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 1-16 and 18-22 have been examined in this application. Claim 17 was canceled. Claims 20-22 are newly added. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to Applicant’s “Amendment/Remarks” filed 5/15/2026.
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) 1-3, 6, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 5,564,142 to Liu.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches: A mattress for a patient support apparatus (see Liu, Abstract: “air mattress”), comprising:
a cover (see Fig. 1, mattress envelope 1) having a bottom surface (see Fig. 1, bottom 11) and a top surface (see Fig. 1, top cover 14), in use, the top surface facing a patient supported by the mattress (see Fig. 1, as shown); and
an inflatable section (see Fig. 1, symbiotic sacs 2 and 2a) disposed between the bottom surface and the top surface (see Fig. 1, sacs 2/2a are located between 11 and 14 of cover 1), the inflatable section comprising a plurality of bladders (see Fig. 1-2, sacs 2/2a), the plurality of bladders comprising:
a plurality of upper bladders (see Fig. 4, upper pulsating portion 22) in fluid communication with each other (see Fig. 4, upper portions 22 in fluid communication via tubes 411); and
a plurality of lower bladders (see Fig. 4, lower static portion 23) in fluid communication with each other (see Fig. 4, lower portions 23 in fluid communication via tubes 431),
the upper bladders being selectively inflated independently from the lower bladders such that the upper and lower bladders are adjustable to different pressures (see Fig. 1-4, upper portions 22 and lower portions 23 have separate filling tubes 411 and 431, respectively. See also col. 4, lines [20-56] discussing inflation/pulsation of upper and lower portions),
the upper and lower bladders being formed by three sheets (see Fig. 4, each sac 2 or 2a is formed of three sections) including an upper sheet (see Fig. 4, upper exterior portion of 22), a lower sheet disposed below the upper sheet (see Fig. 4, lower exterior portion of 23), and an intermediate sheet disposed between the upper and lower sheets (see Fig. 4, central diaphragm 21 may also be considered a “sheet” of material),
the upper sheet being fixed to the intermediate sheet to define the upper bladders between the upper sheet and the intermediate sheet (see Fig. 4, as shown),
the lower sheet being fixed to the intermediate sheet to define the lower bladders between the lower sheet and the intermediate sheet (See Fig. 4, as shown).
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1 and additionally teaches: wherein each of the upper and lower bladders is elongated in a lateral direction of the mattress (see Fig. 1, as shown, sacs 2/2a span across a lateral width of mattress 1)
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1 and additionally teaches: wherein each of the upper and lower bladders spans a majority of a width of the mattress (see Fig. 4, as shown).
Regarding claim 6, Liu teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1 and additionally teaches: further comprising: a pneumatic system comprising a pump unit (see Fig. 1 and 4, pumping means 5) in fluid communication with the upper and lower bladders (see Fig. 5, delivery tubes 51-53); and the pneumatic system being operable to alternate a pressure within the upper and lower bladders to provide an alternating pressure function to the mattress (see Fig. 4A-4B and col. 4, lines [44-49]).
Regarding claim 20, Liu teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1 and additionally teaches: wherein: the upper bladders are in fluid communication with each other via respective internal communication channels defined between the upper bladders (see Fig. 4, upper portions 22 are in fluid communication via branch tubes 411 and first conduit 41); and the lower bladders are in fluid communication with each other via respective internal communication channels defined between the lower bladders (see Fig. 4, lower portions 23 are in fluid communication via filling tubes 431 located along third conduit 43).
The examiner notes that the communication channels of Liu (i.e. the conduits) are located internal and/or inside the cover 1 and therefore may be considered “internal” to the device as claimed.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 5,564,142 to Liu in view of U.S. Patent 8,332,979 to Flick et al. (hereinafter Flick).
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however, Liu does not teach the following: wherein: the upper sheet is welded to the intermediate sheet at first weld sites to form the upper bladders; the lower sheet is welded to the intermediate sheet at second weld sites to form the lower bladders; and the first weld sites are longitudinally offset from the second weld sites.
Flick teaches: wherein: the upper sheet is welded to the intermediate sheet at first weld sites (see Fig. 7-8, first set of interior welds 224a) to form the upper bladders; the lower sheet is welded to the intermediate sheet at second weld sites to form the lower bladders (see Fig. 7-8, second set of interior welds 224b); and the first weld sites are longitudinally offset from the second weld sites (see Fig. 7-8 and col. 4, lines [24-52]: “the first set of interior welds and the second set of interior welds are not at the same location on the respective surfaces of or superimposed on the middle material. The first set of interior welds and the second set of interior welds are positioned a distance from each other”).
Liu and Flick are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of air mattresses with a plurality of air bladders for patient therapy. 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 Liu with these aforementioned teachings of Flick in order to provide first and second welds between the upper and lower sections Liu in a longitudinally offset manner as disclosed by Flick with a reasonable expectation of success so that the first and second surface and not subject to identical pressures applied by a patient laying thereupon (see Flick, col. 6, lines [1-3]).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 5,564,142 to Liu in view of U.S. Patent 8,127,386 to Kajiwara et al. (hereinafter Kajiwara).
Regarding claim 7, Liu teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however it does not teach the following: wherein: the mattress further comprises an inflatable support section disposed below the inflatable section; and the inflatable support section comprises a plurality of support bladders, the support bladders being pressurized independently from the upper and lower bladders.
Kajiwara teaches: wherein: the mattress further comprises an inflatable support section disposed below the inflatable section (see Fig. 1-2, base mattress layer 3 and lower mattress layer 5) and the inflatable support section comprises a plurality of support bladders (see Fig. 1, first air cells 17), the support bladders being pressurized independently from the upper and lower bladders (see Fig. 1, cells 17 are inflated via tube 63 separate from other layers, see also col. 4, lines [40-43]).
Liu and Kajiwara are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of air mattresses with a plurality of air bladders for patient therapy. 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 Liu with these aforementioned teachings of Kajiwara in order to provide a secondary inflatable support section below the upper/lower inflatable bladders of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success to serve to continually support a person resting on the upper bladders if the upper bladder were to fail/deflate AKA ‘bottom hitting’ (see Kajiwara, col. 2, lines [43-44]).
Regarding claim 8, Liu, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 7, however it does not teach the following: wherein: each of the upper and lower bladders has a first height measured at a maximum inflation thereof; each of the support bladders has a second height measured at a maximum inflation thereof; and the second height is greater than the first height.
Kajiwara teaches: wherein: each of the upper and lower bladders has a first height measured at a maximum inflation thereof (see Fig. 1, height of upper air mattress layer 7); each of the support bladders has a second height measured at a maximum inflation thereof (see Fig. 1, height of base mattress layer 3 and lower mattress layer 5); and the second height is greater than the first height (see Fig. 1, as shown, layers 3/5 are greater in height than layer 7).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 5,564,142 to Liu in further view of U.S. Patent 8,127,386 to Kajiwara in further view of U.S. Patent 7,779,496 to Crousore et al. (hereinafter Crousore).
Regarding claim 9, Liu, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 8, however it does not explicitly teach the following: wherein the first height is less than 5 inches.
Crousore teaches: wherein its LAL mattress layer (see Fig. 3, layer 56) and cells 68 are “5 inch[es]” in height (see col. 4, lines [17-18]).
Liu, Kajiwara, and Crousore are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of air mattresses with a plurality of air bladders for patient therapy. 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 Liu and Kajiwara with these aforementioned teachings of Crousore to have adjusted the dimensions of Liu’s top layer to be 5 inches or less with a reasonable expectation of success to facilitate articulation of the mattress (see Crousore, col. 4, lines [7-24]).
Further, it has been held in In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, there is no unexpected or significant result to having the first height being less than 5 inches.
Regarding claim 10, Liu, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 7, however it does not explicitly teach the following: further comprising a structural foam layer disposed beneath the inflatable support section.
Crousore teaches: further comprising a structural foam layer disposed beneath the inflatable support section (see Fig. 15-16, integral edge protection 174 formed of cushion material 176 located below safety mattress layer 58 (see Fig. 3), made of “foam” per col. 8, lines [34-36]).
Liu, Kajiwara, and Crousore are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of air mattresses with a plurality of air bladders for patient therapy. 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 Liu and Kajiwara with these aforementioned teachings of Crousore to have further added a foam cushioning material below the base/safety mattress layer as taught by Crousore with a reasonable expectation of success for added protection for reducing the risk of discomfort or injury (see Crousore, col. 8, lines [29-33]).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 5,564,142 to Liu in further view of U.S. Patent 5,926,884 to Biggie et al. (hereinafter Biggie).
Regarding claim 11, Liu, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however it does not explicitly teach the following: further comprising an air loss layer disposed between the inflatable section and the top surface, the air loss layer being configured to diffuse air toward the top surface.
Biggie teaches: further comprising an air loss layer disposed between the inflatable section and the top surface (see Fig. 1, air distribution device with top sheet 2), the air loss layer being configured to diffuse air toward the top surface (see Fig. 1, top sheet 2 has tiny apertures 10/11 to provide air circulation).
Liu, and Biggie are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of air mattresses with a plurality of air bladders for patient therapy. 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 Liu with these aforementioned teachings of Biggie in order to further provide an air loss layer between the inflatable section and the top surface of the cover of Liu as taught by Biggie with a reasonable expectation of success to provide air circulation that benefits the patient resting on the air mattress (see Biggie, col. 5, lines [1-6]).
Regarding claim 12, Liu, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 11, however it does not explicitly teach the following: wherein the air loss layer comprises a spacer sheet that is disposed above the upper sheet and is fixed thereto.
Biggie teaches: wherein the air loss layer comprises a spacer sheet that is disposed above the upper sheet and is fixed thereto (see Fig. 1-3, sheet 16 and col. 5, lines [34-42]).
Liu, and Biggie are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of air mattresses with a plurality of air bladders for patient therapy. 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 Liu with these aforementioned teachings of Biggie in order to further provide an air loss layer having a spacer sheet between the inflatable section and the top surface of Liu as taught by Biggie with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a space for the dispersion of vapor molecules (see Biggie, col. 5, lines [1-6]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16, 18-19, and 21-22 are allowed.
Regarding independent claim 14, the closest prior art of record is considered to be Liu (U.S. Patent 5,564,142). Liu, however, does not teach providing three polymeric sheets and joining them along offset joining sites in addition to joining a spacer sheet along the first joining sites or to the third sheet in the manner as required by claim 14. While Liu does teach upper and lower bladders formed of sheets of material and connected by a “third sheet” (central diaphragm 21), the sheets of Liu are not “joined” to one another in the same manner during manufacturing as would be required in the process of claim 14.
Independent claim 21 and claim 22, as newly added include the previously noted aspects of Allowable Subject Matter in the Non-Final Rejection of 1/21/2026. Claims 21 and 22 have been amended to include the allowable features of dependent claims 5 and 13, respectively, including the limitations of any intervening claims.
Claims 5 and 13 are 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.
Regarding dependent claim 5, Neither Klearman nor Liu (as newly applied in this Final Rejection) teach or fairly suggest “wherein the upper sheet and the intermediate sheet being free of welds along at least a portion of the first axis to allow fluid communication between the two consecutive ones of the upper bladders.” Klearman teaches that upper weld lines 50 extend completely across the device and as such there are no areas “free of welds.” In fact, Klearman uses instead feed openings 54 to distribute air. It would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Klearman further in the claimed manner as such a modification would have affected Klearman’s intended functionality of air distribution.
Additionally, the prior art of Liu, even when combined with Flick, does not teach the claimed areas “free of welds” as Liu’s bladders are not consecutively aligned to allow immediate fluid communication. Liu’s device provides conduits that allow fluid communication in a different manner which would not function if areas “free of welds” were present in Liu.
Regarding dependent claim 13, while Flick teaches the first and second weld sites being longitudinally offset, Flick does not teach or fairly suggest any welding of the air loss layer to an upper sheet at third weld sites and where the first and third weld sites are superimposed. Biggie was used to teach a generic air loss layer (in claims 11-12); however, Biggie also does not suggest welding of its layers to its air bladder layers. As such, it is the examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the prior art references to have achieved the currently claimed combination of features in the designed configuration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16, 18-19 under Klearman (U.S. Patent 5,890,245) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and in response to Applicant’s amendments of 5/15/2026, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent 5,564,142 to Liu under a new interpretation. Please review the updated rejections above to claims 1-4, 6-12, and 20.
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 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
6/26/2026
Prosecution Insights