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 .
Remarks
This communication is in response to the reply received on 10-13-2025.
The reply cancelled claims 12, 15, and 19.
Claims 1-11, 13-14, 16-18 and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09-26-2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species I (fig. 1A), III (fig. 3A) and V (fig. 4a) and invention I (corresponding to claims 1-11, 13, 14, 16-18, and 20) in the reply filed on 10-13-2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings filed 05-22-2024 are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation Under 35 USC § 112
No claim elements in this application are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 9, 13-14, 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 9, the use of the word ‘substantially’ is when indicating a value, duration, numerical range, location, property, shape, or comparative sizing or proximity is considered indefinite as the specification or arguments previously presented fails to provide some standard for measuring that degree; and there is no standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of said degree. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
As to claim 13, “the pressure redistribution assembly” lacks antecedent basis (previously provided by now cancelled claim 12 and now depending from claim 1 which positively recites “at least one pressure redistribution assembly”. The claim is further unclear as the preamble “The pressure redistribution assembly of claim …” is not commensurate with the claim from which it depends (claim 1) which positively recites “A patient table”. The recitation “the number of inflatable cells” lacks antecedent basis.
Further the recitation “To facilitate examination the following is used: “The patient table of plurality of inflatable cells is equal to the number of sensing regions.”
In claim 14 “the inflatable cells” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 16, the claim is unclear as the preamble “The cushion of claim …” is not commensurate with the claim from which it depends (claim 11) which positively recites “A patient table”.
Claim 17 is rejected via dependency and because it shares the same issue as claim 16.
In claim 20, the claim is unclear as the preamble “The cushion of claim …” is not commensurate with the claim from which it depends (claim 11) which positively recites “A patient table”.
NOTE: any prior art rejection provided below is made as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2013/0091961, hereinafter D1.
As to claim 1.
D1 discloses a patient table (fig. 1) comprising:
a patient support surface (generally top surface of mattress 22) for supporting a patient (this is interpreted as a statement of intended use and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)); and
at least one pressure redistribution assembly (fig. 1 and fig. 4), each of the at least one pressure redistribution assemblies comprising:
a pressure sensing assembly (sensing mat 20 in fig. 4 including associated electrical conductors 50 and preprocessing circuit boards 52. Each preprocessing circuit board may, in turn, be connected to an electronic control module 54) located proximate to the patient support surface (fig. 1) to measure a pressure between the patient support surface and the patient at a plurality of sensing regions ([0034] Circuit boards 52 and control module 54 are designed to perform all of the electrical work necessary to determine the pressures being exerted at each of the pressure sensor locations of mat 20);
a repositioning assembly (controller 26 and fluid bladders or cells 28), the repositioning assembly including a plurality of inflatable cells (fluid bladders or cells 28) overlapping the plurality of sensing regions ([0014] and fig 1 where sensing mat 20 above inflatable cell 28 = sensing region), a medium located within the inflatable cells ([0016] fluid inside cells), and an actuator for selectively redistributing a quantity of the medium between the inflatable cells ([0037] single controller, such as control module 54, may be used to control bladder or cell inflation and deflation); and
a processor (mattress controller 26 and/or electronic control module includes memory [0017]) and a memory ([0017]) containing instructions that, when executed by the processor (mattress controller 26 includes memory [0017]), cause the processor (mattress controller 26 includes memory [0017]) to:
receive a measurement of the pressure from the pressure sensing assembly ([0017] mattress controller 26 will include a set of electronic components that are designed to carry out the functions of controlling the inflation and deflation of the bladders or cells 28, and communicating with pressure mat 20; electronic control module 54 is in electrical communication with mattress controller 26);
determine if the measurement of pressure is above a threshold ([0038] When control module 54 outputs information indicating that a specific sensor is detecting a pressure that is undesirably high, mattress controller 26 will be able to determine which air zone this corresponds to and adjust the pressure in that zone accordingly; [0040]); and
if the measurement of pressure is above the threshold ([0038] and [0040]), generate a signal to redistribute the medium ([0038]).
As to claim 2.
D1 discloses wherein the pressure sensing assembly (sensing mat 20 in fig. 4) includes a piezo-resistive layer ([0020] sensing mat 20 includes a top cover 30, a first layer 32, a second layer 34, a third layer 36, and a bottom cover 38; [0029] Second layer 34 is an elastically stretchable fabric that includes materials having one or more electrical characteristics that change in response to applied pressure. In one embodiment, layer 34 is a piezoresistive layer).
As to claim 3
D1 discloses wherein the pressure sensing assembly (sensing mat 20 in fig. 4) further includes a top conductive layer ([0022] As shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, first layer 32 includes a plurality of conductive rows 40) and a bottom conductive layer ([0031] Third layer 36 is formed in the same manner as first layer 32, third layer 36 will include alternating layers of parallel conductive columns 44).
As to claim 4.
D1 discloses wherein the piezo-resistive layer ([0029] layer 34 is a piezoresistive layer) is located between the top conductive layer ([0022] As shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, first layer 32 includes a plurality of conductive rows 40) and the bottom conductive layer ([0031] Third layer 36 is formed in the same manner as first layer 32, third layer 36 will include alternating layers of parallel conductive columns 44)
As to claim 5
D1 discloses wherein the top conductive layer ([0022] As shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, first layer 32 includes a plurality of conductive rows 40) includes a plurality of rows of conductive pathways (fig. 2 shows conductive rows 40) and the bottom conductive layer ([0031] Third layer 36 is formed in the same manner as first layer 32, third layer 36 will include alternating layers of parallel conductive columns 44) includes a plurality of columns of conductive pathways (fig. 2 shows conductive columns 44).
As to claim 6
D1 discloses wherein the plurality of rows of conductive pathways extend transversely to the plurality of columns of conductive pathways and overlap to form the plurality of sensing regions (fig. 2).
As to claim 7
D1 discloses wherein the plurality of rows includes five or more rows of conductive pathways (fig. 2 shows 11 conductive rows 40) and the plurality of columns includes five or more columns of conductive pathways (fig. 2 shows 7 conductive columns) defining at least 25 sensing regions (a 7 x 11 matrix has > 25 intersections/sensing regions).
As to claim 8.
D1 discloses wherein the medium located within the inflatable cells includes one of air, liquid, or gel (air per [0038]).
As to claim 10.
D1 discloses wherein the threshold further includes a period of time that the measurement of pressure is above the threshold (any threshold has an inherent time component, i.e. the time to measure the pressure value).
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11, as best understood in view of the issues above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of US 2014/0101861, hereinafter D2.
As to claim 11
D1 discloses further including an output port (interface between 54 and 56 in fig. 4) and at least one cushion defining the patient support surface located in an outer envelope ([0021] top cover 30 and bottom cover 38 are sealed together about their periphery to thereby envelope first, second, and third layers 32, 34, and 36), but does not disclose wherein the at least one pressure redistribution assembly is located in the cushion outer envelope, and wherein a power conduit operably connects the pressure redistribution assembly to the output port.
D2 is in a related field and teaches a patient support (100 in fig. 3) which has a pressure redistribution assembly (inflatable support 210 in fig. 5) which is located within an envelope 150 of patient support (fig. 4 and [0093]) and a power conduit assembly (178, 184, 188 are connected via interface 160).
An invention is obvious where some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings D2 to arrange the components of D1 to provide the claimed recitation for the purpose of a unitary patient support assembly which is compact and convenient and provides improved patient support ([0005]).
Claim(s) 13, 14, as best understood in view of the issues above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
As to claim 13.
D1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the number of inflatable cells is equal to the number of sensing regions.
However, D1 does disclose that the number of sensing locations where pressure is measured is changeable ([0032]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the number of sensing locations to correspond to the number of cells. Applicant has not disclosed that wherein the number of inflatable cells is equal to the number of sensing regions provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the claimed ratio of cells to sensing regions or any other ratio as disclosed in D1 ([0032]) because both provide a measure of pressure at a desired point, the greater ratio disclosed by D1 merely provides improved sensing resolution. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine to one of ordinary skill in this art to choose a ratio of cells to sensing regions of 1:1 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13 as a matter of design choice. However, 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 (i.e. a ratio of cells to sensing regions) would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 14.
D1 does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the sensing regions includes a single one of the inflatable cells aligned therewith.
Applicant has not disclosed that wherein each of the sensing regions includes a single one of the inflatable cells aligned therewith provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the claimed ratio of cells to sensing regions or any other ratio as disclosed in D1 ([0032]) because both provide a measure of pressure at a desired point, the greater ratio disclosed by D1 merely provides improved sensing resolution and a single sensing region per cell is a known minimum. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine to one of ordinary skill in this art to choose wherein each of the sensing regions includes a single one of the inflatable cells aligned therewith to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14 as a matter of design choice. However, 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 (i.e. a ratio of cells to sensing regions) would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 16-18, as best understood in view of the issues above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D2 as applied to claim 11, and further in view of US 6,721,980, hereinafter D3.
As to claim 16.
D1 does not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by D3: wherein the at least one cushion includes an upper cushion layer that is located proximate to the patient support surface and a lower cushion layer that is spaced from the patient support surface by the upper cushion layer.
D3 is in a related field and teaches a patient support assembly (11, figs. 1-4) and teaches at least one cushion includes an upper cushion layer (collectively 34, 40 and 38) that is located proximate to a patient support surface (indicated by 11) and a lower cushion layer (foam/air support layer 36) that is spaced from the patient support surface (indicated by 11) by the upper cushion layer (collectively 34, 40 and 38).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D3 to modify D1 for the purpose of providing an improved surface for preventing and treating pressure ulcers (col. 1, lns. 9-11).
As to claim 17.
D1 does not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by D3: wherein a pressure redistribution assembly (upper mattress layer 12 and sensor layer 14) is located between the upper cushion layer (collectively 34, 40 and 38) and the lower cushion layer (36).
D3 is in a related field and teaches a patient support assembly (11, figs. 1-4) and teaches at least one cushion includes an upper cushion layer (collectively 34, 40 and 38) that is located proximate to a patient support surface (indicated by 11) and a lower cushion layer (foam/air support layer 36) that is spaced from the patient support surface (indicated by 11) by the upper cushion layer (collectively 34, 40 and 38).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D3 to modify D1 for the purpose of providing an improved surface for preventing and treating pressure ulcers (col. 1, lns. 9-11).
As to claim 18.
D1 does not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by D3: wherein the pressure redistribution assembly (upper mattress layer 12 and sensor layer 14) is located along a top surface of the lower cushion layer (on support layer 9, fig. 4).
D3 is in a related field and teaches a patient support assembly (11, figs. 1-4) and teaches at least one cushion includes an upper cushion layer (collectively 34, 40 and 38) that is located proximate to a patient support surface (indicated by 11) and a lower cushion layer (foam/air support layer 36) that is spaced from the patient support surface (indicated by 11) by the upper cushion layer (collectively 34, 40 and 38).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D3 to modify D1 for the purpose of providing an improved surface for preventing and treating pressure ulcers (col. 1, lns. 9-11).
Claim(s) 11 and 20, as best understood in view of the issues above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D2, and further in view of US 2019/0262201 A1, hereinafter D4.
As to claim 20.
D1 as modified does not disclose wherein the power conduit extends through and is hermetically sealed (interpreted per the specification at) to the envelope.
D4 is in a related filed of patient support surface control and teaches it is known to provide a substantially fluid-proof seal for a power cord passing into a mattress ([0405] coupling the umbilical 3400 to the overmold 3382, the power cord 3222 is permitted to exit the mattress 3200, while maintaining a substantially fluid-proof seal that inhibits ingress of fluids into the mattress 3200; fig. 107).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined modified D1 (directed to a pressure sensing mattress) and D4 (directed to a patient support surface control) and arrived at pressure sensing mattress with a sealed interface for a control line). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g. forming sensor pad 20 with a sealed interface) with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g. a control line is permitted to exit the pad, while maintaining a substantially fluid-proof seal that inhibits ingress of fluids into the pad 20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the attached PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as each further discloses a state of the art.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or pointed out by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. T. Newton, Esq. whose telephone number is (313)446-4899. The examiner can normally be reached 0700-1500 M-F.
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, SPE 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.
/J. T. Newton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673 16 January 2026