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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-13, and 23) in the reply filed on 3/25/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that: “as amended, claim 14 is [now] a dependent claim that explicitly depends from and incorporates all the limitations of claim 1.” Based on applicant’s amendment filed 3/25/2026, Applicant’s traversal is persuasive and the restriction requirement dated 10/6/2025 is hereby withdrawn. All pending claims will be examined on the merits.
Status of the Application
Claims 1-23 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 1/16/2025 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “a manifold system” however this element has already been introduced in the alternative in claim 1. Suggest possible correction to “the manifold system” for improved antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites “…wherein the plurality of fluid include…” which should likely be “wherein the plurality of self-inflating fluid cells include…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 recites “the polymeric covering material” which is likely referring to the “polymeric bag” introduced in claim 17. Suggest amending either of claim 17 or 18 for consistent nomenclature of either “polymeric bag” OR “polymeric covering material” for improved antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23 recites: “at least one self-inflating fluid cell containing a reforming element, each of the at least one self-inflating fluid cell containing a reforming element” of which the recitation of “containing a reforming element” appears redundant.
Claim 23 recites: “the manifold system” in lines 10-11, however, only “a manifold” has be introduced prior in line 5. Suggest correction to line 10-11 to only be “the manifold” for improved antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-12, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 8,122,545 to Wilkinson.
Regarding claim 1, Wilkinson teaches: A body support configured to support a weight up to a maximum weight limit (see Wilkinson, Abs: “cushioning device for a body support” and col. 3, lines [3-12]), the body support comprising:
at least one self-inflating fluid cell (see Fig. 1, support cell 14A-D containing fluid 36), each of the at least one self-inflating fluid cell containing a reforming element (see Fig. 2, reforming elements 32A-D, see “self-inflating” per col. 4, lines [54-62]).
a blow-off valve (see Fig. 1, controllable pressure relief valve 62) attached to the at least one self-inflating fluid cell or a manifold system (see Fig. 1, manifold 60) interconnecting the at least one self-inflating fluid cells, wherein the blow-off valve opens at a blow-off pressure that is higher than a maximum working pressure that occurs when the body support is supporting the maximum weight limit (see col. 7, lines [49-67] thru col 8, lines [1-7]).
Regarding claim 2, Wilkinson teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the at least one self-inflating fluid cells is a plurality of self-inflating fluid cells (see Fig. 1, plurality of cells 14A-D), wherein the body support further comprises a manifold system (see Fig. 1 and 3, manifold 60) including an exhaust conduit interconnecting the plurality of self-inflating fluid cells (see Fig. 3, exhaust control system 46 with conduits from exhaust valves 42).
Regarding claim 3, Wilkinson teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 2, and additionally teaches: further comprising at least one pressure relief valve (see Fig. 3, exhaust valves 42A-42D) operably attached to the exhaust conduit (see Fig .3), the at least one pressure relief valve configured to be controllable to allow for a maximum operable pressure level to be maintained within the plurality of self-inflating fluid cells during body support use (see col. 8, lines [39-63]).
Regarding claim 4, Wilkinson teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 2, and additionally teaches: wherein the blow-off valve is located in the manifold such that fluid from the plurality of self-inflating fluid cells does not flow through the at least one pressure relief valve when the fluid leaves the body support from the blow-off valve (see Fig. 3, pressure relief valve 62 is located at the end of exhaust manifold 60 and fluid from each cell 14A-D can flow directly to 68 without passing thru exhaust valves 42A-D, respectively).
Regarding claim 9, Wilkinson teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 2, and additionally teaches: wherein the plurality of fluid include a plurality of groups of self-inflating fluid cells (see Fig. 4, groups of cells A, B, C), each of the plurality of groups of self-inflating fluid cells including a separate manifold portion (see Fig. 4, each group A | B | C of cells 14 has its own respective manifold portion as shown, see also col. 8, lines [39-62]).
Regarding claim 10, Wilkinson teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the reforming element comprises a resilient foam material (see col. 6, lines [65-66]).
Regarding claim 11, Wilkinson teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 2, and additionally teaches: wherein the reforming element comprises a helical pattern (see Fig. 17-18, coiled spring 500 or bellows 520) on an outer construct of each of the plurality of self-inflating fluid cells such that each of the plurality of self-inflating fluid cells collapse when loaded with force which is greater than the sum of the force of pressure inside the self-inflating fluid cell and the reforming force of the self-inflating fluid cell and inherently expand when the load is reduced (see col. 6, lines [57-67] thru col. 7, lines [1-4]: “The application of an external load on the envelope 34A causes the envelope 34A to deform into a compressed form. The reforming element 32A provides a reforming force to the interior surface 38A of the envelope 34A. The reforming force causes the envelope 34A to return to its original form when the external load is removed from the envelope 34A”).
Regarding claim 12, Wilkinson teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the blow-off pressure of the blow-off valve is adjustable (see col. 7, lines [53-64]).
Regarding claim 23, Wilkinson teaches: A body support comprising:
at least one self-inflating fluid cell (see Fig. 1, support cells 14A-D containing fluid 36, see “self-inflating” per col. 4, lines [54-62]) containing a reforming element (see Fig. 2, reforming elements 32A-D), each of the at least one self-inflating fluid cell containing a reforming element (see Fig. 2, reforming elements 32A-D);
at least one pressure relief valve (see Fig. 3, exhaust valves 42A-42D) operably attached to the at least one self-inflating fluid cell or a manifold (see Fig 3, exhaust valves 42A-42D connected to cells 14A-14D and exhaust manifold 60) interconnecting the at least one self-inflating fluid cell (see Fig. 3, manifold 60 interconnects cells 14A-D), the at least one pressure relief valve configured to be controllable to allow for a maximum operable pressure level to be maintained within the at least one self-inflating fluid cell during body support use (see col. 8, lines [39-63]); and
a blow-off valve (see Fig. 1, controllable pressure relief valve 62) attached to the at least one self-inflating fluid cell or the manifold system (see Fig. 1, valve 62 is connected to manifold 60) wherein the blow-off valve opens at a blow-off pressure that is higher than the maximum operable pressure level (see col. 7, lines [49-67] thru col 8, lines [1-7]).
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.
Claim(s) 5-8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 8,122,545 to Wilkinson.
Regarding claim 5, Wilkinson teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 3, however it does not explicitly teach: wherein the blow-off valve is structured to provide a higher volume flow rate of airflow when opened than a volume flow rate of the at least one pressure relief valve at the same pressure level.
Wilkinson does not explicitly compare the structure of its pressure-relief valves and exhaust valves in allowing particular volumetric flow rates. However, Wilkinson does teach or suggest that at least one of the pressure relief valve 62 and exhaust valves 42A-D are controllable to allow for maximum pressures allowed to escape through the valves (see col. 7 lines [49-67] thru col. 8, lines [1-7]). Pressure relief valve 62 has a knob 68 for setting the maximum pressure for release, while exhaust valves 42A-42D can be also set to allow for fluid release. Since the pressure relief valve 62 can be set to any maximum pressure release value, it is within the capability of the prior art to set the pressure-relief valve 62 to provide a higher volume flow rate of airflow when opened than the exhaust valves and meet the functional language claimed.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious matter of design choice and/or optimization to have set the pressure relief valve of Wilkinson to allow for a higher volume flow rate than the associated exhaust valves based on patient safety and operational requirements/user preferences (see Wilkinson, col 8, lines [1-7]).
Regarding claim 6, Wilkinson teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 5, however it does not explicitly teach: wherein the volume flow rate of the blow-off valve is at least three times the volume flow rate of the at least one pressure relief valve at the same pressure level.
However, similar to the reasoning noted above for claim 5, since the pressure-relief valve of Wilkinson can be set to any particular pressure valve it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious matter of design choice and/or optimization to have set the pressure relief valve of Wilkinson to allow for a specific three times higher volume flow rate than the associated exhaust valves based on patient safety and operational requirements/user preferences (see Wilkinson, col 8, lines [1-7]).
Regarding claim 7, Wilkinson teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however it does not explicitly teach: wherein the blow-off valve is a first blow-off valve attached at a first end of the manifold, the body support further comprising a second blow-off valve attached at a second end of the manifold, wherein the second blow-off valve opens at the blow-off pressure.
Wilkinson is silent on the exact number and locations of its number of pressure-relief valves, (e.g. per Fig. 1, a singular pressure-relief valve 62 is mounted at the end of exhaust manifold 60). However, the addition of a second similar functioning pressure relief valve on a second end of the manifold is considered to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious matter of design choice and/or optimization lacking a finding of criticality (new or unexpected results occurring therefrom) by the applicant since it has been held at mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 8, Wilkinson teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 2, however it does not explicitly teach: further comprising a respective blow-off valve attached directly to each of the plurality of self-inflating fluid cells, wherein the blow-off valve is a first blow-off valve of the respective blow-off valves and is attached directly to a first of the plurality of self-inflating fluid cells.
Wilkinson is silent on the exact number and locations of its number of pressure-relief valves, (e.g. per Fig. 1, a singular pressure-relief valve 62 is mounted at the end of exhaust manifold 60). However, the addition of a second or greater plurality of similar functioning pressure relief valves directly on its fluid cells is considered to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious matter of design choice and/or optimization lacking a finding of criticality (new or unexpected results occurring therefrom) by the applicant since it has been held at mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 13, Wilkinson teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however it does not explicitly teach: wherein the blow-off valve is configured to be permanently deactivated after at least one opening sequence.
Wilkinson does not explicitly note whether its pressure relief valve 62 is of a particular type, e.g. single or multiple use, however, the selection of such for use is considered to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious matter of design choice and/or optimization lacking a finding of criticality (new or unexpected results occurring therefrom) by the applicant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a single-use blow-off valve for the purpose of ensuring the inflatable component remains inoperable until the circumstances causing the blow-off are repaired or resolved.
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 8,122,545 to Wilkinson in view of EP 0973425 B1 to Viard.
Regarding claim 14, Wilkinson teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and also teaches: providing the body support of claim 1 (see Wilkinson, Abs: “cushioning device for a body support” and col. 3, lines [3-12] and claim 1’s rejection above).
Wilkinson however, it does not explicitly disclose: compressing the body support with a compression machine to open the blow-off valve; and removing fluid through the blow-off valve from the at least one self-inflating fluid cell during the compressing.
Viard teaches: compressing the body support with a compression machine to open the blow-off valve; and removing fluid through the blow-off valve from the at least one self-inflating fluid cell during the compressing (see Fig 2-5, Abstract: “a rapid deflation device for rapidly deflating said chamber by sucking out said inflation fluid at a high flow rate, the rapid deflation device being used on deactivating said chamber, in particular so as to transport it with its volume being reduced to as small as possible”, Per Fig. 2-5, inflatable support device 12/112/212 is deflated and compressed by deflation means 20 / blower 120 or turbine 220).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method and means for deflating an inflatable support device as taught by Viard into the system of Wilkinson for the purpose of reducing the risk of contamination of the support and rapidly and completely deflating the inflatable chamber facilitate portability of the device (Viard, Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Wilkinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 14, and additionally teaches: wherein the at least one self-inflating fluid cells is a plurality of self-inflating fluid cells (see Fig. 1, plurality of cells 14A-D), wherein the body support further comprises a manifold system (see Fig. 1 and 3, manifold 60) including an exhaust conduit interconnecting the plurality of self-inflating fluid cells (see Fig. 3, exhaust control system 46 with conduits from exhaust valves 42).
Regarding claim 16, Wilkinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 15, and additionally teaches: further comprising at least one pressure relief valve (see Fig. 3, exhaust valves 42A-42D) operably attached to the exhaust conduit (see Fig .3), the at least one pressure relief valve configured to be controllable to allow for a maximum operable pressure level to be maintained within the plurality of self-inflating fluid cells during body support use (see col. 8, lines [39-63]).
Regarding claim 17, Wilkinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 14, and additionally teaches: further comprising enveloping the body support with a polymeric bag before the compressing (see Fig. 1 and 5, jacket 18, see also col. 11, lines [66-67]).
Regarding claim 18, Wilkinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 17, and additionally teaches: further comprising sealing the polymeric covering material such that the body support remains enveloped within the polymeric covering material in an air-tight manner (see col. 11, lines [66-67]: “jacket 18 surrounds the support system”).
Claim(s) 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 8,122,545 to Wilkinson in view of EP 0973425 B1 to Viard in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0299842 to Wang.
Regarding claim 19, Wilkinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 17, however it does not teach the following: further comprising rolling the body support with a roll packing process after the compressing.
Wang however teaches: further comprising rolling the body support with a roll packing process after the compressing (see Fig. 3-6 as shown and para [0046-0047], inflatable mattress body 10 is rolled along a transverse axis).
Wilkinson, Viard, and Wang are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of inflatable supporting devices. Before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Wilkinson and Viard with these aforementioned teachings of Wang in order to have rolled, secured, and packed the compressed device of Wilkinson in a transport vehicle as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing convenient storage and portability of the device (Wang, para [0004-0005]).
Regarding claim 20, Wilkinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 18, however it does not teach the following: further comprising securing the body support in a rolled position after the rolling.
Wang however teaches: further comprising securing the body support in a rolled position after the rolling (see Fig. 3-7, rolled mattress 10 is wrapped with surrounding sheet 21 and holding sheet 22).
Wilkinson, Viard, and Wang are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of inflatable supporting devices. Before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Wilkinson and Viard with these aforementioned teachings of Wang in order to have rolled, secured, and packed the compressed device of Wilkinson in a transport vehicle as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing convenient storage and portability of the device (Wang, para [0004-0005]).
Regarding claim 21, Wilkinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 19, however it does not teach the following: further comprising packing the body support in a transportation vehicle after the securing.
Wang however teaches: further comprising packing the body support in a transportation vehicle after the securing (see Fig. 5-6 rolled mattress 10 is placed in vehicle/bag 20).
Wilkinson, Viard, and Wang are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of inflatable supporting devices. Before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Wilkinson and Viard with these aforementioned teachings of Wang in order to have rolled, secured, and packed the compressed device of Wilkinson in a transport vehicle as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing convenient storage and portability of the device (Wang, para [0004-0005]).
Regarding claim 22, Wilkinson, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 20, however it does not explicitly teach the following: further comprising permanently deactivating operability of the blow-off valve after the compressing.
Wilkinson does not explicitly note whether its pressure relief valve 62 is of a particular type, e.g. single or multiple use, however, the selection of such for use is considered to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious matter of design choice and/or optimization lacking a finding of criticality (new or unexpected results occurring therefrom) by the applicant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a single-use blow-off valve for the purpose of ensuring the inflatable component remains inoperable until the circumstances causing the blow-off are repaired or resolved.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited patents show air mattresses and inflatable body support devices with similar properties to the claimed invention. They show the general state of the art and are of general relevance with respect to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R HARE whose telephone number is (571)272-4420. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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.
Sincerely,
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
4/17/2026
Prosecution Insights