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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-8 and 11 have been examined in this application. Claims 9-10 have been canceled. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to Applicant’s “Amendments/Remarks” filed 10/17/2025.
Claim Objections
The claim objections made in the Non-Final Rejection on 06/17/2025 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims filed on 10/17/2025.
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(s) 1-8 and 11 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 1 recites the limitation "low-friction sleeve". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Although the claim set filed on 10/17/2025 was partially amended to remove the term “relatively’ which was a relative, the Examiner noted that in their Non-Final Rejection filed on 06/17/2025 – the claimed ‘low-friction’ is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is considered relative, as the Examiner is unsure if the interpretation “low’ is to state that there is percentage, range, or other value that is considered by the Applicant to meet the aspect of being a low-friction sleeve as such, the term is considered indefinite. The Examiner suggests further defining what constitutes ‘low’ or specifying the range of values, material properties or defining factors of being of a small frictional amount in the claim and/or specification.
Claim(s) 2-8 and 11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (claim 1).
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: 'tightening means' in claims 3-6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (CN 212788979 U) in view of Verhaert (WO 2014111867A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Lu teaches (as best understood by the 112(b)s indicated above): A support apparatus (Fig. 1) for use in supporting a person propped-up in a bed (Abstract ‘the cushion cloth can be bound and fixed on the bed by the elastic bandage’) to prevent that person from slipping down the bed, comprising a sheet (1 - Fig. 1) having a pocket (3 - Fig. 1); and an inflated bolster removably received (2 - Fig. 1, 'air cushion mechanism') in the pocket (shown in Fig. 1), such that in use with the sheet arranged on the bed ("The horizontal airbag is fixedly connected to the position of the cushion body corresponding to the knees of the human body and is arranged horizontally along the mattress."), the inflated bolster is arrangeable between the a pelvis and knees of the person ("The utility model is designed according to the characteristics of hemiplegic patients. When the patient needs to sit and he in a semi-sitting position, open the air pump for inflation to inflate and raise the vertical airbags on the chest and abdomen and the horizontal airbags on the knees"), [[wherein the inflated bolster includes an outer low-friction sleeve for aiding an insertion and removal of the inflated bolster into and out of the pocket,]] and wherein the inflated bolster includes two dump valves (204 and 206 - Fig. 5 "through the main air inlet hole and sealing plug, inflating and deflating at any time;”) each at a different end of the inflated bolster for deflation of the bolster (Fig. 5, shows 204 at one end of the air cushion 201, noting an end facing sideways | and | shows 206 at another end of the air cushion 201 noting an end facing outward) [[if necessary, the low-friction sleeve including two handles each at a different end of the low-friction sleeve to aid removal of the inflated bolster from the pocket.]]
Lu does not explicitly teach: wherein the inflated bolster includes an outer low-friction sleeve for aiding an insertion and removal of the inflated bolster into and out of the pocket, if necessary, the low-friction sleeve including two handles each at a different end of the low-friction sleeve to aid removal of the inflated bolster from the pocket.
Verhaert teaches: wherein the inflated bolster includes an outer low-friction sleeve for aiding an insertion and removal of the bolster into and out of the pocket ("a cover capable of resisting large tensile forces and that has a low friction coefficient with respect to surrounding materials."), if necessary (Examiner’s Note: ‘if necessary’ provides optionality that the following limitation is not a required limitation), the low-friction sleeve including two handles each at a different end of the low-friction sleeve to aid removal of the inflated bolster from the pocket (8 – Fig. 2b, ‘The inelastic means are preferably placed in such a way that a minimum of friction is created and whereby the insert can resist the tensile force necessary for pulling the insert out of the base unit.’ and ‘Figures 2e or 2f, the inelastic means are preferably affixed on one or both side surfaces and/or on one or both of the lengthwise ends of the insert.’ Noting Fig. 4a showing handles along inserts)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu directed to an adjustable waist pad for a bed by incorporating an outer relatively low-friction sleeve for aiding the insertion and removal of the inflated bolster and the inclusion of two handles as taught in Verhaert directed to a mattress with filler member units since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of reducing shear forces thus making the transition of inserting a bladder when in or out of use, easier and prevents damage due to excessive friction between elements.
In regards to Claim 2, Lu in view of Verhaert teaches (as best understood by the 112(b)s indicated above): The support apparatus of claim 1, Lu further teaches, wherein the sheet comprises a mattress pocket at one end thereof for fitting over the mattress at a head-end of the bed (4 - Fig. 1, "cushion cloth 1 two ends are sewed with at least one elastic bandage for fixing 4, can be bound with the bed edge, so as to firmly fix the cushion cloth 1 on the bed, avoid the displacement, improve the stability of the device, also can be the elastic bandage 4 end binding hook, directly hung on the bed bottom; It is more convenient to use.").
In regards to Claim 7, Lu in view of Verhaert teaches: The support apparatus of claim 1, Lu further teaches, wherein the bolster is arranged in two inflatable parts (201 and 202 as shown in Fig. 4, "air cushion mechanism 2 comprises a main air cushion 201, side air cushion 202") leaving a gap therebetween at a centre, width-wise, of the bed (see annotated Fig. 2.1 from Lu).
PNG
media_image1.png
317
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2.1 from Lu
In regards to Claim 11, Lu in view of Verhaert teaches: The support apparatus of claim 1, Lu further teaches, including two outer low-friction sleeves for aiding the insertion and removal of the inflated bolster into and out of the pocket ("The inserter device 35 preferably is wider at the inner end and tapers so that the device is readily slipped from the filler units.").
Claim(s) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Lu' (CN 212788979 U) in view of Verhaert (WO 2014111867A1) and further in view of Ross (US 4937904 A).
In regards to Claim 4, Lu in view of Verhaert teaches (as best understood by the 112(b)s and 112(f) indicated above): The support apparatus of claim 1, but Lu nor Verhaert do not explicitly teach, wherein the sheet comprises tightening means for pulling sides of the sheet towards one another underneath a mattress to thereby reduce a risk of the sheet and inflated bolster moving down the bed in use.
Ross teaches: wherein the sheet comprises tightening means (B - Fig. 2) for pulling sides of the sheet towards one another underneath a mattress to thereby reduce a risk of the sheet and inflated bolster moving down the bed in use (Fig. 2, shows underneath of mattress and capable of retaining via the Band sections 'B', further noting "The overall length of the band B is selected such that the band is under tension when the sheet with the elastic retainer band is mounted on the mattress.").
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu in view of Verhaert directed to an adjustable waist pad with an outer low-friction sleeve for a bed by incorporating tightening means to reduce a risk of the sheet and inflated bolster moving taught by Ross directed to a fitted sheet with sheet retainer since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of ensuring a snug and secure fit on the mattress preventing it from slipping off during movement or in the night for individuals that toss and turn in their sleep. Additionally, the tightening means would assist in fitting the sheet better to help compensate if the mattress is too smaller for the sheet.
In regards to Claim 5, Lu in view of Verhaert and further in view of Ross teaches (as best understood by the 112(b)s and 112(f) indicated above): The support apparatus of claim 4, Ross further teaches, wherein the tightening means comprise a strap or cord ("The elastic band can be of relatively small size of the order of 1/16 to 3/32 inches in diameter and may, for example, be round cord elastic").
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu in view of Verhaert and further in view of Ross directed to an adjustable waist pad with an outer relatively low-friction sleeve and tightening means for a bed by incorporating a strap or cord as the tightening means as taught by Ross directed to a fitted sheet with sheet retainer since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of ensuring a snug and secure fit on the mattress preventing it from slipping off during movement or in the night for individuals that toss and turn in their sleep, such that a cord can provide a customizable fit and allow ease of adjusting tightness to one’s preference.
In regards to Claim 6, Lu in view of Verhaert and further in view of Ross teaches (as best understood by the 112(b)s and 112(f) indicated above): The support apparatus of claim 4, Ross further teaches, wherein the tightening means comprises eyelets in the sheet ("In the embodiments of FIGS. 1-3 the band end attaching means A1 and A2 are in the form of grommets designated g1 and g2 respectively which can be made of plastic, metal or a sewn button hole. The ends of the elastic band are inserted through the openings in the grommets and secured upon itself as by in a knot or clamp. The intermediate band engaging means C1 and C2 are also conveniently in the form of grommets designated g3 and g4 respectively, which have an opening therethrough that slidably receives the band intermediate its ends.").
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu in view of Verhaert and further in view of Ross directed to an adjustable waist pad with an outer relatively low-friction sleeve and tightening means for a bed by incorporating eyelets in the sheet as taught by Ross directed to a fitted sheet with sheet retainer since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of ensuring a snug and secure fit on the mattress preventing it from slipping off during movement or in the night for individuals that toss and turn in their sleep, such that an eyelet will prevent fabric from ripping or separating as it distributes the force along the opening during its use under tension.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Lu' (CN 212788979 U) in view of Verhaert (WO 2014111867A1) and further in view of Yang et al., hereinafter 'Yang' (CN 209220762 U).
In regards to Claim 8, Lu in view of Verhaert teaches: The support apparatus of claim 1, neither Lu nor Verhaert teach, including an integral air pump for inflating the inflated bolster.
Yang teaches: including an integral air pump for inflating the inflated bolster (7 - Fig. 1, "air pump").
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu in view of Verhaert and further in view of Ross directed to an adjustable waist pad with an outer relatively low-friction sleeve by incorporating an integral air pump for inflating the inflated bolster as taught in Yang directed to a patient anti-sliding pad since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing the bladder to inflate much easier, more efficient and faster and limits the use of manual techniques which are overly inefficient and time consuming.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Specifically the prior art of Lu discloses padded bolsters intended to support localized anatomical regions of a user, such as the vertebral body and specifically along the waist. Such bolster and underlying sheet is structurally and functionally configured for targeted support of discrete body portions and are limited in longitudinal extent. In contrast, the presented claimed bolster extends half-way along the length of the bed, providing continuous coverage support across multiple body regions simultaneously. The cited prior art of either Lu nor other secondary reference, neither teach nor suggest extending across a length along a head to toe length of a bed – as Lu as noted above extends laterally (i.e. horizontal) along the waist and limits in the top/head length dimension. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify a localized vertebral bolster to extend laterally (i.e. horizontal) along the bed, as doing so would defeat the intended anatomical specificity of the bolster and introduce different load-bearing, stability and patient positioning considerations not addressed by the prior art. Accordingly, the prior art fails to teach or render obvious a bolster extending half-way along the length of the bed as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s Arguments:
As seen, Burke does not disclose a sleeve with end handles for aiding both insertion and removal of an elongate object into/from a cell as recited in claim 1. Rather, Burke provides a single, separate strap 32 on one end of the mattress filling itself to aid removal thereof from the mattress casing (i.e. without use of the sleeve-like tool).
Lu discloses a lumbar support comprising a sheet with a pocket, having an open end and a closed end, and an inflatable pad removably receivable in the pocket. In use, the pad may be inserted into the pocket while uninflated, for example, by pulling a wire arranged through a through hole in the closed end and subsequently inflated to the desired height. See Lu, YY [0025], [0027]. Both Lu and Burke describe elongate objects (a lumbar pad and a portion of mattress filling, respectively) insertable into elongate receptacles (a pocket in a sheet and a cell in a mattress casing, respectively) which are open at only one end. Accordingly, the elongate objects are removable from only one end of their respective receptacles and a second handle at an opposite end would serve no purpose. That is, it would not be obvious, based on the combined teachings of Lu and Burke to provide two handles, one at either end of a sleeve around a bolster, to aid removal thereof from a pocket.
Lastly, Burke further fails to disclose "dump valves," nor provides any teaching that would prompt the skilled person to modify the apparatus of Lu to include a second dump valve at an opposite end of the pad to the disclosed sealing plug. As explained above, both Lu and Burke describe elongate objects insertable into elongate receptacles which are open at only one end. A second dump valve added to the system of Lu at an opposite end of the pad to the sealing plug would be inaccessible and would therefore serve no purpose whatsoever. Accordingly, it would not be obvious to adapt Lu to include a second dump valve at the opposite end of the pad to the sealing plug.
Because Burke and Lu, even in combination, do not meet the above-discussed aspects of the claims and cannot be combined to do so, the references cannot anticipate or render obvious claim 1. Ross and Yang do not cure, and are not applied for curing, the disclosure deficiencies of Burke and Lu.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees to the Applicant’s Arguments, specifically for the following reasons:
As an initial matter, the Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s arguments regarding Burke. Upon further review, Burke is no longer relied upon in support of the rejection to Claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments directed to deficiencies of Burke are moot.
Claim 1 is noted to still recite ‘a low-friction sleeve’, however neither the claims nor the specification provide an objective boundary for what constitutes ‘low’ friction (also noted in the 112(b) rejection). The term is relative and subjective as friction is inherently comparative and depends on the reference surface, materials involved, and operating conditions. The specification does not define a coefficient of friction or identify a comparative baseline.
Claim 1, also included ‘if necessary’ immediately preceding a claim limitation. While this issue is not made the basis of a rejection under 112(b) at this time, the Examiner observes that the phrase renders the scope of the limitation conditional and discretionary, such that the limitation may or may not be present depending on an unspecified circumstance. The phrase ‘if necessary’ introduces ambiguity to when the limitation applies and when it does not, thereby raising a question as to whether the limitation is a positive structural or functional requirement to the claim. The Examiner therefore suggest but does not require the Applicant to consider removing the phrase ‘if necessary’ or otherwise amending the claim to ensure that the limitation is positively and unconditionally recited.
Regarding the prior art on record, Claim 1 has been entered on the record under 35 USC 103 being unpatentable over Lu in view of Verhaert. While Lu alone does not expressly discloses a low-friction sleeve Verhaert teaches an outer cover or sleeve formed of a material having a low coefficient of friction relative to adjacent materials, expressly to facilitate insertion and removal of an internal support element. Verhaert therefore teaches the very feature Applicant asserts is absent, namely, an outer low-friction cover used to reduce resistance during removal from a surrounding structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the low-friction outer sleeve of Verhaert to the lumbar support pad of Lu in order to improve ease of insertion and removal, yielding predictable results.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Verhaert explicitly discloses handles provided on opposite ends of the sleeve, which are used to apply a tensile pulling force to withdraw the insert from a surrounding pocket or enclosure. The presence of handles at both ends is not rendered nonfunctional merely because the receptacle is open at one end; rather, as taught by Verhaert, dual handles facilitate controlled extraction, alignment, and handling during removal.
Lastly, claim 1 recites two dump valves, which Lu does teach two separate valves capable of deflation along a sideways end and an outward end. This would have been an obvious design choice in view of Verhaert to improve usability and removability of the inflatable pad, particularly during extraction from a pocket or casing.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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.
/MADISON MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights