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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 8/21/2026.
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 2, 5, 15, 18, and 19 are 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.
The term “generally” in claims 2, 5, 15, 18, and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Regarding Claims 2 and 19, the examiner is unsure to what degree, the deck section panel remains tangential to an arc. Regarding Claim 5, the examiner is unsure to what degree the longitudinal members extend parallel to each other. Regarding Claims 15 and 18, the examiner is unsure to what degree retainer is perpendicular to the deck section panel. As such, the Examiner suggests amending the claims to clarify or further remove the term from the claims.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-14, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutler (US 20200107983 A1) in view of Antinori (US 6276011 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Cutler discloses an upper body deck section (fowler deck section 44) for a patient support apparatus, comprising: a supporting structure including a deck section panel for supporting a support surface thereon (See Fig. 3-4, top portion 49 sits on deck section 44 which is supported by support frame 36) ,the deck section panel having a head end and a foot end opposite the head end (See Fig. 3 and 6, edge portions 41 and 43); and an articulation mechanism operatively connected to the supporting structure and configured to be connected to a frame of the patient support apparatus (See Fig. 5, deck articulating assembly 81), the articulation mechanism including at least one linkage assembly including a plurality of links pivotably connected to each other and collaborating to guide movement of the supporting structure between a lowered position and a raised position (See Fig. 5, deck articulating assembly 81 comprising links 89, 90, and actuator 76a), at least a majority of a range of motion of the supporting structure being spanned between the lowered position and the raised position, in the lowered position, the deck section panel extending at a first angle relative to a horizontal plane and the foot end of the deck section panel being disposed at a first height (See Fig. 8, deck section 44 in the lowered position generally horizontal to the horizontal plane, edge portion 43 at a first height), in the raised position, the deck section panel being disposed at a second angle relative to the horizontal plane and the foot end of the deck section panel being disposed at a second height, the second angle being greater than the first angle, the second height being greater than the first height (See Fig. 9, deck section 44 in the raised position at a angle relative to the horizontal plane, edge portion 43 at a greater height than shown in fig. 8), the foot end of the deck section panel being positioned further headward in the raised position than in the lowered position (See Fig. 8-9, edge portion 43 moves left when following the arcuate path).
Cutler fails to explicitly disclose the at least one linkage assembly being configured such that, as the supporting structure is moved from the lowered position to the raised position, the foot end of the deck section panel does not move vertically lower than the first height.
However, Antinori teaches the at least one linkage assembly being configured such that, as the supporting structure is moved from the lowered position to the raised position, the foot end of the deck section panel does not move vertically lower than the first height (See Fig. 4 and 5, backrest support Bs does not move vertically lower from the lowered to raised position).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Cutler (directed to a patient support apparatus with articulating fowler deck section) and Antinori (similarly directed to an adjustable bed) before them, to have substituted the linkage assembly of Antorini for the linkage assembly of Cutler with a reasonable expectation of success. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as the linkage assemblies are art-recognized equivalents that may be used interchangeably without changing the function of a support apparatus.
Regarding Claim 2, Cutler, as modified, teaches the upper body deck section (fowler deck section 44) of claim 1, wherein the at least one linkage assembly is configured to guide the supporting structure such that the deck section panel remains generally tangential to an arc as the deck section panel is moved between the lowered position and the raised position (See Fig. 8-9, deck section 44 remains on the arcuate path between the lowered and raised positions).
Regarding Claim 3, Cutler, as modified, teaches the upper body deck section (fowler deck section 44) of claim 2, wherein the arc is a section of a circle or ellipse centered about an axis extending laterally and vertically higher than the first height (See Fig. 8-9, center point of the arc lies above both the horizontal plane L and the first height of edge portion 43).
Regarding Claim 4, Cutler, as modified, teaches the upper body deck section (fowler deck section 44) of claim 1, wherein the first angle is at most 10° (first angle is parallel to the horizontal plane L, also 0 degrees).
Regarding Claim 5, Cutler, as modified, teaches the upper body deck section (fowler deck section 44) of claim 1, wherein the supporting structure comprises a chassis connected to the deck section panel, the chassis including left and right longitudinal members extending generally parallel to each other, the at least one linkage assembly being operatively connected to the chassis, the deck section panel being longitudinally fixed relative to the left and right longitudinal members (See Fig. 7, “tension link 89 is also pivotally coupled to a cross member 37b of the support frame 36 which is disposed closer to the headboard 60 than cross-member 37a. The c-shaped compression link 90 is pivotally coupled to the bottom portion 51 of the fowler deck section 44. The tension link 89 and the c-shaped compression link 90 may be pivotally connected to the cross member 37b, and the bottom portion 51 of the fowler deck section 44 via one or more pivot brackets and associated pivot pins or shafts, and/or via other suitable connections”; [0035]).
Regarding Claim 6, Cutler, as modified, teaches the upper body deck section (fowler deck section 44) of claim 1.
Cutler fails to explicitly teach wherein each of the at least one linkage assembly is a six-bar linkage.
However, Antinori teaches wherein each of the at least one linkage assembly is a six-bar linkage (See Fig. 4 and 5 below, links 81, 86, 82, 98, 99 and 92).
PNG
media_image1.png
543
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
132
194
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Cutler (directed to a patient support apparatus with articulating fowler deck section) and Antinori (similarly directed to an adjustable bed) before them, to have substituted the six-bar linkage assembly of Antorini for the linkage assembly of Cutler with a reasonable expectation of success. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as the linkage assemblies are art-recognized equivalents that may be used interchangeably without changing the function of a support apparatus.
Regarding Claim 7, Cutler, as modified, teaches the upper body deck section (fowler deck section 44) of claim 1, wherein: the plurality of links comprises: a first link configured to be pivotably connected to the frame of the patient support apparatus at a first joint (See Fig. 7, tension link 89 pivotally connected to cross member 37b); a third link pivotably connected to the first link and to the supporting structure (See Fig. 7, compression link 90 pivotally connected to link 89 and bottom portion 51 of deck section 44), throughout movement of the supporting structure between the lowered position and the raised position, the first joint and the second joint are disposed on a foot side of a vertical plane bisecting a length of the deck section panel (See Fig. 6, link joints on a foot side of a vertical plane during the raising and lowering of section 44).
Cutler fails to explicitly teach a second link configured to be pivotably connected to the frame of the patient support apparatus at a second joint; and a fourth link pivotably connected to the second link and to the supporting structure.
However, Antinori teaches a second link configured to be pivotably connected to the frame of the patient support apparatus at a second joint; and a fourth link pivotably connected to the second link and to the supporting structure (See Fig. 4 and 5 above, links all indirectly pivotably connected to the backrest support Bs and main frame 21).
Regarding Claim 8, Cutler, as modified, teaches the upper body deck section (fowler deck section 44) of claim 7, wherein all connections between the at least one linkage assembly and the frame remain on the foot side of the vertical plane throughout movement of the supporting structure between the lowered and raised positions (See Fig. 6, link joints on a foot side of a vertical plane during the raising and lowering of section 44).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Cutler (directed to a patient support apparatus with articulating fowler deck section) and Antinori (similarly directed to an adjustable bed) before them, to have substituted the six-bar linkage assembly of Antorini for the linkage assembly of Cutler with a reasonable expectation of success. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as the linkage assemblies are art-recognized equivalents that may be used interchangeably without changing the function of a support apparatus.
Regarding Claim 10, Cutler, as modified, teaches the upper body deck section (fowler deck section 44) of claim 7.
Cutler fails to explicitly teach wherein, in a side elevation view of the at least one linkage assembly, the third link extends through the second link irrespective of a position of the supporting structure.
However, Antinori teaches wherein, in a side elevation view of the at least one linkage assembly, the third link extends through the second link irrespective of a position of the supporting structure (See Fig. 4 and 5, 92 extends through 81).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Cutler (directed to a patient support apparatus with articulating fowler deck section) and Antinori (similarly directed to an adjustable bed) before them, to have substituted the six-bar linkage assembly of Antorini for the linkage assembly of Cutler with a reasonable expectation of success. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as the linkage assemblies are art-recognized equivalents that may be used interchangeably without changing the function of a support apparatus.
Regarding Claim 11, Cutler, as modified, teaches the upper body deck section (fowler deck section 44) of claim 10.
Cutler fails to explicitly teach wherein the third link is pivotably connected to the second link.
However, Antinori teaches wherein the third link is pivotably connected to the second link (See Fig. 3-5, link 92 pivotally connected to 81 through 86).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Cutler (directed to a patient support apparatus with articulating fowler deck section) and Antinori (similarly directed to an adjustable bed) before them, to have substituted the six-bar linkage assembly of Antorini for the linkage assembly of Cutler with a reasonable expectation of success. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as the linkage assemblies are art-recognized equivalents that may be used interchangeably without changing the function of a support apparatus.
Regarding Claim 12, Cutler, as modified, teaches the upper body deck section (fowler deck section 44) of claim 1, further comprising at least one biasing assembly configured to bias the supporting structure away from the lowered position when the supporting structure is in the
lowered position (See Fig. 5, actuator 76A is used to move the deck section between the lowered and raised configurations).
Regarding Claim 13, Cutler, as modified, teaches the upper body deck section (fowler deck section 44) of claim 12, wherein the biasing assembly comprises: a sleeve (See Fig. 5, hollow tubular section 87); a piston received within the sleeve and movable axially along the sleeve (See Fig. 5, actuator shaft 88); and a biasing element forcing the piston outward from the sleeve so that the piston abuts a part of the at least one linkage assembly in the lowered position of the supporting structure to bias the supporting structure toward the raised position (See Fig. 5, linear actuator 76A is an electric actuator and is used to move the deck section between the lowered and raised configurations).
Regarding Claim 14, Cutler, as modified, teaches the upper body deck section (fowler deck section 44) of claim 1, wherein the raised position corresponds to a fully raised position of the supporting structure (See Fig. 9, raised configuration of deck section 44).
Regarding Claim 16, Cutler, as modified, teaches a patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 30) comprising: a base (base 34); a frame movable relative to the base (support frame 36); an elevation system operatively connecting the frame to the base to move the frame relative to the base (See Fig. 1, lift assembly 70 configured to raise and lower frame 36); and a deck configured to support a support surface thereon (patient support deck 38), the deck being connected to the frame (deck 38 attached to frame 36), the deck including a plurality of deck sections including the upper body deck section (deck sections 44, 48 and 50) of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19, Cutler discloses an upper body deck section (fowler deck section 44) for a patient support apparatus, comprising: a supporting structure including a deck section panel for supporting a support surface thereon (See Fig. 3-4, top portion 49 sits on deck section 44 which is supported by support frame 36), the deck section panel having a head end and a foot end opposite the head end (See Fig. 3 and 6, edge portions 41 and 43); and an articulation mechanism operatively connected to the supporting structure and configured to be connected to a frame of the patient support apparatus (See Fig. 5, deck articulating assembly 81), the articulation mechanism including at least one linkage assembly including a plurality of links pivotably connected to each other and collaborating to guide movement of the supporting structure between a lowered position and a raised position (See Fig. 5, deck articulating assembly 81 comprising links 89, 90, and actuator 76a), at least a majority of a range of motion of the supporting structure being spanned between the lowered position and the raised position (See Fig. 8, deck section 44 in the lowered position generally horizontal to the horizontal plane, edge portion 43 at a first height), the at least one linkage assembly being configured such that the deck section panel remains generally tangential to an arc as the deck section panel is moved between the lowered and raised positions (See Fig. 8-9, deck section 44 remains on the arcuate path between the lowered and raised positions).
Cutler fails to explicitly disclose each of the at least one linkage assembly being a six-bar linkage.
However, Antinori teaches wherein each of the at least one linkage assembly is a six-bar linkage (See Fig. 4 and 5 above, links 81, 86, 82, 98, 99 and 92).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Cutler (directed to a patient support apparatus with articulating fowler deck section) and Antinori (similarly directed to an adjustable bed) before them, to have substituted the six-bar linkage assembly of Antorini for the linkage assembly of Cutler with a reasonable expectation of success. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as the linkage assemblies are art-recognized equivalents that may be used interchangeably without changing the function of a support apparatus.
Regarding Claim 20, Cutler, as modified, teaches the upper body deck section (fowler deck section 44) of claim 19, wherein the arc is a section of one a circle and ellipse centered about an axis extending laterally and above a height of the deck section panel in the lowered position (See Fig. 8-9, center point of the arc lies above both the horizontal plane L and the first height of edge portion 43).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutler (US 20200107983 A1) in view of Antinori (US 6276011 B1), further in view of Borgman (US 11684530 B2).
Regarding Claim 15, Cutler, as modified, teaches the upper body deck section (fowler deck section 44) of claim 1.
Cutler in view of Antinori fails to explicitly teach at least one retainer for limiting movement of the support surface supported by the upper body deck section, the at least one retainer being connected to the supporting structure and projecting upwardly from the deck section panel generally perpendicularly thereto, the at least one retainer being configured to be inserted into a slot of the support surface in order to retain the support surface relative to the deck section panel as the supporting structure moves between the lowered and raised positions.
However, Borgman teaches at least one retainer for limiting movement of the support surface supported by the upper body deck section (See Fig. 2A-2C, retention feature 72), the at least one retainer being connected to the supporting structure and projecting upwardly from the deck section panel generally perpendicularly thereto (See Fig. 2A-2C, recessed portion 76 clasps around sleep deck 12), the at least one retainer being configured to be inserted into a slot of the support surface in order to retain the support surface relative to the deck section panel as the supporting structure moves between the lowered and raised positions (See Fig. 2A-2C, coupling members 82 protrude perpendicularly from the sleep deck 12 and into the mattress shell 20).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Cutler in view of Antinori by adding retention feature taught by Borgman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “couples the mattress 18 to the sleep deck 12 during repositioning and articulation of the hospital bed 10”; (Borgman, [Col. 5, Lines 7-9]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutler (US 20200107983 A1) in view of Antinori (US 6276011 B1), further in view of Reed (US 20050039263 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Cutler, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 30) of claim 16, wherein the deck further comprises: a seat deck section adjacent to the upper body deck section, the seat deck section having a seat deck section panel for supporting the support surface (“seat deck dection”; [0023], “mattress 39 is disposed along the flat top portion 49 of each one of the respective deck sections 40”; [0026]) .
Cutler in view of Antorini fails to explicitly teach a gap filling panel fixed to the seat deck section and engaged with the supporting structure of the upper body deck section, the gap filling panel extending between the seat deck section and the upper body deck section to fill a gap between a upper panel of the upper body deck section and the seat deck section panel, the gap filling panel elastically deforming in response to the supporting structure being moved to the raised position, the gap filling panel being retained between the upper panel of the upper body deck section panel and a chassis of the upper body deck section.
However, Reed teaches a gap filling panel fixed to the seat deck section and engaged with the supporting structure of the upper body deck section (See Fig. 3, flexible form stable sheet 10), the gap filling panel extending between the seat deck section and the upper body deck section to fill a gap between a upper panel of the upper body deck section and the seat deck section panel (See Fig. 3, flexible form stable sheet 10 extends between support member 7 for the torso and support member 8 for the buttocks), the gap filling panel elastically deforming in response to the supporting structure being moved to the raised position (See Fig. 3, flexible form stable sheet 10 flexing when platforms are raised), the gap filling panel being retained between the upper panel of the upper body deck section panel and a chassis of the upper body deck section (See Fig. 3, sheet 10 retained between torso platform 3 and torso member 7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Cutler in view of Antorini by adding the flexible sheet taught by Reed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for the comfort of the user”; (Reed, [0039]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutler (US 20200107983 A1) in view of Antinori (US 6276011 B1), in view of Reed (US 20050039263 A1), further in view of Borgman (US 11684530 B2).
Regarding Claim 18, Cutler, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 30) of claim 17.
Cutler in view of Antorini in view of Reed fails to explicitly teach at least one retainer for limiting movement of the support surface supported by the upper body deck section, the at least one retainer being connected to the supporting structure and projecting upwardly from the deck section panel generally perpendicularly thereto, the at least one retainer being configured to be inserted into a slot of the support surface in order to retain the support surface relative to the deck section panel as the supporting structure moves between the lowered and raised positions, the at least one retainer collaborating with the gap filling panel to help the support surface follow the movement of the upper body deck section.
However, Borgman teaches at least one retainer for limiting movement of the support surface supported by the upper body deck section (See Fig. 2A-2C, retention feature 72), the at least one retainer being connected to the supporting structure and projecting upwardly from the deck section panel generally perpendicularly thereto (See Fig. 2A-2C, recessed portion 76 clasps around sleep deck 12), the at least one retainer being configured to be inserted into a slot of the support surface in order to retain the support surface relative to the deck section panel as the supporting structure moves between the lowered and raised positions (See Fig. 2A-2C, coupling members 82 protrude perpendicularly from the sleep deck 12 and into the mattress shell 20), the at least one retainer collaborating with the gap filling panel to help the support surface follow the movement of the upper body deck section (“couples the mattress 18 to the sleep deck 12 during repositioning and articulation of the hospital bed 10”; [Col. 5, Lines 7-9]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Cutler in view of Antorini in view of Reed by adding retention feature taught by Borgman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “couples the mattress 18 to the sleep deck 12 during repositioning and articulation of the hospital bed 10”; (Borgman, [Col. 5, Lines 7-9]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-12, filed 8/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 19 (directed to a six-bar linkage) under 35 USC 102 and claim 6 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art (Antinori (US 6276011 B1). The prior art of Antinori is referenced to teach the previously rejected claim limitations in claim 1 (see page. 5 above), claim 6 (see page. 6), and claim 19, (see page. 11).
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2026, specific to claim 19 (movement along an arcuate path) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant’s Arguments:
“Further, the Examiner asserts that Figures 8 and 9 of Cutler show the fowler deck section remaining on an arcuate path between the lowered and raised positions. However, claim 19 does not merely recite movement along an arcuate path. Rather, claim 19 requires that the deck section panel remain generally tangential to an arc as the deck section panel is moved between the lowered and raised positions. Figures 8 and 9 of Cutler depict only the lowered and raised positions of the fowler deck section 44 and do not illustrate the orientation of the deck section panel through the range of motion between those positions. As such, these figures do not establish that the deck section panel remains generally tangential to an arc during movement between the lowered and raised positions as required by claim 19. Moreover, nothing in Cutler suggests that the flat top portion 49 of the fowler deck section 44 remains generally tangential to an arc as it is moved between the lowered and raised positions. The mere fact that Cutler's fowler deck section 44 is guided by curved slot members 94 does not establish that the orientation of the flat top portion 49 continuously follows the tangent of a corresponding are throughout its range of motion. On the contrary, Cutler discloses a motion in which the fowler deck section 44 both translates and pivots relative to support frame 36, such that the orientation of the flat top portion 49 changes independently of any arcuate path that may be followed by individual points on the mechanism. Accordingly, Cutler does not demonstrate the claimed configuration in which the deck section panel remains generally tangential to an arc during movement between the lowered and raised positions. For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that claim 19 is not anticipated by Cutler. Examiner is thus respectfully requested to withdraw the rejection of claim 19.”
Examiner’s Response:
In response to the applicant’s argument that the prior art of Cutler fails to explicitly disclose movement along an arcuate path, the examiner respectfully disagrees and the claim rejection is maintained. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, the examiner interprets the ambiguous term “generally” as close to, which in itself is unclear. Looking at Figures 8 and 9 of Cutler, the deck section panel 44 does in fact remain generally tangential to an arc, noted by an arcuate arrow resembling the path of panel 44. Even though the deck section 44 is translated and pivoted by a guide slot configuration, the panel 44 does generally follow an arc because the edge portion 43 is at a distance from the guide slot, due to the follow members 93 and the spaced apart timing links 91. Therefore, the deck section 44 does remain generally tangential to arc when it is raised and lowered, and the claim rejection is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claim is allowable over the prior art of record because the teachings taken as a whole do not teach nor render obvious the combinations set forth in Dependent Claim 9.
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, the prior art of Cutler teaches the upper body deck section of claim 7. However, the prior art of Cutler in view of Antorini and other references of record fail to explicitly teach, without impermissible hindsight, the detailed combination regarding the linkage mechanism specific to the third and fourth linked joints and the longitudinal distances between said joints relative to the foot end of the deck section. Therefore, with the prior art failing to disclose the instant invention and an additional search, it is the Examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at and/or claimed this specific combination of features in the designed configuration based on the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
EP 3651711 B1: Malvestio discloses a healthcare bed with a vertically adjustable backrest section, comprising a linkage mechanism and biasing element configured to incline the backrest section.
US 20090044339 A1: Morin discloses a shearless pivot assembly for a patient support apparatus configured to raise a head section of a deck vertically.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
