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 1-19 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 4/22/2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Both claims recite the word “may” which bring into question whether the limitation controlled by “may” is required or not. The Examiner suggests instead using terminology such as “is/are” or “is/are configured to…” to resolve any possible interpretation of optionality. 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) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 5,890,245 to Klearman et al. (hereinafter Klearman).
Regarding claim 14, Klearman teaches: A method for manufacturing a mattress for a patient support apparatus (see Fig. 5-6, mattress forming apparatus 60), the method comprising:
providing three polymeric sheets including a first sheet, a second sheet and a third sheet (see Fig. 2-4, upper sheet 22, middle sheet 24, and lower sheet 26);
joining the first sheet to the second sheet along first joining sites (see Fig. 2, upper heat seal lines 50) to form at least in part a plurality of first bladders (see Fig. 2, chambers 52) defined between the first sheet and the second sheet, the first bladders being in fluid communication with each other (see Fig. 2-4, chambers 52 formed between upper layer 22 and middle sheet layer 24, in communication via feed holes 54) and positioned side-by-side in a given direction (see Fig. 2 as shown); and
joining the third sheet to the second sheet along second joining sites (see Fig. 3, lower heat seal lines 40) that are offset from the first joining sites along the given direction (see col. 4, lines [39-46]: “Also, because the upper heat seal lines 50 are spaced longitudinally from the lower heat seal lines 40 (i.e., from right to left as viewed in FIGS. 2 and 4)”) thereby forming at least in part a plurality of second bladders defined between the third sheet and the second sheet (see Fig. 2-4, chambers 44 formed between lower sheet layer 26 and middle sheet layer 24), the second bladders being in fluid communication with each other (see Fig. 2-4, chambers in communication via gaps 42) and positioned side-by-side in the given direction (See Fig. 3, as shown).
Regarding claim 15, Klearman teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 14, and also teaches: wherein:
joining the first sheet to the second sheet comprises welding the first sheet to the second sheet (see Fig. 2, heat seal lines 50), the first joining sites being first welding sites (see Fig. 5, upper weld station 86);
joining the third sheet to the second sheet comprises welding the third sheet to the second sheet (see Fig. 3, heat seal lines 40), the second joining sites being second welding sites (see Fig. 5, lower weld station 84); and
the method further comprises:
after welding the first sheet to the second sheet and prior to welding the third sheet to the second sheet, inserting a buffer (see Fig. 5-6, spacer members 108) between the first sheet and the second sheet to prevent welding the first sheet to the second sheet along the second welding sites (see Fig. 5-6, sliding spacer members 108, the examiner considers the buffer to be the space created by the spacer members adjustment); and
after welding the third sheet to the second sheet, removing the buffer from between the first and second sheets (see col. 5, lines [62-67] thru col. 6, lines [1-15], describes how the sliding spacer members 108 can be adjusted between inner and outer positions depending on the placement and dimensions required of the weld lines).
Regarding claim 16, Klearman teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 15, and also teaches: further comprising: after removing the buffer from between the first and second sheets, sealing at least one peripheral side of the first, second and third sheets, including a peripheral side through which the buffer was inserted between the first and second sheets (see Fig. 2-3 and 5-6, weld station 88 provides side seal lines 36, see also col. 6, lines [41-56]).
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) 1-4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 5,890,245 to Klearman in view of U.S. Patent 5,564,142 to Liu.
Regarding claim 1, Klearman teaches: A mattress for a patient support apparatus (see Klearman, Abstract: “ventilating mattress”), comprising:
an inflatable section disposed between the bottom surface and the top surface (see Fig. 1, inflatable section 20), the inflatable section comprising a plurality of bladders (see Fig. 1, air chambers 44 and 52), the plurality of bladders comprising:
a plurality of upper bladders in fluid communication with each other (see Fig. 2-4, chambers 52 formed between upper layer 22 and middle sheet layer 24, in communication via feed holes 54); and
a plurality of lower bladders in fluid communication with each other (see Fig. 2-4, chambers 44 formed between lower sheet layer 26 and middle sheet layer 24, in communication via gaps 42),
the upper and lower bladders being formed by three sheets including an upper sheet (see Fig. 4, upper sheet 22) a lower sheet disposed below the upper sheet (see Fig. 4, lower sheet 26), and an intermediate sheet disposed between the upper and lower sheets (see Fig. 4, middle sheet 24),
the upper sheet being fixed to the intermediate sheet to define the upper bladders between the upper sheet and the intermediate sheet (see Fig. 2, upper heat seal lines 50),
the lower sheet being fixed to the intermediate sheet to define the lower bladders between the lower sheet and the intermediate sheet (see Fig. 3, lower heat seal lines 40).
Klearman, however, does not explicitly teach the following: the upper bladders being selectively inflated independently from the lower bladders and a cover having a bottom surface and a top surface, in use, the top surface facing a patient supported by the mattress.
Liu teaches: the upper bladders being selectively inflated independently from the lower bladders (see Fig. 1-4, primary sac 2 and secondary sacs 2A are independently inflatable via conduits and connectors 41/410 and 42/420) and 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).
Klearman and Liu are both 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 Klearman with these aforementioned teachings of Liu in order to provide independent selective inflation capabilities to the upper/lower bladders of Klearman and a cover as taught by Liu on the existing inflatable mattress of Klearman with a reasonable expectation of success to enclose the mattress of Klearman for improved sanitary effects as well as to assist in the prevention of pressures sores in bedridden patients (see Liu, Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Klearman, as modified 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. 1-3 as shown).
Regarding claim 3, Klearman, as modified 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. 1-3, as shown, upper and lower bladders 52 and 44 span the entire width of the mattress 20).
Regarding claim 4, Klearman, as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein: the upper sheet is welded to the intermediate sheet at first weld sites to form the upper bladders (see Fig. 2, upper heat seal lines 50); the lower sheet is welded to the intermediate sheet at second weld sites to form the lower bladders (see Fig. 3, lower heat seal lines 40); and the first weld sites are longitudinally offset from the second weld sites (see col. 4, lines [39-46]: “Also, because the upper heat seal lines 50 are spaced longitudinally from the lower heat seal lines 40 (i.e., from right to left as viewed in FIGS. 2 and 4)”).
Regarding claim 6, Klearman, as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however does not teach the following: further comprising: a pneumatic system comprising a pump unit in fluid communication with the upper and lower bladders; 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.
Liu 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]).
Klearman and Liu are both 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 Klearman with these aforementioned teachings of Liu in order to provide a pumping and fluid delivery means with alternate pressurization to the upper/lower bladders of Klearman with a reasonable expectation of success to assist in the prevention of pressures sores in bedridden patients (see Liu, col. 4, lines [47-49]).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 5,890,245 to Klearman in view of U.S. Patent 5,564,142 to Liu in further view of U.S. Patent 8,127,386 to Kajiwara et al. (hereinafter Kajiwara).
Regarding claim 7, Klearman, as modified, 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]).
Klearman, 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 Klearman with these aforementioned teachings of Kajiwara in order to provide a secondary inflatable support section below the upper/lower inflatable bladders of Klearman 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 col. 2, lines [43-44]).
Regarding claim 8, Klearman, 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 5,890,245 to Klearman in view of 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, Klearman, 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]).
Klearman, 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 Klearman and Kajiwara with these aforementioned teachings of Crousore to have adjusted the dimensions of Klearman’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, Klearman, 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]).
Klearman, 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 Klearman 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 5,890,245 to Klearman in view of 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, Klearman, 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).
Klearman, 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 Klearman with these aforementioned teachings of Biggie in order to further provide an air loss layer between the inflatable section of Klearman and the top surface 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, Klearman, 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]).
Klearman, 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 Klearman with these aforementioned teachings of Biggie in order to further provide an air loss layer having a spacer sheet between the inflatable section of Klearman 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]).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 5,890,245 to Klearman in view of U.S. Patent 5,926,884 to Biggie.
Regarding claim 17, Klearman teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 14, however it does not explicitly teach the following: further comprising: joining a spacer sheet to the first sheet along the first joining sites or to the third sheet along the second joining sites in order to form air loss pockets from which, in use, air may be diffused.
Biggie teaches: further comprising: joining a spacer sheet (see Fig. 1-3, sheet 16 and col. 5, lines [34-42]) to the first sheet along the first joining sites or to the third sheet along the second joining sites in order to form air loss pockets from which, in use, air may be diffused (see col. 5, lines [34-35]: “absorb and disperse vapor molecules”).
Klearman and Biggie are both 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 Klearman with these aforementioned teachings of Biggie in order to further provide a spacer sheet between the inflatable section of Klearman 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]).
Regarding claim 18, Klearman, as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 17, however Klearman does not teach: wherein the spacer sheet comprises a 3D fabric.
Biggie teaches: wherein the spacer sheet comprises a 3D fabric (see Fig. 1, bottom sheet 16 is shown with some degree of depth and thus is considered three-dimensional. See abstract: “The bottom sheet is preferably a quilted synthetic material such as DACRON.TM. to provide a space for the vapor molecules, once they have passed through the coated nylon, to travel into and disperse”).
Regarding claim 19, Klearman, as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 17, however Klearman does not teach: wherein: the spacer sheet is layered with a thermoplastic sheet; and the method further comprises: prior to joining the spacer sheet to the first sheet or the third sheet, making openings in the thermoplastic sheet through which, in use, air in the air loss pockets may traverse before being diffused through the spacer sheet.
Biggie teaches: wherein: the spacer sheet is layered with a thermoplastic sheet (see Fig. 1, top sheet); and the method further comprises: prior to joining the spacer sheet to the first sheet or the third sheet, making openings (see Fig. 1, apertures 10) in the thermoplastic sheet through which, in use, air in the air loss pockets may traverse before being diffused through the spacer sheet (see col. 5, lines [61-65]).
Klearman and Biggie are both 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 Klearman with these aforementioned teachings of Biggie in order to further provide an thermoplastic layer of the spacer sheet with apertures between the inflatable section of Klearman 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]).
Allowable Subject Matter
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, Klearman also teaches: wherein: the first weld sites between any two consecutive ones of the upper bladders extend along a first axis (see Fig. 2, consecutive upper heat seal lines 50 extend along the same axis/plane), however Klearman fails to 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.
Regarding dependent claim 13, while Klearman teaches the first and second weld sites being longitudinally offset, Klearman 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 is used to teach the air loss layer; 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited patents show therapeutic air mattresses and patient supports 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
12/11/2025