DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 1—10, 16—17 and 22—24 have been examined in this application. Claims 11—15 & 18—21 have been canceled. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to Applicants “Remarks” filed [03/27/2026]. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 03/27/2026 has been acknowledged by the Office.
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.
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:
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7—10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2014/0007346 A1 to Lachenbruch (Lachenbruch hereafter) in view of U.S Patent Application 2014/0283308 A1 to Chen et. al (Chen hereafter) in further view of U.S Patent Application 2013/0255699 A1 to Squitieri (Squitieri hereafter).
As per claim 1, Lachenbruch teaches
A controller (16—Fig.1; para [0047]) comprising: a structural body (10—Fig.1; para [0035]) that has a fluid interface (14—Fig.1; para [0035]) to which a pressure-mitigation apparatus (32—Fig.2; para [0038]) is fluidly coupled(para [0035]),
wherein the pressure-mitigation apparatus includes a plurality of chambers (32—Fig.3 para [0038]);
and, in operation, is situated between a human body and a surface (Fig.4: pressure mitigation apparatus 32 positioned between human body and a surface);
a sensor [and] that is configured to output a signal indicative of a monitored characteristic of an ambient environment(56—Fig.5; para [0048-49]);
a processor(para [0053]); and
a memory that includes instructions for regulating a flow of fluid to inflate the plurality of chambers of the pressure-mitigation apparatus in a controlled manner (72—Fig.5; para [0053]),
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
identify a programmed pattern that corresponds to the pressure- mitigation apparatus(para [0053]; claim 1), and
determined, based on the signal output by the sensor, whether to (i)
modify the programmed pattern or (ii) initiate inflation of
the plurality of chambers in accordance with the programmed pattern(para [0053]; claim 1), such that a force applied by the surface to the human body is shifted over time(para [0053]; claim 11).
Lachenbruch does not teach: [a sensor] that is housed in the structural body.
Chen teaches : [a sensor] that is housed in the structural body (47—Fig.3; para [0061]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Lachenbruch (directed to a pressure mitigation provided with sensors indicative of an ambient environment) and Chen (directed to a patient support provided with a sensor housed within the controller) pressure mitigation device provided with sensors indicative of an ambient environment with a sensor housed within the controller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to measure and monitor the conditions in each of the zones of the mattress as taught in Chen (para [0068]).
Lachenbruch as modified does not teach inflation of the plurality of chambers in accordance with the programmed pattern that indicates, in terms of pressure and duration, how to inflate the plurality of chambers over time
Squitieri teaches [inflation of the plurality of chambers] in accordance with the programmed pattern that indicates, in terms of pressure and duration, how to inflate the plurality of chambers over time (para [0087]: control the pressure in chambers of the pressure mitigation support apparatus 120 such that the pressure in any chamber changes or is modified after a specified period of time).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Lachenbruch (directed to a pressure mitigation provided with sensors indicative of an ambient environment) and Chen (directed to a patient support provided with a sensor housed within the controller) and Squitieri (directed to a patient support provided with a programmed pattern that indicates, in terms of pressure and duration, how to inflate the plurality of chambers over time) pressure mitigation device provided with sensors indicative of an ambient environment with a sensor housed within the controller provided with a programmed pattern that indicates, in terms of pressure and duration, how to inflate the plurality of chambers over time. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to mitigate pressure risk by ensuring no part of the patient's body is left in contact with the pressure mitigation support apparatus for more than a period of time as taught in Squitieri (para [0087]).
As per claim 2, Lachenbruch (as modified) teaches
The controller of claim 1, further comprising:
a display mechanism (para [0068-67]: display not shown indicates programmed pattern as function of data received from controller)
on which information related to the human body, the pressure-mitigation apparatus, the programmed pattern, or the flow of fluid is displayable;
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: determine when to cause display of the information on the display mechanism based on an analysis of the signal output by the sensor (para [0068-67]: display not shown indicates programmed pattern as function of data received from controller and sent from controller).
As per claim 7, Lachenbruch (as modified) teaches
The controller of claim 1, wherein the sensor is a temperature sensor whose output is indicative of a temperature of the ambient environment (62—Fig.5; para [0048]).
As per claim 8, Lachenbruch (as modified) teaches
The controller of claim 1, wherein the sensor is a humidity sensor whose output is indicative of a temperature humidity of the ambient environment (62 & 64—Fig.5; para [0048]).
As per claim 9, Lachenbruch (as modified) teaches
The controller of claim 1, wherein the sensor is one of multiple sensors configured to output signals indicative of different monitored characteristics of the ambient environment(para [0048-49]).
As per claim 10, Lachenbruch (as modified) teaches
The controller of claim 1, wherein by either modifying the programmed pattern or initiating inflation of the plurality of chambers based on the signal output by the sensor(para [0053]), the controller is able, to account for the ambient environment in which the pressure-mitigation apparatus is situated (claim 8; para [0051]: processor receives data from controller 58 and regulated fluid supply in pressure mitigation apparatus based on received signals).
Claim(s) 3—5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2014/0007346 A1 to Lachenbruch in view of U.S Patent Application 2014/0283308 A1 to Chen in further view of U.S Patent Application 2013/0255699 A1 to Squitieri in view of U.S Patent Application 2018/0284274 A1 to LaChapelle (LaChapelle hereafter).
As per claim 3, Lachenbruch (as modified) teaches The controller of claim 1.
Lachenbruch does not teach, wherein the sensor is a proximity sensor whose output is indictive of proximity of an object located in a field of view.
LaChappelle teaches , wherein the sensor is a proximity sensor whose output is indictive of proximity of an object located in a field of view (Claim 1: LiDAR sensor system which indicates the spatial relationship between an object and remote target).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Lachenbruch (directed to a pressure mitigation provided with sensors indicative of an ambient environment) and Chen (directed to a patient support provided with a sensor housed within the controller) and LaChapelle (directed to a proximity sensor that is a laser imaging, detection, and ranging (LiDAR) scanner whose output is indictive of proximity of an object located in a field of view) and arrived at a pressure mitigation provided with a proximity sensor that is a laser imaging, detection, and ranging (LiDAR) scanner whose output is indictive of proximity of an object located in a field of view. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide location markers to obtain distance-to-target information at various angles using a laser output beam and a primary detector taught in LaChapelle (para [0024]).
As per claim 4, Lachenbruch (as modified) teaches The controller of claim 3
Lachenbruch does not teach, wherein the proximity sensor includes (i) an emitter operable to emit infrared light away from the controller within the field of view and (ii) a detector operable to detect infrared light reflected by the object toward the controller.
LaChappelle teaches wherein the proximity sensor includes (i) an emitter operable (110—Fig.1) to emit infrared light away from the controller within the field of view and (ii) a detector operable to detect infrared light reflected by the object toward the controller(150—Fig.1;Claim 1: LiDAR system which indicates the spatial relationship between an object and remote target via an emitter which pulses light and a detector which generates a measured special relationship between emitter and detector of infrared laser light).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Lachenbruch (directed to a pressure mitigation provided with sensors indicative of an ambient environment) and Chen (directed to a patient support provided with a sensor housed within the controller)and LaChapelle (directed to a proximity sensor that is a laser imaging, detection, and ranging (LiDAR) scanner whose output is indictive of proximity of an object located in a field of view) and arrived at a pressure mitigation provided with a proximity sensor that is a laser imaging, detection, and ranging (LiDAR) scanner whose output is indictive of proximity of an object located in a field of view. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide location markers to obtain distance-to-target information at various angles using a laser output beam and a primary detector taught in LaChapelle (para [0024]).
As per claim 5, Lachenbruch (as modified) teaches The controller of claim 3.
Lachenbruch does not teach, wherein the proximity sensor is a laser imaging, detection, and ranging (LiDAR) scanner.
LaChappelle teaches wherein the proximity sensor is a laser imaging, detection, and ranging (LiDAR) scanner (Claim 1: LiDAR system which indicates the spatial relationship between an object and remote target via laser and detector scanner).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Lachenbruch (directed to a pressure mitigation provided with sensors indicative of an ambient environment) and Chen (directed to a patient support provided with a sensor housed within the controller) and LaChapelle (directed to a proximity sensor that is a laser imaging, detection, and ranging (LiDAR) scanner whose output is indictive of proximity of an object located in a field of view) and arrived at a pressure mitigation provided with a proximity sensor that is a laser imaging, detection, and ranging (LiDAR) scanner whose output is indictive of proximity of an object located in a field of view. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide location markers to obtain distance-to-target information at various angles using a laser output beam and a primary detector taught in LaChapelle (para [0024]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2014/0007346 A1 to Lachenbruch in view of U.S Patent Application 2014/0283308 A1 to Chen in view of U.S Patent Application 2013/0255699 A1 to Squitieri in view of U.S Patent Application 2016/0296159 A1 to Larson et. al (Larson hereafter).
As per claim 6, Lachenbruch (as modified) teaches The controller of claim 1.
Lachenbruch does not teach, wherein the sensor is an ambient light sensor whose output is indicative of an amount of light in the ambient environment.
Larson teaches, wherein the sensor is an ambient light sensor whose output is indicative of an amount of light in the ambient environment (para [0099]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Lachenbruch (directed to a pressure mitigation provided with sensors indicative of an ambient environment) and Chen (directed to a patient support provided with a sensor housed within the controller) and Larson (directed to a sensor provided with an indicator of light) and arrived at a pressure mitigation provided with sensors indicative of an ambient environment a sensor provided with an indicator of light. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide location markers to indicate a position via light detected in an environment as taught in Larson (para [0199]).
Claim(s) 16, 17 & 22—24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2014/0007346 A1 to Lachenbruch in view of U.S Patent Application 2016/0296159 A1 to Larson et. al (Larson hereafter) in view of U.S Patent Application 2014/0345060 A1 to Ribble et. al (Ribble hereafter).
As per claim 16, Lachenbruch (as modified) teaches:
A controller (16—Fig.1; para [0047]) comprising:
a structural body (10—Fig.1; para [0035]) that has a fluid interface (14—Fig.1; para [0035]) to which a pressure-mitigation
apparatus is fluidly coupled (para [0035]),
wherein the pressure-mitigation apparatus includes a plurality of chambers (32—Fig.3 para [0038]);
and in operation, is situated between a human body and a surface (Fig.4: pressure mitigation apparatus 32 positioned between human body and a surface);
a communication module (60—Fig.5; para [0050]) that is configured to —
establish communication channel via which the controller is able to receive data from a computing device (EMR—Fig.5; para [0050]) wherein the computing device is external to, and separate from, the controller and the pressure-mitigation apparatus (60 & EMR—Fig.5; para [0050]: EMR computing device external to controller and pressure mitigation apparatus) and includes a sensor (56—Fig.5; para [0050]) configured to monitor a characteristic of the human body (56—Fig.5; para [0048-49]), and
receive, from the computing device, data that is indicative of the monitored characteristic (claim 1) of the human body and that includes, or is based on, one or more measurements output by the sensor(claim 1);
a processor (Claim 1; para [0053]); and
a memory that includes instructions for regulating a flow of fluid to inflate the plurality of chambers of the pressure-mitigation apparatus in a controlled manner (72—Fig.5; para [0053]), wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
identify a programmed pattern that corresponds to the pressure- mitigation apparatus (para [0053]) and,
determine, based on the signal, whether to (i) modify the programmed pattern (claim 1) or (ii) initiate inflation of and the plurality of chambers to varying degrees in accordance with the programmed pattern (para [0053]; claim 1) wherein the programmed pattern indicates how to inflate the plurality of chambers to varying degrees(para [0053]; claim 1), such that a force applied by the surface to the human body is shifted over time (para [0053]; claim 1).
Lachenbruch does not teach [a communication module] that is configured to — establish a wireless communication channel via which the controller is able to receive data from
and wherein the computing device includes a sensor configured to monitor a characteristic of the human body, and receive, from the computing device via the wireless communication channel, data that is indicative of the monitored characteristic [of the human body and that includes, or is based on, one or more measurements output by the sensor;]
Larson teaches a communication module (140—Fig.2A; para [0049]) that is configured to — establish a wireless communication channel via which the controller is able to receive data from a computing device
[a sensor] that is configured to , receive from computing device via the wireless communication channel a data (110—Fig.2A; para [0049]) that is indicative of the monitored characteristic [of the human body and that includes, or is based on, one or more measurements output by the sensor ](para [0049]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Lachenbruch (directed to a pressure mitigation provided with sensors indicative of an ambient environment) and Larson (directed to a communication module that is configured to — establish a wireless communication channel via which the controller is able to receive data from a sensor) and arrived at a pressure mitigation provided with sensors indicative of an ambient environment a sensor provided with an indicator of light. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide signals an information without the use of excessive wires as taught in Larson (para [0056]).
Lachenbruch does not teach and wherein the computing device includes a sensor configured to monitor a characteristic of the human body, and receive, from the computing device via the wireless communication channel, data that is indicative of the monitored characteristic [of the human body and that includes, or is based on, one or more measurements output by the sensor;]
Locke teaches and wherein the computing device (102-Fig.2; para [0035]) includes a sensor configured to monitor a characteristic of the human body (70-F-g.2; para [0035]), and receive, from the computing device via the wireless communication channel, data (para [0037]) that is indicative of the monitored characteristic [of the human body and that includes, or is based on, one or more measurements output by the sensor ](102-Fig.2; para [0035]);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Lachenbruch (directed to a pressure mitigation provided with sensors indicative of an ambient environment) and Larson (directed to a communication module that is configured to — establish a wireless communication channel via which the controller is able to receive data from a sensor) and Locke (directed to a patient support provided with a computing device including a sensor and monitoring system) and arrived at a pressure mitigation provided with sensors indicative of an ambient environment a sensor provided with an indicator of light. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to monitor boundaries and/or keep-out regions and to detect whether the patient, other persons, and/or objects have crossed boundaries as taught in Locke (para [0037]).
As per claim 17, Lachenbruch (as modified) teaches
The controller of claim 16, further comprising:
a display mechanism on which information is displayable (para [0068-67]: display not shown indicates programmed pattern as function of data received from controller); and wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: compute, in an ongoing manner, values for a vital sign based on an analysis of the signal, and cause display of the values on the display mechanism (para [0068-67]: display not shown indicates programmed pattern as function of data received from controller).
As per claim 22, Lachenbruch (as modified),
The controller 16.
Lachenbruch as modified does not teach, wherein the sensor is able to measure blood pressure of the human body.
Larson teaches, wherein the sensor is able to measure blood pressure of the human body (para [0111]: sensor provided with pressures vitals via EKG).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Lachenbruch (directed to a pressure mitigation provided with sensors indicative of an ambient environment) and Larson (directed to a sensor able to measure blood pressure of the human body) and arrived at a pressure mitigation provided with sensors indicative of an ambient environment a sensor to compute heartrate of the human body. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to affect positional or orientation positioning of the patient support based on vitals as taught in Larson (para [0111]).
As per claim 23, Lachenbruch (as modified) teaches
The controller of claim 19.
Lachenbruch (as modified) does not teach, wherein the sensor is able to compute heartrate of the human body.
Larson teaches, wherein the sensor is able to compute heartrate of the human body (para [0082]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Lachenbruch (directed to a pressure mitigation provided with sensors indicative of an ambient environment) and Larson (directed to a sensor to compute heartrate of the human body) and arrived at a pressure mitigation provided with sensors indicative of an ambient environment a sensor to compute heartrate of the human body. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to affect positional or orientation positioning of the patient support based on vitals as taught in Larson (para [0111]).
As per claim 24 Lachenbruch (as modified) teaches:
The controller of claim 16 , wherein the sensor is able to measure temperature of the human body (62—Fig.5; para [0048]: configured to sense the temperature of a tissue contacting the person contacting surface).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg.1—6, filed 03/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of
Claim(s) 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2014/0007346 A1 to Lachenbruch in view of U.S Patent Application 2014/0283308 A1 to Chen.
and
Claim(s) 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2014/0007346 A1 to Lachenbruch in further view of U.S Patent Application 2016/0296159 A1 to Larson. 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 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2014/0007346 A1 to Lachenbruch in view of U.S Patent Application 2014/0283308 A1 to Chen in further view of U.S Patent Application 2013/0255699 A1 to Squitieri.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2014/0007346 A1 to Lachenbruch in view of U.S Patent Application 2016/0296159 A1 to Larson in view of U.S Patent Application 2014/0345060 A1 to Ribble.
Applicant’s Arguments:
Regarding the Non-Final Rejection filed on 03/27/2026, the Applicant argues,
1) Regarding independent claims 1 & 16 Applicant submits Lachenbruch does not teach inflating "the plurality of chambers to varying degrees in accordance with the programmed pattern"…. that the fluid supply changes with time. Instead, change of the fluid supply is prompted by a sensor value that goes over a threshold (para. [0059]). By contrast, inflating "the plurality of chambers to varying degrees in accordance with [a] programmed pattern" causes the pattern of inflation and/or deflation to reliably change over time, rather than directly in response to a sensor output.
2) Regarding claim 16, Lachenbruch nor Chen disclose sensors that "output a signal indicative of a monitored characteristic of an ambient environment." …In both cases however, the sensor measures characteristics of an internal environment of the mattress system not the ambient environment.
Lachenbruch does disclose that sensors may be directly connected to the controller or connected to the controller via a network. However, it does not teach that the controller may connect to a computing device that includes one or more sensors, let alone sensors that "monitor a characteristic of the human body."
Examiner's Response to Arguments:
The examiner respectfully disagrees to the Applicant’s Arguments for the following reasons:
1) Regarding independent claims 1 Examiner highlights that Lachenbruch (as modified by Chen and Squitieri) teaches the plurality of chambers to varying degrees in accordance with the programmed pattern. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to mitigate pressure risk by ensuring no part of the patient's body is left in contact with the pressure mitigation support apparatus for more than a period of time as taught in Squitieri (para [0087]).
2) Regarding independent claims 16 Examiner highlights that Lachenbruch (as modified by Larson and Ribble) to teach "output a signal indicative of a monitored characteristic of an ambient environment." And wherein a controller may connect to a computing device that includes one or more sensors, let alone sensors that "monitor a characteristic of the human body." as presented above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 on 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 06/01/2026
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights