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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendments, filed 11/3/2025, to claims 16-23 and 29 acknowledged by Examiner. Additionally, applicant cancelled claims 24-28 and 30.
Claims 16-23, 29 are now pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 2 (Fig. 9) in the reply filed on 11/3/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 18 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “at least one shoulder support module” in line 9 should be -the at least one shoulder support module-
Claim 16 recites “at least one support module for a part of the human body” in lines 14-15 and line 16 and lines 18-19 should be -the at least one support module for a part of the human body-
Claim 18 recites “at least the first portion of the” in line 10 should be -the at least one first portion of the-
Claim 22 recites “the at least one first portions” should be -the at least one first portion- (remove plural as there is no previous plural recitation)
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 16-23 and 29 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.
Claim 16 recites “at least one support module for a part of the human body” in line 12 wherein this claim language is unclear if this is referring back to “at least one shoulder support module” or “at least one pelvis support module” as these are support modules for a part of the human body or if this is new structure. Considering that the “at least one support module for a part of the human body” further recites “has a second portion supporting the at least one first portion” which in the elected Species 2 (Fig. 9) drawing, the “at least one pelvis support module” is the only support module that has a second portion supporting a first portion therein. For interpretation purposes “at least one support module for a part of the human body” will be interpreted as -the at least one pelvis support module-.
Claims 22, 23, 29 further recites “at least one support module for a part of the human body” which has 112b issues as previously discussed in the claim 16 rejections above. Further, there is a lack of usage of “said” or “the” herein making it unclear if this is supposed to be a new recitation or supposed to be calling back to the verbiage in claim 16. For interpretation purposes, the claim 16 interpretation under 112b above will be followed.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the at least one first portion each forms a pneumatic cavity” and “wherein the second portion of at least one support module for a part of the human body is at least partially made up of a cavity” wherein the claims as written now have a “pneumatic cavity” and a “cavity” wherein as written this second “cavity” may bring confusion to the structure of the claims as to if these cavities are separate or somehow related. Examiner recommends using more particular language when defining the claim structures to ensure there may be no confusion between structures. Examiner recommends amending to -wherein the at least one first portion each forms a first pneumatic cavity- and - wherein the second portion of at least one support module for a part of the human body is at least partially made up of a second pneumatic cavity- respectively (with follow through for later recitations therein).
Claim 16 recites “wherein the at least one first portion has a valve” and “wherein the second portion of at least one support module for a part of the human body has a valve”, wherein it is unclear if these valves are the same or different valves as written. Examiner recommends using more particular language when defining the claim structures to ensure there may be no confusion between structures. Examiner recommends amending to - wherein the at least one first portion has a first valve - and - wherein the second portion of at least one support module for a part of the human body has a second valve - respectively (with follow through for later recitations therein).
Claim 16 recites “wherein the at least one shoulder support module and the at least one pelvis support module are made up of at least one first portion that comes into contact with the human body” wherein this claim language is unclear on if the shoulder support module and pelvis support module are sharing the feature of the first portion therein or if there is a separate individual first portions for each of the modules separately. Based on Fig. 9, each of the shoulder and pelvis support module appear to have their own separate differing first portion therein and thus claim 16 will be interpreted as such.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the device has at least one head support module wherein the at least one head support module is made up of at least one first portion that comes into contact with the human body” wherein this claim further recites “at least one first portion” wherein claim 16 already recites said “at least one first portion”. This makes the claim confusing as to the structure of the device. When looking at the elected Species Fig. 9 the head support module appears to be completely different from the shoulder and pelvis modules and thus does not share a first portion with them therein. As such examiner will interpret the claim as - wherein the device has at least one head support module wherein the at least one head support module is made up of at least one third portion that comes into contact with the human body-. Further recitations of the “first portion” in regards to the head module will be read as -third portion- (lines 5, 7, 9).
Claim 18 recites “wherein the at least one first portion of the at least one head support module forms a pneumatic cavity” wherein claim 16 already recites both a “pneumatic cavity” and a “cavity” as previously discussed, wherein this “pneumatic cavity” provides confusion of being the same structure as the previous cavities or a new structure separately. Examiner will interpret this as being instead - wherein the at least one first portion of the at least one head support module forms a third pneumatic cavity- in order to differentiate from the previous cavities (see claim 16 112b of the previous cavities as well).
Claim 18 recites “wherein the at least one first portion of the at least one head support module has a valve” wherein as previously discussed claim 16 already recites valve twice for support modules wherein as written there is a lack of clarity on if this valve would be the same structure or different from the previous valves. For interpretation purposes will be read as -wherein the at least one first portion of the at least one head support module has a third valve-
Claim 21 recites “wherein the device has at least one leg support module, wherein the at least one leg support module is made up of at least one first portion that comes into contact with the human body” wherein this claim further recites “at least one first portion” wherein claim 16 already recites said “at least one first portion”. This makes the claim confusing as to the structure of the device. When looking at the elected Species Fig. 9 the leg support module appears to be different from the shoulder and pelvis modules and thus does not share a first portion with them therein. As such examiner will interpret the claim as - wherein the device has at least one head support module wherein the at least one head support module is made up of at least one fourth portion that comes into contact with the human body-. Further recitations of the “first portion” in regards to the leg module will be read as -fourth portion-.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the at least one first portion of the at least one leg support module forms a pneumatic cavity” wherein claim 16 already recites both a “pneumatic cavity” and a “cavity” as previously discussed, wherein this “pneumatic cavity” provides confusion of being the same structure as the previous cavities or a new structure separately. Examiner will interpret this as being instead - wherein the at least one first portion of the at least one leg support module forms a fourth pneumatic cavity- in order to differentiate from the previous cavities (see claim 16 112b of the previous cavities as well).
Claim 21 recites “wherein the at least one first portion of the at least one leg support module has a valve” wherein as previously discussed claim 16 already recites valve twice for support modules wherein as written there is a lack of clarity on if this valve would be the same structure or different from the previous valves. For interpretation purposes will be read as -wherein the at least one first portion of the at least one leg support module has a fourth valve-.
Claim 29 recites “partially filling the cavity of at least one first portion of at least one support module for a part of the human body” and “in a third step, regulating a pressure of the cavity of at least one first portion of at least one support module for a part of the human body to a pressure less than 0.04 bar” and “wherein claim 16 recites the first portion having a “pneumatic cavity” and the second portion having the “cavity” as written. As such, this claim is confusing as it is unclear to what cavity this is referring. For interpretation purposes, this will be referring to the “pneumatic cavity” of the first portion as established in claim 16.
Claim 29 recites “in a fourth step, regulating a pressure of the cavity of the second portion of the support module for the human body to a pressure of between 0.05 and 1 bar” which as discussed above for claim 29 there is lack of clarity for the cavity recitation. For interpretation purposes, this will be concretely referring to the “cavity of the second portion” and specifically not the pneumatic cavity of the first portion therein in claim 16.
Claims 16, 18, 21 recites “is kept” rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the Applicant intends to claim method steps in the device claim, the capabilities of the system, or intends to indirectly claim a motor/control. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the limitation to be a capability of the claimed device.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the human body is in a prone position”; however, claim 16 is an apparatus claim thus it is unclear if the Applicant intends for a method step in an apparatus claim or a capability of the invention being able to have a human body in a prone position on the device. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the limitation to be a capability of the claimed device.
Claim 17 rejected as being dependent on claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 16-23 and 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 16 recites “at least one first portion that comes into contact with the human body”, wherein this is positively claiming the human body considering this is an apparatus claim and this is requiring the first portion to be in contact with the human body. As such, claim 16 rejected under 101 for claiming a human organism. Examiner recommends using -configured to- or -adapted to- language for fixing this issue.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the human body is in a prone position” wherein this is positively claiming the human body considering this is an apparatus claim and the apparatus is now including the human body itself in a specific way/position as a structure. As such, claim 16 rejected under 101 for claiming a human organism. Examiner recommends using -configured to- or -adapted to- language for fixing this issue.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the at least one shoulder support module has an asymmetry between a portion oriented toward a lower body and a portion oriented toward a head so as to optimize support of fixed parts of the human body surrounding a thorax during breathing” wherein this is using positive language of the human body and its location relative to the invention to define structural features of the shoulder support module. As such, claim 17 rejected under 101 for claiming a human organism. Examiner recommends using -configured to- or -adapted to- language for fixing this issue.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the at least one head support module supports a lateral side of the head” wherein this is positively reciting a human head in relation to the support module structure lacking proper functional language. As such, claim 19 rejected under 101 for claiming a human organism. Examiner recommends using -configured to- or -adapted to- language for fixing this issue.
Claim 20 recites “wherein a cutout is provided so as to leave an ear accessible.” wherein this is positively reciting a human ear in relation to the support module structure lacking proper functional language. As such, claim 20 rejected under 101 for claiming a human organism. Examiner recommends using -configured to- or -adapted to- language for fixing this issue.
Claims 18, 21-23, and 29 rejected as being dependent on claim 16.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 16-23 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caforio (US 20230118957 A1) in view of Konkle (US 20210275375 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Caforio discloses a device for supporting a human body in a lying- down position (Fig. 1-2), the device comprising at least one shoulder support module 50 (Fig. 1 and [0075] support modules for placement at the sub clavicular area being shoulders, further see [0042]) and
at least one pelvis support module 70 (Fig. 1 and [0082] pelvic supports 70),
wherein the at least one shoulder support module 50 and the at least one pelvis support module 70 are made up of at least one first portion 50/70 that comes into contact with the human body (Fig. 1 and [0075, 0080] upper supports 50/70 come into contact with the body as seen in Fig. 2),
wherein at least one support module for a part of the human body (Fig. 1, pelvic and shoulder supports 50/70 are support modules for a part of the human body) has a second portion 52/72 supporting the at least one first portion 50/70 (Fig. 1 and [0075, 0080] shoulder supports 70 have leveling sub elements 52 supporting the first portions 70 and the shoulder first portions 70 have leveling elements 72 being second portions supporting the first portion),
wherein the human body is in a prone position (Fig. 2).
Caforio does not disclose wherein the at least one first portion each forms a pneumatic cavity, wherein the at least one first portion has a valve, wherein the at least one first portion of at least one shoulder support module is kept at a pressure of less than 0.04 bar underneath a weight of the human body, wherein the second portion of at least one support module for a part of the human body is at least partially made up of a cavity, wherein the second portion of at least one support module for a part of the human body has a valve, wherein the second portion of at least one support module for a part of the human body is kept at a pressure of between 0.05 and 1 bar underneath the weight of the human body.
However, Konkle teaches an analogous body support/positioning apparatus (Fig. 1-5) comprising analogous first portions 15a (see [0014] and Fig. 5) for contact the body of the user and analogous second portions 15b/15c for supporting the first portions 15a (see [0014] and Fig. 5) for supporting a body part of the user (see [0004]);
wherein the at least one first portion 15a each forms a pneumatic cavity (Fig. 5 and [0014] first portion 15a is a gas filled bladder being a pneumatic cavity),
wherein the at least one first portion has a valve (see [0018] the bladders may have ports being valves for the filling of the bladders to customized pressures),
wherein the at least one first portion of at least one shoulder support module is kept at a pressure of less than 0.04 bar underneath a weight of the human body ([0015] the upper bladders/first portion 15a may be filled to less than 0.5 psi being 0.034 bar, thus less than 0.04 bar, the bladders herein capable of being used as a shoulder support),
wherein the second portion 15b/15c of at least one support module for a part of the human body is at least partially made up of a cavity (Fig. 5 and [0014] second portion 15b/15c is a gas filled bladder being thus partially formed of a cavity),
wherein the second portion 15b/15c of at least one support module for a part of the human body has a valve (see [0018] the bladders may have ports being valves for the filling of the bladders to customized pressures),
wherein the second portion of at least one support module for a part of the human body is kept at a pressure of between 0.05 and 1 bar underneath the weight of the human body ([0015] the bladders 15b/15c being the second portion are capable of being filled to at least 0.5 psi (0.034 psi) wherein the lower bladders are filled to a higher pressure than the upper bladders and may be a multiple of the 0.5 psi of the upper bladders 15a, multiples being whole integers of [1, 2, 3, 4…], thus can be filled up to at least 2 psi being 0.14 bar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the first and second portions of the support modules of Caforio to be inflatable bladders as taught by Konkle as the bladder structure enables the supports to be used in multiple positional configurations for supporting a body part therein (Konkle [0016]).
Regarding claim 17, Caforio in view of Konkle discloses the invention of claim 16 above.
Caforio further discloses wherein the at least one shoulder support module has an asymmetry between a portion oriented toward a lower body and a portion oriented toward a head so as to optimize support of fixed parts of the human body surrounding a thorax during breathing (Fig. 1, shoulder support modules 50 have an upper and lower asymmetry shape as seen therein with the portion near the head having a higher height than the portion near the lower body, see [0043] wherein the support modules therein enable improved breathing).
Regarding claim 18, Caforio in view of Konkle discloses the invention of claim 16 above.
Caforio as combined with Konkle further discloses wherein the device has at least one head support module 10-40 (Caforio Fig. 1 and 3-4c and [0098-0099] head support modules 10-40),
wherein the at least one head support module is made up of at least one first portion that comes into contact with the human body (Caforio Fig. 1 and 3-4c and [0098-0099] head support modules 10-40, has upper first modules that contact the human head therein, and Examiner further notes has lower second portion modules as levelling elements therein),
wherein the at least one first portion of the at least one head support module forms a pneumatic cavity (see claim 16 above, wherein Konkle teaches the first portions of the support modules of Caforio now form a pneumatic cavity as bladders),
wherein the at least one first portion of the at least one head support module has a valve (see claim 16 above, wherein Konkle teaches the first portions of the support modules of Caforio now form a pneumatic cavity as bladders with ports as valves), and
wherein at least the first portion of the at least one head support module is kept at a pressure of less than 0.04 bar underneath the weight of the human body (see claim 16 above, wherein Konkle teaches the first portions of the support modules of Caforio now form a pneumatic cavity as bladders that have a pressure of less than 0.04 bar therein).
Regarding claim 19, Caforio in view of Konkle discloses the invention of claim 18 above.
Caforio further discloses wherein the at least one head support module 10-40 supports a lateral side of the head (Caforio Fig. 4b).
Regarding claim 20, Caforio in view of Konkle discloses the invention of claim 19 above.
Caforio further discloses wherein the at least one head support module is profiled to act as a bearing point for one side of the head (Fig. 4c, the module acts as bearing points for the side of the head), and wherein a cutout is provided so as to leave an ear accessible (Fig. 4c, the modules form a central cutout for leaving the ear accessible).
Regarding claim 21, Caforio in view of Konkle discloses the invention of claim 16 above.
Caforio as combined with Konkle further discloses wherein the device has at least one leg support module 90 (Fig. 1 and [0092]),
wherein the at least one leg support module 90 is made up of at least one first portion 90 that comes into contact with the human body (Fig. 1 and [0091-0092] upper portions 90 are first portions in contact with a leg, and Examiner notes there are further second lower portions 92 supporting the first portion),
wherein the at least one first portion of the at least one leg support module forms a pneumatic cavity (see claim 16 above, wherein Konkle teaches the first portions of the support modules of Caforio now form a pneumatic cavity as bladders),
wherein the at least one first portion of the at least one leg support module has a valve (see claim 16 above, wherein Konkle teaches the first portions of the support modules of Caforio now form a pneumatic cavity as bladders with ports as valves), and
wherein at least the first portion is kept at a pressure of less than 0.04 bar underneath the weight of the human body (see claim 16 above, wherein Konkle teaches the first portions of the support modules of Caforio now form a pneumatic cavity as bladders that have a pressure of less than 0.04 bar therein).
Regarding claim 22, Caforio in view of Konkle discloses the invention of claim 16 above.
Konkle further teaches wherein the at least one first portions of at least one support module for a part of the human body are made up of at least one sheet of thermoplastic polymer (see Fig. 5 and [0014] wherein the bladders 15a being first portions are formed of polyurethane being a thermoplastic polymer, wherein as seen in Fig. 5 the cross section of the bladders shows them being formed of a sheet of material formed into a shape).
Regarding claim 23, Caforio in view of Konkle discloses the invention of claim 16 above.
Caforio further discloses wherein at least areas of the at least one first portion of at least one support module for a part of the human body that are intended to come into contact with skin are covered with a medical fabric (see [0066-0067] each module and thus the first portions therein are covered in fabric being sanitizable and antibacterial, thus medical fabric).
Konkle also further teaches wherein at least areas of the at least one first portion of at least one support module for a part of the human body that are intended to come into contact with skin are covered with a medical fabric ([0013] and claims 11-14 bladders may have an outer covering of fabric of vinyl, polyurethane, or a laminated fabric used in a hospital setting also being medical fabric).
Regarding claim 29, Caforio in view of Konkle discloses the invention of claim 16 above.
Caforio as combined with Konkle further discloses a method for supporting a human body implementing the device according to claim 16 (see above), the method comprising:
in a first step, partially filling the cavity of at least one first portion of at least one support module for a part of the human body with air (Konkle [0015, 0018] wherein the bladders including bladders 15a being the first portions are filled with air via valve/ports; [0016] the bladders 16a/16b of 15a may be only slightly thus partially inflated);
in a second step, disposing the human body on the at least one support module for a part of the human body (see Konkle [0014] the bladders receive the weight of the human body placed thereon);
in a third step, regulating a pressure of the cavity of at least one first portion of at least one support module for a part of the human body to a pressure less than 0.04 bar (Konkle [0015] the upper bladders/first portion 15a may be filled to less than 0.5 psi being 0.034 bar, thus less than 0.04 bar, the bladders herein capable of being used as a shoulder support), and
in a fourth step, regulating a pressure of the cavity of the second portion of the support module for the human body to a pressure of between 0.05 and 1 bar ([0015] the bladders 15b/15c being the second portion are capable of being filled to at least 0.5 psi (0.034 psi) wherein the lower bladders are filled to a higher pressure than the upper bladders and may be a multiple of the 0.5 psi of the upper bladders 15a, multiples being whole integers of [1, 2, 3, 4…], thus can be filled up to at least 2 psi being 0.14 bar).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN S ALBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at (571) 270-5237. 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.
/KEVIN S ALBERS/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/RACHAEL E BREDEFELD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights