Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 14-21 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brubaker et al. (US-20150059100) in view of Szalkowsji et al. (US- 9320311).
Regarding claim 14, Brubaker et al. discloses a patient support (40) for supporting a patient, the patient support comprising: a lattice of cells (figs 3 and 4a, at least 30), each of the cells having a base (at or near 26e), a top (26c) disposed opposite the base, one or more buckling elements (26d) configured to compress under a patient load, the bucking elements extending from the base to the top to form a column that defines an empty interior volume defined by a perimeter of the one or more buckling elements (figs 3 and 4a), and a cap (fig 3, at or near 26a, fig 4a 26c, and [0079] cover 26c) disposed on the one or more buckling elements to disperse compression pressure exerted on the top, wherein the cap extends at least partially beyond the top of the column (figs 3, 4a).
Regarding claim 14, Brubaker discloses a plurality of openings so that air can flow up through the bladder layer 26 and between the bladders 26a as indicated by the arrows in figure 3 ([0089]) but lacks wherein the cap defines a single and central opening. Szalkowsji et al. teaches (at least fig 14a) wherein a cap (1412) defines a central opening (1414) and includes a dome having a curved top surface (col. 15, lines 11-16, fig 14a dome top).
Regarding claim 18, it has been interpreted that the curved top surface as taught by Szalkowsji et al. is spherical (Szalkowsji et al. at least fig 14a).
Regarding claim 31, it has been interpreted that the curved cap surface as taught by Szalkowsji et al. provides a conical bottom surface (Szalkowsji et al. at least fig 14a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the air flow passages of Brubaker with the central openings and spherical shape of Szalkowsji et al. at least to control the rate at which air may enter, move within, and/or exit the cellular cushioning system, thereby providing additional cushioning to the user (Szalkowsji, col. 15, lines 11-16).
Regarding claim 15, Brubaker et al. discloses wherein each of the one or more buckling elements comprise one of a wall (at least 26d) and a spring (at least wherein 26d acts as a spring that buckles).
Regarding claim 16, Brubaker et al. discloses wherein the caps (26c) are integrally formed with the one or more buckling elements and extend beyond the top of the column to form a dome-shape (fig 3, at or near 26a, fig 4a 26c, and [0079] cover 26c).
Regarding claim 17, Brubaker et al. discloses wherein the one or more buckling elements comprise six buckling elements which are arranged in a hexagonal shape ([0082-0083]) and the cap is disposed on the six buckling elements (fig 3, at or near 26a, fig 4a 26c, and [0079] cover 26c).
Regarding claim 19, Brubaker et al. discloses wherein the lattice of cells includes a head lattice section (fig 2 and 3 at or near 24), a torso lattice section (fig 2 and 3 at or near 22), and a foot lattice section (fig 2 and 3 at or near 18), with the head lattice section, the torso lattice section, and the foot lattice section each being separately formed and connected in an abutting zig-zag pattern to provide a continuous, interlocking arrangement (fig 3, at least wherein 28 includes a plurality of footings that are disconnected from each other so that they can compress independently. It has been interpreted that wherein the hexagonal shapes mate at 30 in a zig zag pattern throughout all of the sections).
Regarding claim 20, Brubaker et al. discloses wherein the one or more buckling elements have a thickness (fig 4a); and wherein the column has a height measured from the base to the top (fig 4a and [0083]), and a width (fig 4a and [0083]), with a maximum value of the height being at least 2.0 times a maximum value of the width (fig 4a and [0083]).
Regarding claim 21, Brubaker et al. discloses a cover (fig 2a, 100 or 14a/14b) having opposing top and bottom layers (fig 2a and [0100]); and wherein the lattice of cells is arranged within the cover so that a single layer of the cells is present between the top and bottom layers (figs 2a and [0100]).
Regarding claim 32, Brubaker et al. discloses wherein the lattice of cells is formed of a visco- elastic material (it has been interpreted that at least the gelastic material of Brubaker et al. is viscoelastic).
Claims 27-30 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brubaker et al. (US-20150059100) in view of Sugano et al. (US-8904584) and in further view of Szalkowsji et al. (US- 9320311).
Regarding claim 27, Brubaker discloses a patient support (40) for supporting a patient, the patient support comprising: a lattice of cells (figs 3 and 4a, at least 30), each of the cells having a base (at or near 26e), a top (26c) disposed opposite the base, one or more buckling elements (26d) configured to compress under a patient load (fig 3 and 4a), the buckling elements having a thickness and extending from the base to the top to form a column that defines an empty interior volume defined by a perimeter of the one or more buckling elements (fig 4a, shown in cross-section); and a cap (fig 3, at or near 26a, fig 4a 26c, and [0079] cover 26c) disposed on the one or more buckling elements to disperse compression pressure exerted on the top, wherein the cap extends at least partially beyond the top of the column (figs 3, 4a) wherein each of the one or more buckling elements has a first thickness measured at the base and a second thickness measured at the top (fig 4a, at least wherein the top and base both have thicknesses and [0083], wherein the walls are slightly tapered to create a draft angle).
Brubaker is silent as to a ratio between the second and first thickness. Sugano teaches wherein the material, wall thickness, cell size, and/or cell spacing of the cells within a cellular cushioning system (200) may be optimized to minimize generation of mechanical noise by compression (e.g., buckling of the side walls) of the void cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose an engineering design choice wherein the thickness of the tapered buckling wall is optimized at least in order to provide a smooth relationship between displacement and an applied force to reduce or eliminate mechanical noise to increase a user’s pleasure (Sugano, col. 4, line 59-col. 5, line 5).
Regarding claim 27, Brubaker discloses a plurality of openings so that air can flow up through the bladder layer 26 and between the bladders 26a as indicated by the arrows in figure 3 ([0089]) but lacks wherein the cap defines a single and central opening. Szalkowsji et al. teaches (at least fig 14a) wherein a cap (1412) defines a central opening (1414) and includes a dome having a curved top surface (col. 15, lines 11-16, fig 14a dome top).
Regarding claim 33, it has been interpreted that the curved cap surface as taught by Szalkowsji et al. provides a conical bottom surface (Szalkowsji et al. at least fig 14a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the air flow passages of Brubaker with the central openings and spherical shape of Szalkowsji et al. at least to control the rate at which air may enter, move within, and/or exit the cellular cushioning system, thereby providing additional cushioning to the user.
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Brubaker is silent as to a ratio between the second and first thickness. Sugano teaches wherein the material, wall thickness, cell size, and/or cell spacing of the cells within a cellular cushioning system (200) may be optimized to minimize generation of mechanical noise by compression (e.g., buckling of the side walls) of the void cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose an engineering design choice wherein the thickness of the tapered buckling wall is optimized at least in order to provide a smooth relationship between displacement and an applied force to reduce or eliminate mechanical noise to increase a user’s pleasure (Sugano, col. 4, line 59-col. 5, line 5).
Regarding claim 30, Brubaker et al. discloses wherein the one or more buckling elements comprise six buckling elements which are arranged in a hexagonal shape ([0082-0083]), and wherein the lattice of cells includes a head lattice section (fig 2 and 3 at or near 24), a torso lattice section (fig 2 and 3 at or near 22), and a foot lattice section (fig 2 and 3 at or near 18), with the head lattice section, the torso lattice section, and the foot lattice section each being separately formed and connected in an abutting zig-zag pattern to provide a continuous, interlocking arrangement (fig 3, at least wherein 28 includes a plurality of footings that are disconnected from each other so that they can compress independently. It has been interpreted that wherein the hexagonal shapes mate at 30 in a zig zag pattern throughout all of the sections).
Regarding claim 34, Brubaker et al. discloses wherein the lattice of cells is formed of a visco- elastic material (it has been interpreted that at least the gelastic material of Brubaker et al. is viscoelastic).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 14-21 and 31-32, Applicant argues that the combination of references is non-obvious and therefore improper, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant notes that the base reference, Brubaker facilitates low air loss functionality, not cushioning, in order to control conditions (e.g. moisture) at surface interfaces of a patient’s body wherein the teaching reference, Szalkowski, facilitates cushioning or absorption of impact. Examiner has maintained the position that the combination is proper as one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to improve the control of air flow at least in order to provide additional or improved cushioning (Szalkowsji, col. 15, lines 11-16). In at least paragraph [0004] of Brubaker et al. it is disclosed that “the present disclosure provides a mattress for supporting a patient with one or more cushioning layers that provide immersion and pressure distribution to a patient supported on the mattress, as well as a low air loss system”. Therefore, while Brubaker facilitates low air loss functionality to control moisture, it also aims to provide cushioning and patient support through pressure distribution using a control of airflow. Examiner has maintained that position that Szalkowski teaches such improvement through the use of a structural element as set forth above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES K HSIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6259. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, Monday-Friday.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/J.K.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616