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 Claims
This Action is in response to the amendment filed on January 29, 2026.
As directed by the amendment: Claims 1-15 were cancelled. Claims 16-19 are newly added, and thus claims 16-19 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“Each one of the plurality of body bladders extends from one side of the plenum to an opposite side of the plenum in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis” (claim 16) has not been shown. The only figures that appear to show the plenum are figures 4-5 (plenum 37), and it is unclear where the sides of the plenum are located in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17, line 1 recites “The occupant support of claim 16” and Examiner suggests --The occupant support system of claim 16-- to use consistent language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16, lines 3-5 recite “each of the plurality of body bladders extends from one side of the plenum to an opposite side of the plenum in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis” which appears to be new matter. Figures 4-5 are the only figures that appear to illustrate the plenum (37), and it is unclear where the sides of the plenum are located in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afeyan (4,914,771) in view of Sloop (5,815,864).
Regarding claim 16, Afeyan discloses an occupant support system (Fig. 1) comprising:
an inflatable plenum (the lower plenum 16 as seen in Fig. 2) having a longitudinal axis (the left-to-right direction as seen in Fig. 2);
a plurality of body bladders (inflatable pillows 18, see Figs. 1-3) coupled to the plenum (16, see Figs. 1-4, the bladders 18 are mounted on top of the plenum, and in fluid communication with the plenum 16 via air mouth(s) 54, Fig. 4), wherein each of the plurality of body bladders (18) extends from one side of the plenum (end 38 of each bladder 18 extends below the lower edge of the plenum 16 as seen in Fig. 4) to an opposite side of the plenum (towards an upper edge of the plenum 16 as seen in Fig. 2) in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (extending from the lower edge of the plenum 16 towards an upper edge of the plenum as seen in Fig. 2, is along the up-down direction in Fig. 2, perpendicular to the longitudinal left-to-right direction of Fig. 2) and are arranged along the longitudinal axis so as to substantially cover an upper surface of the plenum (as seen in Figs. 1-2, a portion of the upper surface of the plenum 16 is covered along the length of the plenum. Thus, reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of substantially covered by the plurality of bladders 18),
wherein each of the plurality of body bladders (18) is at least partially formed by a material that is permeable to air (each bladder 18 is formed by a material that includes air escape orifices 28, Fig. 4, which allows air to escape continuously. See col. 4, lines 51-53) and is fluidly coupled to the plenum without restriction (each bladder 18 is coupled directly to the plenum 16, via air flow passage 52 and air mouth(s) 54, see Fig. 4) so that air pressure within each of the plurality of body bladders (18) is equal to air pressure within the plenum (the bladders 18 are in direct fluidic communication with the air pressure within the plenum 16, at air flow passage 52, thus allowing pressure to equalize);
an air pump (air under pressure is provided by a hose, at air inlet 26, see Fig. 4 and see col. 7, lines 1-3. The “air under pressure” is provided by an air pump under the broadest reasonable interpretation) fluidly coupled to the inflatable plenum (via air inlet 26, Fig. 4) to continuously supply air to the plenum (“air inlet for continuous introduction of inflating air under pressure” see col. 2, lines 25-26).
Afeyan is silent regarding a control unit coupled to the air pump and operable to monitor air pressure within the plenum and activate the pump so that the pump supplies air to the plenum to maintain a selected air pressure within the plenum.
Sloop teaches a related inflatable occupant support (Fig. 1) including a control unit (microprocessor controller 25, Fig. 1) coupled to an air pump (blower 19, Fig. 1) and operable to monitor air pressure within a plenum (plenum 5, Fig. 1; “the microprocessor monitoring either the pressure or the rate of increase of the pressure (dp/dt) in plenum 5' or in duct 21'” see col. 13, lines 18-20) so that the pump continuously supplies air to the plenum to maintain a selected air pressure within the plenum (“control system … will maintain a continuous flow of pressurizing air to the cells of the low air loss mattress so that none of the cells exceed a predetermined maximum pressure or drops below a minimum pressure level thereby to insure that a maximum decubitis pressure is not exceeded and so that all portions of the patient’s body are supported” see col. 2, lines 36-44). Sloop’s control unit additionally provides beneficial functions such as an “Auto Comfort” feature, that cycles the air pump to a series of high and low settings (see col. 8, lines 59-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air pump of Afeyan to include a control unit coupled to an air pump and operable to monitor air pressure within the plenum and activate the pump so that the pump supplies air to the plenum to maintain a selected air pressure within the plenum as taught by Sloop so the device ensures that a maximum decubitis pressure is not exceeded and so that all portions of the patient’s body are adequately supported, and so additional functions such as the “Auto Comfort” setting may be provided.
Regarding claim 17, the modified Afeyan/Sloop device discloses further comprising a gap in between each adjacent pair of body bladders (as seen in Figs. 2 and Fig. 4 of Afeyan, there is a gap at least at the ends 38 of each adjacent bladder 18. Additionally, as seen in Fig. 3, there is a gap at the surface of the upper layer 12, for each adjacent bladder 18).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Afeyan/Sloop device discloses wherein the selected pressure is automatically adjusted between a low pressure and a high pressure (“initialization procedure is carried out automatically in a few minutes … the ‘Auto Comfort’ button is pushed. This initiates the automatic pressure setting cycle in which the microprocessor sets the air pump 19 to a series of high and low settings” see col. 8, lines 52-63 of Sloop) at a set time interval (“the time to fully inflate the air mattress can be preset … inflation time is adjustable in five minute increments … [by] Time switch 80c” see col. 15, lines 51-58 of Sloop. Thus, the timing of how long the initialization period lasts can be set to a set time interval based upon the selected time switch).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afeyan (4,914,771) in view of Sloop (5,815,864) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Vrzalik (5,044,029).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Afeyan/Sloop device is silent regarding wherein the selected pressure is determined by the control unit based on a height and weight of an occupant.
Vrzalik teaches a related inflatable occupant support system (Fig. 1) for preventing bed sores (see col. 3, lines 23-26), wherein a preselected pressure is determined by a control unit (controller 198 and control panel 346, Fig. 12) based on a height and weight of an occupant (“Default settings are provided for three weight ranges of patients, each default setting having a tall and a short patient option … Buttons are provided on control panel 346 for selection of these baseline pressures for tall patients in the light weight range 350A, for short patients in the light weight range 350B, for tall patients in the medium weight range 352A, for short patients in the medium weight range 352B, for tall patients in the heavy weight range 354A and short patients in the heavy weight range 354B” see Fig. 12 and col. 16, lines 33-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control unit of Afeyan/Sloop to have a control panel that allows the selected pressure to be determined based on a height and weight of an occupant, as entered by buttons as taught by Vrzalik so the user can easily select a baseline pressure that is most appropriate for the patient’s size.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 29, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Thomas does not teach the claim limitations of the newly added claims (see the first two paragraphs of page 3 of the Remarks), this argument has been considered, but it is moot because Thomas is not relied upon in any of the current rejection(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Miller Sr. et al. (5,634,225) discloses a related inflatable occupant support system with a plenum that directly feeds a plurality of inflatable bladders, and a pressure sensor line connected to the plenum to allow the control unit to accurately control an air pump to maintain a selected pressure level.
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 CHRISTOPHER E MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1473. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30 (Eastern).
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MILLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785