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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments relate to the previous combination of references, and as a new base reference is now being used along with other new references and interpretations in response to the amendments, the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
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) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US Patent 6823545) in view of Hernandez (US Patent 6324710) in view of Bennett (US Patent 5113875) further in view of Wai-Chung (US Patent 6154903).
Regarding claim 1, Davis teaches a leg bolster elevation wedge (Figure 2; 22), comprising: a main body, which comprises a solid block of foam (Abstract) and comprising a bottom surface (Figure 2; 24), a top surface (Figure 2; at 25/26) a front end surface (Figure 2; the surface between 24 and 25/26), a rear end surface (Figure 2; the surface between 24 and 25/26 on the back side, not visible in the figure), wherein the surfaces are positionable to contact and support a user's hips, thigh rears, knee pits, and shank rears in order to relax and decompress the user's lumbar spine, thoracic spine, vertebra and pelvis area, muscles, and ligaments (Figure 5a; as shown). Davis does not teach the solid block of foam having a load capacity of 200-400 pounds, a left end surface, and a right end surface, the left end surface being arranged at an angle of 600 and having a first predetermined length, a rounded support portion being arranged between the left end surface and the top surface, the top surface being arranged at an angle of 30°to the horizonal and having a second predetermined length, wherein the right end surface is arranged at an angle of 120°, and the right end surface has a height of 4 inches to 8 inches. Hernandez teaches the solid block of foam having a load capacity of 200-400 pounds (Column 8; lines 57-63). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Davis (directed to a foam leg bolster) and Hernandez (directed to a foam leg bolster with a 200-400 pound load capacity) and arrived at a foam leg bolster with a 200-400 pound load capacity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to allow the support to “be capable of resiliently supporting and elevating a 200-pound patient sufficiently to minimize lumbar lordosis or improve cervical flexion” as taught in Hernandez (Column 8; lines 57-63). Bennett teaches a leg bolster elevation wedge (Figure 1; as shown), comprising: a main body, which comprises a bottom surface (Figure 2; 14), a top surface (Figure 2; 16), a front end surface (Figure 1; side shown in Figure), a rear end surface (Figure 1; opposite side to that shown in Figure), a left end surface (Figure 2; 15), and a right end surface (Figure 2; 17), the left end surface being arranged at an angle of 60° (Column 2; lines 22-44 teach left end surface 15 having an angle of 45-65 degrees, which includes 60 degrees) and having a first predetermined length, a rounded support portion (Figure 2; rounded corner between 15 and 16 as shown) being arranged between the left end surface and the top surface, the top surface being arranged at an angle of 30° to the horizontal and having a second predetermined length (Column 2; lines 22-44 teach that the angle between top surface 16 and the horizontal, 14, is between 25-45 degrees, thus it can be 30 degrees), wherein the right end surface is arranged at an angle of 120° (Figure 2; top surface 16 is at a 90 degree angle to 15, and as 15 and 17 appear to be parallel, it would be at a 90 degree angle to 17 as well. With two 90 degree angles and a 60 degree angle, this would make the fourth angle between the left end surface 15 and the horizontal 14 to be 120 degrees), and the right end surface has a height of 4 inches to 8 inches (Column 2; lines 56- 60 note that webbing 18 (see Fig 4) is at half the height of apex of the pillow. The height of the pillow is noted to be 9 inches in Column 3; line 28. Thus, half the height of 9 inches is 4.5 inches. The webbing 18, is shown to be the same height as the right end surface 17, thus right end surface 17 is between 4 and 8 inches). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Davis (directed to a foam leg bolster) and Hernandez (directed to a foam bolster with a 200-400 pound load capacity) and Bennett (directed to a wedge bolster with left and right end surfaces) and arrived at a foam leg wedge bolster with a 200-400 pound load capacity and left and right end surfaces. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Wai-Chung teaches the right end surface has a height of 4 inches to 8 inches (Figure 1; 17 and Column 7; lines 42-62). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Davis (directed to a foam leg bolster) and Hernandez (directed to a foam bolster with a 200-400 pound load capacity) and Bennett (directed to a wedge bolster with left and right end surfaces) and Wai-Chung (directed to a 4-8 inch high right end surface) and arrived at a foam leg wedge bolster with a 200-400 pound load capacity and a left end surface, and a right end surface with a 4-8 inch height. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Davis does not teach a first round corner is formed between a circumferential edge of the front end surface and the bottom surface, the top surface, the left end surface, and the right end surface; and a second round corner is formed between a circumferential edge of the rear end surface and the bottom surface, the top surface, the left end surface, and the right end surface. Bennett teaches a first round corner is formed between a circumferential edge of the front end surface and the bottom surface, the top surface, the left end surface, and the right end surface; and a second round corner is formed between a circumferential edge of the rear end surface and the bottom surface, the top surface, the left end surface, and the right end surface (Figure 1 shows all the corners on Bennett are rounded rather than sharp edge corners). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Davis (directed to a foam leg bolster) and Hernandez (directed to a foam bolster with a 200-400 pound load capacity) and Bennett (directed to a wedge bolster with left and right end surfaces) and arrived at a foam leg wedge bolster with a 200-400 pound load capacity and left and right end surfaces. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US Patent 6823545) in view of Hernandez (US Patent 6324710) in view of Bennett (US Patent 5113875) further in view of Wai-Chung (US Patent 6154903) further in view of Drangula (US Patent 6918145).
Regarding claim 3, Davis does not teach the front end surface and the rear end surface are each provided with a handgrip, and each of the handgrips is arranged parallel to the left end surface. Drangula teaches the front end surface and the rear end surface are each provided with a handgrip, and each of the handgrips is arranged parallel to the left end surface (Figure 1; 30 and 40 and Column 1; line 63- Column 2; line 2, and Column 3; lines 14-20, see also Figure 4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Davis (directed to a foam leg bolster) and Hernandez (directed to a foam bolster with a 200-400 pound load capacity) and Bennett (directed to a wedge bolster with left and right end surfaces) and Wai-Chung (directed to a 4-8 inch high right end surface) and Drangula (directed to a wedge pillow with a cover and handles) and arrived at a foam leg wedge bolster with a 200-400 pound load capacity, a left end surface, a right end surface with a 4-8 inch height, a cover and handles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination so that “By gripping the handles 30, 32, the user may easily locate the pillow 10 into a desired position to provide the proper support.” (Drangula Column 2; lines 58-60) and to “make the cover 40 removable and replaceable for laundering” (Drangula Column 3; lines 15-18).
Regarding claim 4, Davis does not teach a protective cover removably encloses an outside of the main body, and the handgrips are mounted on the protective cover. Drangula teaches a protective cover removably encloses an outside of the main body, and the handgrips are mounted on the protective cover (Figure 1; 30 and 40 and Column 1; line 63- Column 2; line 2, and Column 3; lines 14-20, see also Figure 4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Davis (directed to a foam leg bolster) and Hernandez (directed to a foam bolster with a 200-400 pound load capacity) and Bennett (directed to a wedge bolster with left and right end surfaces) and Wai-Chung (directed to a 4-8 inch high right end surface) and Drangula (directed to a wedge pillow with a cover and handles) and arrived at a foam leg wedge bolster with a 200-400 pound load capacity, a left end surface, a right end surface with a 4-8 inch height, a cover and handles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination so that “By gripping the handles 30, 32, the user may easily locate the pillow 10 into a desired position to provide the proper support.” (Drangula Column 2; lines 58-60) and to “make the cover 40 removable and replaceable for laundering” (Drangula Column 3; lines 15-18).
Regarding claim 8, Davis does not teach each of the handgrips is provided for holding and pulling by the user in order to have the left end surface of the main body tightly positioned against the user's hips, thigh rears, knee pits, and shank rears. Drangula teaches each of the handgrips is provided for holding and pulling by the user in order to have the left end surface of the main body tightly positioned against the user’s hips, thigh rears, knee pits, and shank rears (Figure 1; 30 and 40 and Column 1; line 63- Column 2; line 2, and Column 3; lines 14-20, see also Figure 4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Davis (directed to a foam leg bolster) and Hernandez (directed to a foam bolster with a 200-400 pound load capacity) and Bennett (directed to a wedge bolster with left and right end surfaces) and Wai-Chung (directed to a 4-8 inch high right end surface) and Drangula (directed to a wedge pillow with a cover and handles) and arrived at a foam leg wedge bolster with a 200-400 pound load capacity, a left end surface, a right end surface with a 4-8 inch height, a cover and handles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination so that “By gripping the handles 30, 32, the user may easily locate the pillow 10 into a desired position to provide the proper support.” (Drangula Column 2; lines 58-60) and to “make the cover 40 removable and replaceable for laundering” (Drangula Column 3; lines 15-18).
Regarding claim 9, Davis does not teach each of the handgrips is provided for holding and pulling by the user in order to have the left end surface of the main body tightly positioned against the user's hips, thigh rears, knee pits, and shank rears. Drangula teaches each of the handgrips is provided for holding and pulling by the user in order to have the left end surface of the main body tightly positioned against the user’s hips, thigh rears, knee pits, and shank rears (Figure 1; 30 and 40 and Column 1; line 63- Column 2; line 2, and Column 3; lines 14-20, see also Figure 4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Davis (directed to a foam leg bolster) and Hernandez (directed to a foam bolster with a 200-400 pound load capacity) and Bennett (directed to a wedge bolster with left and right end surfaces) and Wai-Chung (directed to a 4-8 inch high right end surface) and Drangula (directed to a wedge pillow with a cover and handles) and arrived at a foam leg wedge bolster with a 200-400 pound load capacity, a left end surface, a right end surface with a 4-8 inch height, a cover and handles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination so that “By gripping the handles 30, 32, the user may easily locate the pillow 10 into a desired position to provide the proper support.” (Drangula Column 2; lines 58-60) and to “make the cover 40 removable and replaceable for laundering” (Drangula Column 3; lines 15-18).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US Patent 6823545) in view of Hernandez (US Patent 6324710) in view of Bennett (US Patent 5113875) further in view of Wai-Chung (US Patent 6154903) further in view of Drangula (US Patent 6918145) in view of Kaminski (US Patent Application Publication 20130167297).
Regarding claim 5, Davis does not teach a bottom surface of the protective cover is provided with a plurality of raised dots or raised patterns, such that the raised dots or raised patterns help increase friction. Kaminski teaches a bottom surface of the protective cover is provided with a plurality of raised dots or raised patterns, such that the raised dots or raised patterns help increase friction (Figure 5; 28 and Paragraphs 22 and 30). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Davis (directed to a foam leg bolster) and Hernandez (directed to a foam bolster with a 200-400 pound load capacity) and Bennett (directed to a wedge bolster with left and right end surfaces) and Wai-Chung (directed to a 4-8 inch high right end surface) and Drangula (directed to a wedge pillow with a cover and handles) and Kaminski (directed to a polyester cover with friction increasing patterns) and arrived at a foam leg wedge bolster with a 200-400 pound load capacity, a left end surface, a right end surface with a 4-8 inch height, a cover with friction increasing patterns and handles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to include an element that “assists in maintaining the position” of the cover (Kaminski Paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 6, Davis does not teach the protective cover is made of polyester fabric. Kaminski teaches the protective cover is made of polyester fabric (Figure 5; 10 and Paragraph 22). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Davis (directed to a foam leg bolster) and Hernandez (directed to a foam bolster with a 200-400 pound load capacity) and Bennett (directed to a wedge bolster with left and right end surfaces) and Wai-Chung (directed to a 4-8 inch high right end surface) and Drangula (directed to a wedge pillow with a cover and handles) and Kaminski (directed to a polyester cover with friction increasing patterns) and arrived at a foam leg wedge bolster with a 200-400 pound load capacity, a left end surface, a right end surface with a 4-8 inch height, a cover with friction increasing patterns and handles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to include an element that “assists in maintaining the position” of the cover (Kaminski Paragraph 30).
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 MORGAN J MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)270-0362. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesdays 12pm-10pm and Thursdays 12pm-10pm.
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 5712728525. 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.
/MORGAN J MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679