at a lower end thereof (para [0144]) ; an actuator (36 & 38—Fig.2 ) ; the lift assembly including a first leg and a second leg (20, 32 & 44-Fig.4; para [0153]), the second leg being pivotally mounted to the first leg at a medial portion thereof (20, 32-Fig.4; para [0153]) about a folding pivot axis to form a Y-shaped leg assembly when unfolded (20, 32-Fig.4; para [0153]) , the Y-shaped leg assembly including a first slot (54b-Fig.2; para [0153]) , and a second slot (26b-Fig.2; para [0153]) fixed relative to and movable with the first leg (20 & 26b-Fig.4; para [0153]) ; the actuator mounted in the lift assembly between a first pivot connection with the first leg and a first sliding pivot connection with the first leg (26 & 36-Fig.2; para [0149]). Tessmer does not teach, the actuator coupled to a second sliding pivot connection via the first sliding pivot connection, the first sliding pivot connection being guided by the first slot of the Y-shaped leg assembly, the second sliding pivot connection being guided by the second slot of the Y-shaped leg assembly; and the second sliding pivot connection linked to the second leg, wherein when the actuator extends or contracts, the first leg and the second leg are unfolded or folded with respect to each other. Bly teaches, the actuator (90-Fig.2; para [0027]) coupled to a second sliding pivot connection (50-Fig.2; para [0028]) via the first sliding pivot connection (70-Fig.4; para [0029]) , the first sliding pivot connection being guided by the first slot of the Y-shaped leg assembly (66-Fig.4; para [0029]) , the second sliding pivot connection being guided by the second slot of the Y-shaped leg assembly (48-Fig.2; para [0028]: second slot) ; and the second sliding pivot connection linked to the second leg (34 & 50—Fig.4; para [0021]) , wherein when the actuator extends or contracts, the first leg and the second leg are unfolded or folded with respect to each other (para [0030]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Tessmer first embodiment (directed to a patient support provided with a lift assembly configured to lift the frame from a lower most configuration) and Bly (directed to a patient support provided with a lift assembly configured to lift the frame including a first and second leg in a Y shape provided with a second slot that includes a linear path) and arrived at a patient support provided with a lift assembly configured to lift the frame from a lower most configuration including first and second leg in a Y shape provided with a second slot that includes a linear path. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to minimize loading on the actuator 90 or to minimize any jolting movement to the occupant as taught in Bly (para [0026]) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 18 is 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. Claim 11 is rejected under a Double Patenting Rejection as noted above, but would be allowable upon filing a proper Terminal Disclaimer to obviate the Double Patenting rejections over U.S Patent 12,390,378 B2 in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0258655 A1 to Jutras . Regarding dependents 11 & 18, the closest prior art of reference U.S Patent Application 2016/0302985 A1 to Tessmer teaches a patient support with a lift system including a leg assembly with first and second legs. The first and second legs are pivotally joined near a middle region forming an inverted Y shape. The reference further discloses a first and second slot. The second slot being connected to the second leg in a sliding pivot connection. The reference falls silent with respect to: the actuator coupled to a second sliding pivot connection via the first sliding pivot connection, the first sliding pivot connection being guided by the first slot of the Y-shaped leg assembly, the second sliding pivot connection being guided by the second slot of the Y-shaped leg assembly; and the second sliding pivot connection linked to the second leg, wherein when the actuator extends or contracts, the first leg and the second leg are unfolded or folded with respect to each other in combination with: and further comprising a link slidingly coupled to the first leg at the second sliding pivot connection and eccentrically coupled to the second leg by a crank arm. The teachings of U.S Patent Application 2013/0036550 A1 to Bly disclose a patient support provided with a lift assembly configured to lift the frame including a first and second leg in a Y shape provided with a second slot that includes a nonlinear path. Modifying the leg assembly of Tessmer with the nonlinear slot configurations of Bly produces an actuator coupled to a second sliding pivot connection via the first sliding pivot connection guided by the first slot. However Tessmer as modified by Bly fail to teach the structural configuration of the second sliding pivot connection and eccentrically coupled to the second leg by a crank arm in combination with the features of claim 18. The teachings of U.S Patent Application 2013/0036550 A1 to Bly disclose a patient support provided with a lift assembly configured to lift the frame including a first and second leg in a Y shape provided with a second slot that includes a nonlinear path. Modifying the leg assembly of Tessmer with the nonlinear slot configurations of Bly produces an actuator coupled to a second sliding pivot connection via the first sliding pivot connection guided by the first slot. However Tessmer as modified by Bly fail to teach the structural configuration of the second sliding pivot connection and eccentrically coupled to the second leg by a crank arm in combination with the features of claim 18. U.S Patent Application 2017/0258655 A1 to Jultras discloses a patient support including a lift assembly and first and second legs configured to form a Y shape. However the teachings are silent with respect to the actuator coupled to a second sliding pivot connection via the first sliding pivot connection, the first sliding pivot connection being guided by the first slot of the Y-shaped leg assembly, the second sliding pivot connection being guided by the second slot of the Y-shaped leg assembly; and the second sliding pivot connection linked to the second leg, wherein when the actuator extends or contracts, the first leg and the second leg are unfolded or folded with respect to each other in combination with: and further comprising a link slidingly coupled to the first leg at the second sliding pivot connection and eccentrically coupled to the second leg by a crank arm. In addition further modifying the configuration of the first and second slots relative to the first and second legs and further modifying Tessmer and Bly to teach the claims sliding pivot connection may hinder the leg assemblies extend and retract capabilities. Therefor upon exhausting the art, it is concluded by the examiner for those reasons stated above that inconsideration with deficiencies of the prior art, that applicant’s invention would be considered non-obvious in light of the prior art. Claims 5,8, 14 & 16 are rejected under a Double Patenting Rejection as noted above, but would be allowable upon filing a proper Terminal Disclaimer to obviate the Double Patenting rejections over U.S Patent 12,390,378 B2 in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0258655 A1 to Jutras . Regarding specific reasons for allowance of claim 5,8, 14 & 16 , please review the Notice of Allowance filed on mailed with Application 17/116240 (issued as U.S Patent 12,390,378 B2 ). Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S Patent Application 2017/0258655 A1 to Jultras discloses a patient support including a lift assembly and first and second legs configured to form a Y shape. U.S Patent Application 2019/0358104 A1 to Lacasse et. al discloses the bed having a frame and a backrest pivotably connected to the frame, the backrest pivoting system comprising: an actuator having a first actuator portion connected to the frame. 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 05/20/2026 /JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/270,002 Page 2 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/270,002 Page 3 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/270,002 Page 4 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/270,002 Page 5 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/270,002 Page 6 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/270,002 Page 7 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/270,002 Page 8 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/270,002 Page 9 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/270,002 Page 10 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/270,002 Page 11 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/270,002 Page 13 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/270,002 Page 14 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/270,002 Page 15 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/270,002 Page 16 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/270,002 Page 17 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/270,002 Page 18 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/270,002 Page 19 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/270,002 Page 20 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/270,002 Page 22 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/270,002 Page 23 Art Unit: 3673
Prosecution Insights