Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/1/2024. The examiner notes the restriction is proper and the unity of invention was also issued in Europe. The special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art Collins. It is noted that claim 18 was amended to depend on claim 1. Therefore claim 18 will be examined with Group I.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 3935604 issued to Collins in view of U.S. Publication No. 20200060912 issued to Hollabuagh.
Regarding claim 1,
Collins discloses an inflatable support (Collins: FIG. 3 (12, 14)) comprising: first and second inflatable cells aligned and spaced apart along a longitudinal axis to define a central channel, (Collins: FIG. 3 (12, 14) … an inflatable chamber between the upper and lower sheets, and an inflation valve in fluid communication with the inflatable chamber; (Collins: col. 3 lines 40-45 “An air conduit 34 extends through an air tight opening in edge 20 of cushion 12 and communicates with the interior of liner 22a. In a similar manner, air conduit 36 communicates with the interior of liner 22b in cushion 14.”) and a connection sheet attached to the upper sheet of each inflatable cell, wherein the connection sheet has a conjoining portion extending across the central channel to connect the longitudinally spaced apart first and second inflatable cells. (Collins: FIG. 3 (25))
Collins does not appear to disclose wherein each inflatable cell includes: an upper sheet in a first plane substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis, a lower sheet in a second plane substantially parallel to the first plane and to the longitudinal axis,
However, Hollabaugh discloses wherein each inflatable cell includes: an upper sheet in a first plane substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis, a lower sheet in a second plane substantially parallel to the first plane and to the longitudinal axis, (Hollabaugh: FIG. 6 (26, 27) shows a top and bottom sheet which are parallel to a longitudinal axis)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins directed to a patient support by making the inflatable bladders out of separate sheets as taught in Hollabaugh directed to a patient support since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of having an increased cross-sectional area to contact the patient thereby making it easier for a patient to be supported without collapsing the inflatable structure.
Regarding claim 2,
Collins in view of Hollabaugh the inflatable support of claim 1, wherein each inflatable cell has a side wall attached to and connecting a perimeter of the upper sheet and a perimeter of the lower sheet, (Hollabaugh: FIG. 5 there is a sidewall that extends downward/upward towards the bottom/top sheet) and one or more baffles attached to and connecting the upper and lower sheets within the cavity. (Hollabaugh: FIG. 6 (32B))
Regarding claim 3,
Collins in view of Hollabaugh discloses the inflatable support of claim 1, wherein each inflatable cell is substantially rectangular having a length extending along the longitudinal axis and a width perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. (The examiner notes that Collins and Hollabaugh would read on this claim since Hollabaugh has the cells being substantially rectangular.)
Regarding claim 4,
Collins in view of Hollabaugh discloses the inflatable support of claim 3.
Collins in view of Hollabaugh does not appear to disclose wherein each inflatable cell has a length of between 60 cm and 80 cm, a width of between 35 cm and 50 cm, and a depth of between 7 cm and 15 cm.
However, 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.
Regarding claim 5,
Collins in view of Hollabaugh discloses the inflatable support of any preceding claim 1, wherein the inflation valve is positioned at or towards an external facing end of each inflatable cell. (Hollabaugh: FIG. 5 shows an inflation valve clearly on the external facing end of the inflatable cell.)
Regarding claim 7,
Collins in view of Hollabaugh discloses the inflatable support of any preceding claim , wherein the connection sheet extends over the entirety of the upper sheet of each inflatable cell. (Collins: FIG. 3 the connection sheet extends over the entirety of the upper sheet in the lateral direction i.e. covering the entire upper sheet in the lateral direction.)
Regarding claim 8,
Collins in view of Hollabaugh discloses the inflatable support of claim 1.
Collins in view of Hollabuagh does not appear to disclose wherein the connection sheet is composed of the same material as the inflatable cells and is attached to the inflatable cells by welding.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material i.e. the material of the inflatable sheets, on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice which would allow the usage of excess material from the inflatable sheets to be used in the connection sheets saving money. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
The examiner notes that the attachment i.e. “by welding” is a product by process limitation and has no weight since the claims are directed towards an apparatus claim. No additional structure is imparted from the welding.
Regarding claim 9,
Collins in view of Hollabaugh discloses the inflatable support of claim 1.
Collins in view of Hollabaugh does not appear to disclose wherein the first and second inflatable cells are spaced apart to define a central channel having a width of between 15 cm and 30 cm.
However, 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.
Regarding claim 16,
Collins in view of Hollabuagh discloses a system for lifting and supporting a patient, comprising two or more inflatable supports according to claim 1. (Collins: FIG. 3 (12, 14))
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 3935604 issued to Collins in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020060912 issued to Hollabuagh further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20040194219 issued to Boso.
Regarding claim 6,
Collins in view of Hollabaugh discloses the inflatable support of claim 1.
Collins in view of Hollabaugh does not appear to disclose wherein each inflatable cell is composed of a flexible non-porous material selected from a group consisting of natural or synthetic rubber, a polyethylene vinyl acetate (PEVA), a nylon material with a polyurethane coating, or a polyvinyl chloride (PVC).
However, Boso discloses wherein each inflatable cell is composed of a flexible non-porous material selected from a group consisting of natural or synthetic rubber, a polyethylene vinyl acetate (PEVA), a nylon material with a polyurethane coating, or a polyvinyl chloride (PVC). (Boso: [0034])
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins in view of Hollabaugh by making the inflatable sheets from PVC as taught in Boso since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 10-11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 3935604 issued to Collins in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020060912 issued to Hollabuagh further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10143609 issued to Chiang.
Regarding claim 10,
Collins in view of Hollabaugh discloses the inflatable support of claim 1.
Collins in view of Hollabuagh does not appear to disclose further comprising an elongate bag to surround and contain the inflatable cells and connection sheet, wherein the bag is sized to snugly fit around the inflatable cells and connection sheet when the cells are fully inflated and has: a top cover positioned over the upper sheets and the connection sheet; and a bottom cover positioned over the lower sheets.
However, Chiang discloses further comprising an elongate bag to surround and contain the inflatable cells and connection sheet, wherein the bag is sized to snugly fit around the inflatable cells and connection sheet when the cells are fully inflated and has: a top cover positioned over the upper sheets and the connection sheet; and a bottom cover positioned over the lower sheets. (Chiang: FIG. 4 (10, 40) see also col. 2 lines 40-60)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins in view of Hollobaugh directed to by adding a bottom cover as taught in Chiang directed to a air mattress since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of adding protection to the bottom of the inflatable bladders.
Regarding claim 11,
Collins in view of Hollabuagh in view of Chiang discloses the inflatable support of claim 10, wherein the top cover and the bottom cover are directly attached to each other along each longitudinal edge to provide a tapered edge. (Chiang: FIG. 4, the attachment of the two covers provides a tapered edge at the attachment site.)
Regarding claim 18,
Collins in view of Hollabaugh discloses the inflatable support of claim 1.
Collins in view of Hollabuagh does not appear to disclose further comprising an elongate bag to surround and contain the inflatable cells and connection sheet, wherein the bag is sized to snugly fit around the inflatable cells and connection sheet when the cells are fully inflated and has: a top cover positioned over the upper sheets and the connection sheet; and a bottom cover positioned over the lower sheets.
However, Chiang discloses comprising: a top cover positioned over the upper sheets and the connection sheet; a bottom cover positioned over the lower sheets; …. wherein the top cover and the bottom cover are directly attached to each other along each longitudinal edge to provide a tapered edge. (Chiang: FIG. 4 (10, 40) see also col. 2 lines 40-60)
The examiner notes that the three references combined reads on this limitation and an aperture between the top and bottom covers at each longitudinal end of the bag; since Hollobaugh discusses having a valve on the side so a aperture would need to be made when implementing a cover into the combination.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins in view of Hollobaugh directed to by adding a bottom cover as taught in Chiang directed to an air mattress since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of adding protection to the bottom of the inflatable bladders.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 3935604 issued to Collins in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020060912 issued to Hollabuagh further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10143609 issued to Chiang further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11160706 issued to Keesaer.
Regarding claim 12,
Collins in view of Hollabuagh in view of Chiang discloses the inflatable support of claim 10.
Collins in view of Hollabuagh in view of Chiang does not appear to disclose wherein the top and bottom covers are composed of a flexible, non-porous material and are coated on outward and inward facing surfaces with a low friction material selected from a group consisting of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP) and silicone.
However, Keesaer discloses wherein the top and bottom covers are composed of a flexible, non-porous material and are coated on outward and inward facing surfaces with a low friction material selected from a group consisting of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP) and silicone. (Keesaer: col. 2 lines 9-20, the examiner notes that rip stop nylon treated with silicone is non-porous and has a lower friction)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins in view of Hollabuagh in view of Chiang by making the covering out of a rip stop nylon coated in silicone as taught in Keesaer with a reasonable expectation of success because the substitution would have yielded the predicted result of facilitating moving the patient while the patient rests on the support device of Collins.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 3935604 issued to Collins in view of U.S. Publication No. 20190133857 issued to Kupier.
Regarding claim 17,
Collins in view of Hollabaugh discloses the system of claim 16.
Collins in view of Hollabaugh does not appear to disclose wherein the system comprises exactly four inflatable supports.
However, Kuiper discloses wherein the system comprises exactly four inflatable supports. (Kupier: FIG. 2F shows 4 supports (210))
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins in view of Hollabaugh by adding two more bladders to each side as taught in Kuiper since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing for patient turning on the support or adding better control of angling a patient over a support surface to increase comfort.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C ORTIZ whose telephone number is (303)297-4378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-3:30 pm.
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 C. 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.
/ADAM C ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673