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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II (claims 7 – 15) in the reply filed on 12/11/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/11/25.
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.
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) 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soltani et al. (US PG Pub No. 20090106906 and hereinafter “Soltani”) in view of Smetka et al. (US PG Pub No. 20170135880 and hereinafter “Smetka”).
Re Claim 7
Soltani discloses:
A patient protection system (see all figs.), the system comprising:
a first airtight bladder (one of 300) in fluid communication with an air pump (270; further, noted with regard to 200, see [0023] [0049] [0038] and fig. 1 as well);
a pressure relief valve in fluid communication with the first airtight bladder ([0023]);
…
a processing unit ([0010]-[0011]) electrically connected to the electrical power source and electrically connected to an electronic display ([0004], e.g. the control planel, see also [0009]);
a sensor in electrical communication with the processing unit ([0007] – [0011], for example), wherein the first airtight bladder is secured to a mattress foundation (at least indirectly, e.g. to the stationary base as is common in the art);
wherein the first airtight bladder is positioned between the mattress foundation (figs. 6 and 8-9; see above; see background describing the frame / foundation) and a mattress (250);
wherein the sensor monitors an input related to a person on the mattress ([0007]-[0011], [0028]),
wherein upon the processor receiving a predetermined input from the sensor that relates to the person, the processor sends a signal to the electronic display (see citations above); and
Soltani does not explicitly disclose:
an electrical power source electrically connected to the air pump via a remotely controlled switch.
wherein upon activation of the air pump via the remotely controlled switch the first airtight bladder inflates and causes the deformation of the mattress to prevent the person therein from falling off the mattress.
Soltani at least implies the above by virtue of the structure of its invention and the arrangement / operation of the elements. Soltani does, however, plainly disclose electrically connected components, which would include the air pump and associated controller. It is old and well-known in the art to have electrical power sources electrically connected to air pumps via a remotely controlled switch for operation from a distance and which does not require manual inflation. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Soltani to the extent necessary to include the limitations above for the purpose as articulated above.
Soltani discloses activation of the air pump and see above regarding the remotely controlled switch. Soltani further discloses inflating of the first airtight bladder which causes deformation of the mattress (see figs. 6 and 8-9 for example), but does not necessarily disclose that this is to prevent the person therein from falling off the mattress to enhance safety. Smetka teaches using rotational positioning to prevent falls ([0030] and see all claims, and see fig. 5, for example). It is noted that the teaching would be with regard to either and/or both sides and therefore bladders of Soltani. It is noted that Soltani has two bladders operating in the same manner and Smetka has two sides which operate in the same manner as well. Smetka simply does not utilize the rotational bladders in Soltani, but includes mattress deformation via raising the sides etc. as claimed and described. Combining the Soltani and Smetka therefore results in the claimed instant invention, including with regard to the first as well as the second bladder and associated claim limitations as described in dependent claims (see below for details). It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Soltani to incorporate the teachings of Smetka as described above for the purpose as described above.
Re Claim 8
Soltani as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the sensor is a video camera positioned in view of the mattress.
Smetka discloses the use of sensors which include cameras ([0028]-[0029]) as one of many sensor options for the purpose of monitoring a user. To the extent necessary, it is noted that it is old and well-known in the art to use video cameras positioned in view of the mattress as bed-exit alarms to trigger events / activation sequences. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Soltani as modified above to incorporate the limitations at issue above for the purpose as articulated above.
Re Claim 9
Soltani as modified above discloses:
wherein the first airtight bladder is formed as an elongated shape (fig. 3).
Re Claim 10
Soltani as modified above discloses:
wherein the first airtight bladder is cylindrically shaped (fig. 3).
Re Claim 11
Soltani as modified above discloses:
further comprising a second airtight bladder in fluid communication with the air pump (the other of 300; fig. 3, for example).
Re Claim 12
Soltani as modified above discloses:
further comprising a second airtight bladder in fluid communication with the air pump (the other of 300, see fig. 3);
wherein the pressure relief valve is in fluid communication with the second airtight bladder ([0023]);
wherein the second airtight bladder is secured to the mattress foundation (in the same manner as described with regard to the first; see above);
wherein the second airtight bladder is positioned between the mattress foundation (figs. 6 and 8-9; see above; see background describing the frame / foundation) and the mattress (250); and
wherein upon activation of the air pump via the remotely controlled switch the second airtight bladder inflates and causes the deformation of the mattress to prevent the person therein from falling off the mattress (in the same manner as the first, see above).
Re Claims 13-15
See above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Various patient turning structures and fall prevention devices and methods are provided.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SOSNOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7944. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM and 9 PM through 11:59 PM Monday through Friday, generally.
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 at (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.
/DAVID E. SOSNOWSKI/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673