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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-15 are pending in this application. Claim 14 has been amended. This communication is f Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 9/2/2025.
Claim Objections
The Claim Objections detailed in the Non-Final Rejection filed on 5/1/2025 have been withdrawn in light of the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 9/2/2025.
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 1, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrett (WO 2016086224 A1) in view of Richards (US 20120137440 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Garrett discloses a support surface overlay system (“apparatus for rotating a bed-ridden person”; [Abstract, Line 1]) comprising: a therapeutic support surface overlay (100 upper left side bladder, 102 upper right side bladder, 200 lower left side bladder, 202 lower right side bladder) comprising: a first inflatable compartment (100 and 102, See Fig. 4) defining a first variable working fluid volume (101 upper left side bladder interior volume, 201 lower left side bladder interior volume, See Fig. 1b); a second inflatable compartment (200 and 202, See Fig. 4) defining a second variable working fluid volume (103 upper right side bladder interior volume, 203 lower right side bladder interior volume, See Fig. 1c) separate from and independent of the first variable working fluid volume (each of the bladders may be independently inflated and/or deflated as desired by the user”; [0057]); and a control system (controller 500) configured to selectively and alternatingly inflate and deflate the first and second inflatable compartments (“controller of the invention in fluid communication with the inflatable bladders of the invention via fluid tubing so that the bladders of the invention may be inflated or deflated by the at least one air pump and valve of the invention”; [0032]) and to concurrently evacuate a working fluid from an uninflated one of the first variable working fluid volume and the second variable working fluid volume (“when filling a second set of bladders with a fluid such as air, where the fluid is drawn from a first set of bladders”; [0041]), the control system (500) comprising: a pneumatic pump (pump 470) having a pump inlet port (See Fig. 14, J representing inlet port) and a pump outlet port (See Fig. 14, K representing outlet port); a first three-way control valve (1012 third fluid valve) having a first port fluidly coupled to the pump inlet port (See Fig. 16, 1012 connected to pump inlet J), a second port fluidly coupled to the first variable working fluid volume (See Fig. 15, 1012 connected to 100 and 102 through tube 304), and a third port coupled to the pump outlet port (See Fig. 15, pump outlet K connected to 1012); and a second three-way control valve (1010 first fluid valve) having a first port fluidly coupled to the pump inlet port (See Fig. 15, 1010 connected to pump inlet J), a second port fluidly coupled to the second variable working fluid volume (See Fig. 15, 1010 connected to 102 and 202 through tube 304), and a third port coupled to the pump outlet port (See Fig. 16, pump outlet K connected to 1010).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
516
762
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
536
752
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
526
620
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
530
626
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
538
624
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Garrett fails to explicitly disclose an envelope enclosing the first and second inflatable compartments, the envelope defining a third variable working fluid volume separate from and independent of the first variable working fluid volume and the second variable working fluid volume; and to concurrently evacuate a working fluid from the third variable working fluid volume; and a second port fluidly coupled to the third variable working fluid volume.
However, Richards teaches an envelope (Air chambers 42, 44, 46, and 48) enclosing the first and second inflatable compartments (“bladders 32, 34, 36, and 38 of mattress 28 are positioned inside of chambers 42, 44, 46, and 48”; [0041]), the envelope defining a third variable working fluid volume separate from and independent of the first variable working fluid volume and the second variable working fluid volume (See Fig. 5, air chambers 42, 44, 46, and 48 are separate from first and second air volume); and to concurrently evacuate a working fluid from the third variable working fluid volume (“air control system 140 includes a manifold 150…control the flow of air into and out of the bladders 32, 34, 36, and 38 as well as the chambers 42, 44, 46, and 48”; [0035]) and a second port fluidly coupled to the third variable working fluid volume (See Fig. 5, conduit 162 connected to valve 166 is connected to air chambers 42, 44, 46, 48).
PNG
media_image7.png
474
610
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garrett by adding the envelope and its accessory components, as taught by Richards. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “reduce the potential for interference with the positioning or egress of the patient”; (Richards, [0043]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 7, Garrett, as modified, teaches the support surface overlay system (“apparatus for rotating a bed-ridden person”; [Abstract, Line 1]) of claim 1.
Garrett fails to explicitly teach a check valve configured to allow flow out of the third variable working fluid volume and to check flow into the third variable working fluid volume.
However, Richards teaches a check valve configured to allow flow out of the third variable working fluid volume and to check flow into the third variable working fluid volume (“chamber 46 may include a check valve that opens to atmosphere if the pressure in the chamber 46 drops below a predetermined negative pressure so that the pressurized air source 160 will have a flow of ambient air”; [0043], check valve implies unidirectional flow out of and into the third variable fluid volume).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garrett by adding the check valve taught by Richards. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the pressurized air source 160 will have a flow of ambient air”; (Richards, [0043]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 8, Garrett, as modified, teaches the support surface overlay system (“apparatus for rotating a bed-ridden person”; [Abstract, Line 1]) of claim 1 further comprising an inlet flow control device (1011 second fluid valve) having a first port fluidly coupled to an environment external to the control system (See Fig. 14, 1011 coupled to outside air through fluid port 471) and a second port fluidly coupled to the pump inlet port (See Fig. 14, 1011 coupled to pump 470 through pump inlet J).
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrett (WO 2016086224 A1) in view of Richards (US 20120137440 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Romano (US 7191482 B2), further in view of Caminade (US 20090100604 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Garrett, as modified, teaches the support surface overlay system (“apparatus for rotating a bed-ridden person”; [Abstract, Line 1]) of claim 1 wherein, in a first operational state: the first three-way control valve (1012) is configured to enable fluid communication between the first variable working fluid volume and the pump inlet port (See Fig. 17, valve 1012 is enabling fluid communication between bladders 100/200 and pump 470 inlet port J) and to disable fluid communication between the first variable working fluid volume and the pump outlet port (See Fig. 17, valve 1012 is disabling fluid communication between bladders 100/200 and pump 470 outlet port K); the second three-way control valve (1010) is configured to enable fluid communication between the second variable working fluid volume and the pump inlet port (See Fig. 17, valve 1010 is enabling fluid communication between bladders 102/202 and pump 470 inlet port J), and to disable fluid communication between the second variable fluid volume and the pump outlet port (See Fig. 17, valve 1010 is disabling fluid communication between bladders 102/202 and pump 470 outlet port K).
PNG
media_image8.png
514
624
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Garrett in view of Richards fails to explicitly teach enabled fluid communication between the third variable working fluid volume and the pump is configured in a non-pumping state.
However, Romano teaches enabled fluid communication between the third variable working fluid volume (See Fig. 14, three-way valves 332a and 332b are configured to couple respective air bladders 304e, 304g, 304i and 304f, 304h, 304j to respective supply lines 328a and 328b).
PNG
media_image9.png
496
788
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garrett in view of Richards by adding enabled fluid communication between the third variable working fluid taught by Romano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “permit zone 324b to provide a percussion therapy while zones 324a, 324c, and 324d maintain a constant pressure profile or provide an alternating pressure therapy”; (Romano, [Col. 11, Lines 60-63]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Further, Caminade teaches the pump is configured in a non-pumping state (“At t3, the setpoint pressure PC is reached in said second cells, thereby causing the pump to be switched off. The pump being switched off again triggers the next state (stage P.3), with the second solenoid valve 14.sub.2 being put into the activation state and the second cells 12C2 being deflated, and thus the second cells being connected to the surrounding air”; [0130]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garrett in view of Richards, further in view of Romano by adding the non-pumping state taught by Caminade. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for second cells to be deflated, and, simultaneously, for said first cells to be re-inflated”; (Caminade, [0032]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 3, Garrett, as modified, teaches the support surface overlay system (“apparatus for rotating a bed-ridden person”; [Abstract, Line 1]) of claim 2 wherein, in a second operational state: the first three-way control valve (1012) is configured to disable fluid communication between the first variable working fluid volume and the pump inlet port (See Fig. 15, valve 1012 is disabling fluid communication between bladders 100/200 and pump 470 inlet port J) and to enable fluid communication between the first variable working fluid volume and the pump outlet port (See Fig. 15, valve 1012 is enabling fluid communication between bladders 100/200 and pump 470 outlet port K); the second three-way control valve (1010) is configured to enable fluid communication between the second variable working fluid volume, and the pump inlet port (See Fig. 15, valve 1010 is enabling fluid communication between bladders 102/202 and pump 470 inlet port J) and to disable fluid communication between the second variable working fluid volume and the pump outlet port (See Fig. 15, valve 1010 is disabling fluid communication between bladders 102/202 and pump 470 outlet port K); and the pump is configured in a pumping state (“pump 470 is commanded to an ON state”; [0073].
Garrett in view of Richards fails to explicitly teach enabled fluid communication between the third variable working fluid volume.
However, Romano teaches enabled fluid communication between the third variable working fluid volume (See Fig. 13, three-way valves 332a and 332b are configured to couple respective air bladders 304e, 304g, 304i and 304f, 304h, 304j to respective supply lines 328a and 328b)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garrett in view of Richards by adding enabled fluid communication between the third variable working fluid taught by Romano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “permit zone 324b to provide a percussion therapy while zones 324a, 324c, and 324d maintain a constant pressure profile or provide an alternating pressure therapy”; (Romano, [Col. 11, Lines 60-63]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 4, Garrett, as modified, teaches the support surface overlay system (“apparatus for rotating a bed-ridden person”; [Abstract, Line 1]) of claim 3 wherein, in a third operational state: the first three-way control valve (1012) is configured to disable fluid communication between the first variable working fluid volume and the pump inlet port (See Fig. 15, valve 1012 is disabling fluid communication between bladders 100/200 and pump 470 inlet port J) and to enable fluid communication between the first variable working fluid volume and the pump outlet port (See Fig. 15, valve 1012 is enabling fluid communication between bladders 100/200 and pump 470 outlet port K); the second three-way control valve (1010) is configured to enable fluid communication between the second variable working fluid volume, and the pump inlet port (See Fig. 15, valve 1010 is enabling fluid communication between bladders 102/202 and pump 470 inlet port J) and to disable fluid communication between the second variable working fluid volume and the pump outlet port (See Fig. 15, valve 1010 is disabling fluid communication between bladders 102/202 and pump 470 outlet port K).
Garrett in view of Richards fails to explicitly teach enabled fluid communication between the third variable working fluid volume and the pump is configured in a non-pumping state.
However, Romano teaches enabled fluid communication between the third variable working fluid volume (See Fig. 13, three-way valves 332a and 332b are configured to couple respective air bladders 304e, 304g, 304i and 304f, 304h, 304j to respective supply lines 328a and 328b)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garrett in view of Richards by adding enabled fluid communication between the third variable working fluid taught by Romano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “permit zone 324b to provide a percussion therapy while zones 324a, 324c, and 324d maintain a constant pressure profile or provide an alternating pressure therapy”; (Romano, [Col. 11, Lines 60-63]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Further, Caminade teaches the pump is configured in a non-pumping state (“At t3, the setpoint pressure PC is reached in said second cells, thereby causing the pump to be switched off. The pump being switched off again triggers the next state (stage P.3), with the second solenoid valve 14.sub.2 being put into the activation state and the second cells 12C2 being deflated, and thus the second cells being connected to the surrounding air”; [0130]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garrett in view of Richards, further in view of Romano by adding the non-pumping state taught by Caminade. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for second cells to be deflated, and, simultaneously, for said first cells to be re-inflated”; (Caminade, [0032]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 5, Garrett, as modified, teaches the support surface overlay system (“apparatus for rotating a bed-ridden person”; [Abstract, Line 1]) of claim 4 wherein, in a fourth operational state: the first three-way control valve (1012) is configured to enable fluid communication between the first variable working fluid volume and the pump inlet port (See Fig. 16, valve 1012 is enabling fluid communication between bladders 100/200 and pump 470 inlet port J) and to disable fluid communication between the first variable working fluid volume and the pump outlet port (See Fig. 16, valve 1012 is disabling fluid communication between bladders 100/200 and pump 470 outlet port K); and the second three-way control valve (1010) is configured to disable fluid communication between the second variable working fluid volume and the pump inlet port (See Fig. 16, valve 1010 is disabling fluid communication between bladders 102/202 and pump 470 inlet port J) and to enable fluid communication between the second working variable fluid volume and the pump outlet port (See Fig. 16, valve 1010 is enabling fluid communication between bladders 102/202 and pump 470 outlet port K); and the pump is configured in a pumping state (“pump 470 is commanded to an ON state”; [0073].
Garrett in view of Richards fails to explicitly teach disabled fluid communication between the third variable working fluid volume.
However, Romano teaches disabled fluid communication between the third variable working fluid volume (“three-way valve 332a coupled air bladders 304e, 304g, and 304i to atmosphere”; [Col. 16, Lines 55-56)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garrett in view of Richards by adding disabled fluid communication between the third variable working fluid taught by Romano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “quickly reduce pressure in air bladders”; (Romano, [Col. 16, Lines 56-57]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 6, Garrett, as modified, teaches the support surface overlay system (“apparatus for rotating a bed-ridden person”; [Abstract, Line 1]) of claim 5 wherein, in a fifth operational state: the first three-way control valve (1012) is configured to enable fluid communication between the first variable working fluid volume and the pump inlet port (See Fig. 16, valve 1012 is enabling fluid communication between bladders 100/200 and pump 470 inlet port J) and to disable fluid communication between the first variable working fluid volume and the pump outlet port (See Fig. 16, valve 1012 is disabling fluid communication between bladders 100/200 and pump 470 outlet port K); and the second three-way control valve is configured to disable fluid communication between the second variable working fluid volume and the pump inlet port (See Fig. 16, valve 1010 is disabling fluid communication between bladders 102/202 and pump 470 inlet port J) and to enable fluid communication between the second working variable fluid volume and the pump outlet port (See Fig. 16, valve 1010 is enabling fluid communication between bladders 102/202 and pump 470 outlet port K).
Garrett in view of Richards fails to explicitly teach disabled fluid communication between the third variable working fluid volume and the pump is configured in a non-pumping state.
However, Romano teaches disabled fluid communication between the third variable working fluid volume (“three-way valve 332a coupled air bladders 304e, 304g, and 304i to atmosphere”; [Col. 16, Lines 55-56)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garrett in view of Richards by adding disabled fluid communication between the third variable working fluid taught by Romano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “quickly reduce pressure in air bladders”; (Romano, [Col. 16, Lines 56-57]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Further, Caminade teaches the pump is configured in a non-pumping state (“At t3, the setpoint pressure PC is reached in said second cells, thereby causing the pump to be switched off. The pump being switched off again triggers the next state (stage P.3), with the second solenoid valve 14.sub.2 being put into the activation state and the second cells 12C2 being deflated, and thus the second cells being connected to the surrounding air”; [0130]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garrett in view of Richards, further in view of Romano by adding the non-pumping state taught by Caminade. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for second cells to be deflated, and, simultaneously, for said first cells to be re-inflated”; (Caminade, [0032]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrett (WO 2016086224 A1) in view of Richards (US 20120137440 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Lemaitre (US 20190106093 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Garrett, as modified teaches the support surface overlay system (“apparatus for rotating a bed-ridden person”; [Abstract, Line 1]) of claim 8.
Garrett in view of Richards fails to explicitly teach the inlet flow control device is a calibrated check valve.
However, Lemaitre teaches the inlet flow control device is a calibrated check valve (calibrated check valve 92).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garrett in view of Richards by adding the calibrated check valve taught by Lemaitre. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the valve is “calibrated to a pressure substantially equivalent to the maximum drive pressure”; (Lemaitre, [0093]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrett (WO 2016086224 A1) in view of Richards (US 20120137440 A1), in view of Lemaitre (US 20190106093 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, further in view of Wilkinson (US 6269505 B1).
Regarding Claim 10, Garrett, as modified, teaches the support surface overlay system of claim 9 (“apparatus for rotating a bed-ridden person”; [Abstract, Line 1]).
Garrett in view of Richards fails to explicitly teach the calibrated check valve is set to open at a predetermined pressure corresponding to a predetermined vacuum in the second and third variable working fluid volumes.
However, Lemaitre teaches the calibrated check valve (calibrated check valve 92).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garrett in view of Richards by adding the calibrated check valve taught by Lemaitre. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the valve is “calibrated to a pressure substantially equivalent to the maximum drive pressure”; (Lemaitre, [0093]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Further, Wilkonson teaches a check valve (intake valve 40) is set to open at a predetermined pressure corresponding to a predetermined vacuum in the second and third variable working fluid volumes (“as each envelope 34 expands, a partial vacuum is created in the interior space 70 of each envelope 34. The vacuum draws the fluid 36 from the fluid supply reservoir 52 into the intake control system 44. Next the fluid is drawn from the intake control system 44 through a corresponding intake valve 40 into the interior space 70 of each envelope 34”; [Col. 8, Lines 17-23]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garrett in view of Richards, in view of Lemaitre by adding the check valve set to open at a vacuum pressure such as, taught by Wilkonson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the invention “has the ability to self-adjust every time a patient moves”; (Wilkonson, [Col. 8, Line 29]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrett (WO 2016086224 A1) in view of Richards (US 20120137440 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Romano (US 7191482 B2).
Regarding Claim 11, Garrett, as modified, teaches the support surface overlay system of claim 1 (“apparatus for rotating a bed-ridden person”; [Abstract, Line 1]).
Garrett fails to explicitly teach: an envelope check valve having a first port fluidly coupled to the third variable air volume and a second port fluidly coupled to the second port of the second three-way control valve and to the second variable air volume, the envelope check valve configured to enable fluid flow out of the third variable air volume and to check fluid flow into the third variable air volume.
However, Richards teaches an envelope check valve having a first port fluidly coupled to the third variable air volume (“chamber 46 may include a check valve”; [0043]), the envelope check valve configured to enable fluid flow out of the third variable air volume and to check fluid flow into the third variable air volume (“chamber 46 may include a check valve that opens to the atmosphere if the pressure in the chamber 46 drops below a predetermined negative pressure so that the pressurized air source 160 will have a flow of ambient air”; [0043]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garrett by adding the envelope check valve taught by Richards. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the pressurized air source 160 will have a flow of ambient air”; (Richards, [0043]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Garrett in view of Richards fails to explicitly teach a second port fluidly coupled to the second port of the second three-way control valve and to the second variable air volume.
Further, Romano teaches a second port fluidly coupled to the second port of the second three-way control valve and to the second variable air volume (See Fig. 14, valves 330 are coupled to a second port of three-way valves 332 and to bladders in Zone 1, 3 and 4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garrett in view of Richards by adding the second port taught by Romano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “control the supply of air to each bladder”; (Romano, [Col. 12, Lines 60-61]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 15, Garrett, as modified, teaches the support surface overlay system (“apparatus for rotating a bed-ridden person”; [Abstract, Line 1]) of claim 1 further comprising: a controller (controller 500); a first pressure sensor (pressure sensors 454) in fluid communication the first variable working fluid volume (See Fig. 4, 454 in fluid communication with bladders 100/200); and a second pressure sensor (pressure sensors 454) in fluid communication with the second working fluid volumes (See Fig. 4, 454 in fluid communication with bladders 102/202), wherein the controller is configured to control the operation of the pump in response to at least one signal from at least one of the first and second pressure sensors (“pressure sensors 454 may be in electrical or wireless communication with fluid pump and valve assembly 450 and may operate to shut off fluid pump and valve assembly 450 once a pre-determined desired pressure is reached in the bladders being inflated”; [0064]).
Garrett in view of Richards fails to explicitly disclose a pressure sensor in fluid communication with a third variable working fluid volume.
However, Romano teaches a pressure sensor in fluid communication with a third variable working fluid volume (“pressure sensors are provided in the interior of at least one of air bladders a-p such that controller 3404 can monitor the pressure inside at least one of air bladders a-p”; [Col. 12, Lines 31-34]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garrett in view of Richards by adding the pressure sensor in fluid communication with the third variable working fluid volume taught by Romano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “monitor the pressure inside the at least one of air bladders”; (Romano, [Col. 12, Lines 33-34]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrett (WO 2016086224 A1) in view of Richards (US 20120137440 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wilkinson (US 6269505 B1).
Regarding Claim 12, Garrett, as modified, teaches the support surface overlay (100 upper left side bladder, 102 upper right side bladder, 200 lower left side bladder, 202 lower right side bladder) of claim 1.
Garrett in view of Richards fails to explicitly teach a pressure relief valve having a first port fluidly coupled to the pump outlet port and a second port fluidly coupled to an environment external to the control system.
However, Wilkinson teaches a pressure relief valve (pressure relief valve 142) having a first port fluidly coupled to the pump outlet port (See Fig. 7, valve 142 coupled to pressure system 130 (pressure system can be a pump) through conduits 110 and 108) and a second port fluidly coupled to an environment external to the control system (See Fig. 7, valve 142 is coupled to fluid exhaust reservoir 52).
PNG
media_image10.png
516
770
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garrett in view of Richards by adding the pressure relief valve taught by Wilkinson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “a maximum pressure level of the fluid within the envelope can be set and maintained”; (Wilkinson, [Col. 2, Line 67 - Col. 3, Line 1]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrett (WO 2016086224 A1) in view of Richards (US 20120137440 A1), in view of Wilkinson (US 6269505 B1) as applied to claim 12 above, further in view of Lemaitre (US 20190106093 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Garrett, as modified, teaches the support surface overlay (100 upper left side bladder, 102 upper right side bladder, 200 lower left side bladder, 202 lower right side bladder) of claim 12.
Garrett in view of Richards in view of Wilkinson fails to explicitly teach the pressure relief valve is a calibrated check valve.
However, Lemaitre teaches pressure relief valve is a calibrated check valve (calibrated check valve 92).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garrett in view of Richards in view of Wilkinson by adding the calibrated check valve taught by Lemaitre. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the valve is “calibrated to a pressure substantially equivalent to the maximum drive pressure”; (Lemaitre, [0093]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 14, Garrett, as modified, teaches the support surface overlay (100 upper left side bladder, 102 upper right side bladder, 200 lower left side bladder, 202 lower right side bladder) of claim 12.
Garrett in view of Richards fails to explicitly teach the calibrated check valve is set to open at a predetermined pressure corresponding to a predetermined pressure in an inflated one of the first and second variable working fluid volumes.
Wilkinson teaches the valve (142) is set to open at a predetermined pressure corresponding to a predetermined pressure in an inflated one of the first and second variable working fluid volumes (“pressure relief valve 142 maintains the pressure of the fluid 36 below a selected level in the conduits 108 and 110”; [Col. 10, Lines 21-22]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garrett in view of Richards by adding the pressure relief valve taught by Wilkinson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “a maximum pressure level of the fluid within the envelope can be set and maintained”; (Wilkinson, [Col. 2, Line 67 - Col. 3, Line 1]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Garrett in view of Richards in view of Wilkinson fails to explicitly teach a calibrated check valve.
However, Lemaitre teaches a calibrated check valve (calibrated check valve 92).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garrett in view of Richards in view of Wilkinson by adding the calibrated check valve taught by Lemaitre. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the valve is “calibrated to a pressure substantially equivalent to the maximum drive pressure”; (Lemaitre, [0093]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
Neither Garrett nor Richards, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests all the limitations of Claim 1. Accordingly, Claim 1 is not obvious under §103, and Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection.
“The Office Action alleges that Richards teaches a control system configured "to concurrently evacuate a working fluid from the third variable working fluid volume ("air control system 140 includes a manifold 150...control the flow of air into and out of the bladders 32, 34, 36, and 38 as well as the chambers 42, 44, 46, and 48"; [0035])." Office Action, p. 7. While Richards teaches that its air control system may control the flow of air into and out of the bladders and chambers, it fails to specifically teach or suggest "a control system configured to selectively and alternatingly inflate and deflate the first and second inflatable compartments and to concurrently evacuate a working fluid from an uninflated one of the first variable working fluid volume and the second variable working fluid volume and from the third variable working fluid volume (emphasis added)" as required in Claim 1. A proper § 103 rejection requires that the prior art reference (or combination of references) must teach or suggest all the claims limitations. MPEP §2143. Since neither Garrett, Richards, or a combination of the two, teaches the required limitations of the control system of Claim 1, namely a concurrent evacuation of a working fluid from an uninflated one of the first variable working fluid volume and the second variable working fluid volume and from the third variable working fluid volume. The combination would require substantial redesign of both systems and solve a different problem than either reference addresses.”
“Additionally, the Office Action alleges that Richards teaches "a second port fluidly coupled to the third variable working volume (See Fig. 5. 5, conduit 162 connected to valve 166 is connected to air chambers 42, 44, 46, and 48)." Office Action, p. 7. While the conduit 162 of Richards may be connected to an air chamber 42, 44, 46 and 48 via manifold 150, there is no teaching or suggestion in Richards that the conduit 162 is fluidly coupled to both the second variable working fluid volume and the third variable working fluid volume simultaneously as required in Claim 1.”
“Additionally, the Office Action provided no suggestion or motivation to combine the teachings of Richards with Garrett to come up with "a second three-way control valve having a first port fluidly coupled to the pump inlet port, a second port fluidly coupled to the second variable working fluid volume and to the third variable working fluid volume (emphasis added), and a third port coupled to the pump outlet port" as required in Claim 1. The alleged motivation to combine Garrett and Richards is to "reduce the potential for interference with positioning or egress of the patient"; (Richards, [0043])." Office Action, p. 8. "The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In re Mills, 16 USPQ2d 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Neither Garrett nor Richards suggests the desirability to modify the prior art to make obvious the limitations of Claim 1, namely, a control system configured "to concurrently evacuate a working fluid from the third variable working fluid volume, and "a second three-way control valve having a first port fluidly coupled to the pump inlet port, a second port fluidly coupled to the second variable working fluid volume and to the third variable working fluid volume, and a third port coupled to the pump outlet port."”
Examiner’s Response:
In response to the applicant’s argument that neither Garrett nor Richards, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests all the limitations of Claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion and the 103 claim rejection is maintained, specifically for the reasons made apparent below:
In response to the applicant's argument that the combination of Garrett and Richards would require substantial redesign of both systems, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Further, Richards does in fact teach a control system concurrently evacuate a working fluid from an uninflated {one of the first variable working fluid volume and the second variable working fluid volume} and from the third variable working fluid volume (“air control system 140 includes a manifold 150…control the flow of air into and out of the bladders 32, 34, 36, and 38 as well as the chambers 42, 44, 46, and 48”; [0035]). This is further detailed in Para. [0040] of Richards, “pump 166 pulls air from the bladders 32, 34, 36, and 38 and expels it to the atmosphere”).
In response to the applicant’s argument that there is no teaching or suggestion in Richards that the conduit 162 is fluidly coupled to both the second variable working fluid volume and the third variable working fluid volume simultaneously, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Looking at Fig. 5 of Richards, valve 166 is connected to three separate ports (172, 174, 176) and a conduit 162 which connects to manifold 150 comprising multiple valves connected to the chambers. When the valves of Richards are in the open state, conduit 162 is connected to the four air chambers simultaneously.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, in Para. [0043] of Richards, there is motivation to “reduce the potential for interference with positioning or egress of the patient”. To further elaborate on said motivation, a specific example pertaining to patient positioning would be in Para. [0039], “while the hospital bed 10 is being repositioned to the chair egress position, the controller 50 will cause the thigh section bladder 34 and foot section ladders 32 to deflate”. Thereby enabling the simultaneous deflation of the bladders.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20160095775 A1: Dzioba discloses a support surface overlay comprising two or possibly more independent inflatable compartments, three-way control valves, and an envelope containing the overlay.
US 20060174416 A1: Wu discloses an inflatable bed comprising an envelope containing two air chambers and a unidirectional air inlet (check valve).
US 20020133877 A1: Kuiper discloses at least one inflation bladder inflated with pressurized fluid from a pump system and a check valve
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 GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights