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 .
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 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 12-16 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 line 4 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.
Claims 13-16 and 19-22 are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected claim above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0078062 (“Pearce et al”)
With respect to claim 12, Pearce et al discloses A device for supporting a part of a human body (Fig 1, Fig 2, device shown), the device comprising a first element (Fig 2, first element 106) forming a pneumatic cavity ([0060], first member 106 is a pneumatic cavity),wherein the pneumatic cavity has a valve ([0060], valve 151),wherein the pneumatic cavity is kept at a pressure of less than 0.04 bar under load ([0060], valve allows for adjustment of pressure of the cavity, an electric pump may be used to ensure a specific pressure is present, see 112b rejection above regarding interpretation), and wherein at least a surface of the first element (Fig 2, spacer fabric 102) that comes into contact with the part of the human body is covered with a 3D spacer fabric (Fig 2, user side, which is the user contact side, of first member 106 is covered with the fabric 102), wherein the first element is made up of at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer ([0060], PVC is a thermoplastic polymer), and wherein the at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer are sealed edge to edge ([0060], material is two sheets sealed at periphery).
With respect to claim 13, Pearce et al discloses The device for supporting a part of a human body according to claim 12, wherein a buckling stress of the 3D spacer fabric is greater than an inflation pressure of the pneumatic cavity ([0048], spacer fabric with a buckling stress, pneumatic cavity as detailed filled one ¼ of the way full has a lower buckling stress).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0380504 (“Therkildsen”) in view of US 2012/0060293 (“Stelter et al”).
With respect to claim 12, Therkildsen discloses A device for supporting a part of a human body (Fig 1, Fig 2, device 22), the device comprising a first element forming a pneumatic cavity, wherein the pneumatic cavity has a valve ([0051], line 76 allows for inflation, deflation, and maintaining pressure, as this system can control the intake and output form the bladder it obviously has a valve), wherein the pneumatic cavity is kept at a pressure of less than 0.04 bar under load ([0051], line 76 allows for inflation, deflation, and maintaining pressure, as desired by the user so it may keep a pressure of 0.04 bar, see 112b rejection above).
Therkildsen discloses a fabric cover (Fig 2, fabric 58) and a series of sheets which are sealed at their edges ([0050]) but is silent on and wherein at least a surface of the first element that comes into contact with the part of the human body is covered with a 3D spacer fabric, wherein the first element is made up of at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer, and wherein the at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer are sealed edge to edge.
Stelter et al teaches an analogous covering for a chamber wherein at least a surface of the first element that comes into contact with the part of the human body is covered with a 3D spacer fabric ([0010], outer material may be a spacer fabric).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the fabric cover of Therkildsen to have the spacer fabric as taught by Stelter et al in order to better disperse moisture and heat coming from a user (Stelter et al [0010]).
Therkildsen/Stelter et al is silent wherein the first element is made up of at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer, and wherein the at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer are sealed edge to edge.
Sharrock et al teaches an analogous inflatable bladder and user support having the first element is made up of at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer (col 6 ll 60-70, urethane coated nylon, nylon is a thermoplastic polymer), and wherein the at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer are sealed edge to edge (col 6 ll 60-70, sealed at the periphery).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the chambers of Therkildsen/Stelter et al to be coated nylon as taught by Sharrock et al to repel unwanted fluids and maintain an inflated state (Sharrock et al col 5 ll 55-65).
With respect to claim 19, Therkildsen/Stelter et al/Sharrock discloses The device for supporting a part of a human body according to claim 12, wherein the device has at least one second element (Therkildsen Fig 2, second element 24),wherein the at least one second element is made up of a deformable structure (Therkildsen [0050], second element 24 is a bladder so it is deformable), and wherein the at least one second element has means for stabilizing the first element (Therkildsen [0050], bladders are coupled together; limitation interpreted under 112f- instant application [0053]: any type of fixing means).
With respect to claim 20, Therkildsen/Stelter et al/Sharrock discloses The device for supporting a part of a human body according to claim 19, wherein the at least one second element is at least partially made up of a cavity (Therkildsen [0050], second element 24 is a bladder), wherein the cavity of the at least one second element has a valve (Therkildsen [0051], line 78 allows for inflation, deflation, and maintaining pressure, as this system can control the intake and output form the bladder it obviously has a valve), and wherein the cavity of the at least one second element is kept at a pressure of between 0.05 and 1 bar under load (Therkildsen [0051], line 76 allows for inflation, deflation, and maintaining pressure, as desired by the user so it may keep a pressure of 0.04 bar, see 112b rejection above; see 112b rejection above).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce et al in view of US 2020/0340210 (“Zoni III et al”).
With respect to claim 14, Pearce et al discloses The device for supporting a part of a human body according to claim 13.
Pearce et al is silent on wherein the buckling stress of the 3D spacer fabric is less than 0.2 bar.
Zoni III et al teaches an analogous top layer spacer fabric wherein the buckling stress of the 3D spacer fabric is less than 0.2 bar ([0118], top spacer fabric with stress compression value of 6.0kPAa which is a buckling stress of 0.06 bar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the buckling stress of the top later of Pearce et al to be the stress as taught by Zoni III et al as it taught to be sufficient to support a user and other layers (Zoni III et al [0011]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce et al in view of US 2010/0146709 (“Lafleche et al”).
With respect to claim 15, Pearce et al discloses The device for supporting a part of a human body according to claim 12.
Pearce is silent on wherein a thickness of the 3D spacer fabric is less than 10 mm.
Lafleche et al teaches an analogous spacer fabric wherein a thickness of the 3D spacer fabric is less than 10 mm ([0071], 3D spacer fabric with 1/8 inch thickness which is 3.175 mm) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of Pearce et al to be the thickness as detailed in Lafleche et al in order to better allow for air flow through the material (Lafleche et al [0071]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce et al in view of US 2011/0185500 (“Sanders”).
With respect to claim 16, Pearce et al discloses The device for supporting a part of a human body according to claim 12.
Pearce et al is silent on, wherein a permeability of the 3D spacer fabric is greater than 1000 1/dm2xmin at a pressure of 1 mbar.
Sanders teaches an analogous permeable material wherein a permeability of the 3D spacer fabric is greater than 1000 1/dm2xmin at a pressure of 1 mbar ([0029], Sanders teaches a series of permeabilities that are desirable and each have a high permeability, including 1000 l/dm2/min at 13 Pa)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the permeability of the fabric of Pearce et al to be permeable as taught by Sanders in order to improve the breathability of the fabric and improv ethe user experience (Sanders [0006], [0007]).
Examiner notes, in light of cited prior art that the claimed permeability are design choices considered as result effective variables, which can be optimized within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation to best fit each individual human anatomy. The claimed permeability which fell within the broad scope of the references are held to be unpatentable there over because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed permeability within the specification. And where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce et al in view of US 2012/0317727 (“Tanaka et al”).
With respect to claim 21, Pearce et al discloses A method for supporting a part of a human body implementing the device according to claim 12, the method comprising: in a first step, partially filling the pneumatic cavity of the first element with air ([0062], partially full bladder); in a second step, disposing the part of the human body on the first element ([0005], [0060], user is supported).
Pearce et al is silent on and in a third step, regulating a pressure of the pneumatic cavity (4) of the first element (1) to a pressure less than 0.04 bar.
Tanaka et al teaches an analogous inflatable support system having a supporting bladder (Fig 1, upper bladder 17b) and the teaches the step of regulating a pressure of the pneumatic cavity (4) of the first element (1) to a pressure less than 0.04 bar ([0058], [0059], upper bladder is smaller in pressure than lower bladder, lower bladder is 1.5 kPa, or 0.015 bar, so the bladder is less than 0.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Pearce et al to have two bladder system with the pressures as taught by Tanaka et al in order to better stabilize a user (Tanaka [0059]).
With respect to claim 22, Pearce et al discloses The method according to claim 21, wherein the device has a second element at least partially forming a pneumatic cavity (Tanaka et al Fig 1, lower bladder 17c), and further comprising a fourth step of regulating a pressure of the pneumatic cavity of the second element to a pressure of between 0.05 and 1 bar (Tanaka et al [0058], regulated to a pressure of 6.4 kPa, or 0.064 bar; the prior art falls within the claimed range and therefore meets the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Pearce et al to have two bladder system with the pressures as taught by Tanaka et al in order to better stabilize a user (Tanaka [0059]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D BAKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3333. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-5:30.
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 E 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.
/ADAM BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786