DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “a cavity under the blanket configured to accommodate anatomy of a user” is recited. For the purposes of examination an “anatomy of a user” is considered in light of applicant’s specification “In any example, expandable members may comprise any volume, dimension, geometry, etc” [0046] and “the cavity configured to accommodate anatomy of a user” [0010] alongside “In FIG. 9B, an example of the cavity or space generated by the lift system is shown”, such figure does not demonstrate “the expandable chamber 425 may be configured to contact the user’s feet and support the space 431 to accommodate the user’s feet” [0055]. For the purposes of examination, it is considered at a minimum that the feet are generally accommodated narratively but that a cavity or depression is produced by the operation.
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.
Claims 1-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “the base” is recited. There is a lack of antecedent basis for the claim term as “a base” has not been previously recited. For the purposes of examination, “the base” is construed as “the base membrane”.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “one or more cutouts” is recited. There is confusing antecedent basis as ‘one or more cutouts has previously been recited and it’s unclear if such are the same. For the purposes of examination, the second instance is construed as “the one or more cutous”.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitation “one or more cutouts through which one or more expand” is recited. There is confusion as the claim appears to be a fragmented sentence and it’s not clear if such is ‘one or more expandable chambers’ as that is further introduced in the claim. Further clarity and explanation are requested, the limitation is construed as cancelled due to a lack of certainty and already present terms.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “higher than a users’s feet” and “conform the user’s foot” are both recited. The terms appear to be relative terms that depend on a human body; where applicant’s disclosure does not define what the extend of a person’s foot should be, nor the condition of the foot, and feet may vary wildly in size from an infant that could be a couple of inches to a fully grown adult that would be substantially larger. A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. That is, where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite. See, e.g., Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (MPEP 2173.05(b). For the purposes of examination, the limitations are considered to be met if the geometry generally contains ‘a foot’, however the height is considered to be narrative as being directed more to a method of intended use of the invention, which is respectfully not considered of patentable weight.
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) 1-4, 7, 12-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Flick et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5745939); hereafter "Flick".
Regarding claim 1, Flick discloses (FIGS. 2-4) a bedding elevation device comprising: a thin, flexible base membrane (as eminently illustrated in FIG. 4) configured to be positioned under a blanket and flat on top of a mattress (as eminently illustrated in FIG. 2-4), the base membrane comprising one or more cutouts (76 and; as eminently illustrated in FIG. 4; clarified in [4: 1-27]; “cutouts”) employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Respectfully, it’s considered the invention is used to hold a person’s feet upon a bed, upon which a sheet would be located in the ordinary use of the invention as “A leg rest for supporting a person's legs while the person is lying on a bed,” It has also been held that the recitation with respect to the matter 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 part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, Flick discloses (FIGS. 2-4) the bedding elevation device of claim 1, wherein one of the one or more expandable chambers is configured to contact a user (as illustrated eminently in FIGS. 2-4).
Regarding claim 3, Flick discloses (FIGS. 2-4) the bedding elevation device of claim 1, further comprising an air routing system ([4:1-27] “check valves”) configured to direct a flow of air from the expansion system to the one or more expandable chambers [4:1-27].
Regarding claim 4, Flick discloses (FIGS. 2-4) the bedding elevation device of claim 1, wherein the base comprises one or more valves in communication with each of the one or more expandable members ([4:1-27] “check valves”), the one or more valves configured to control a flow of air from the expansion system to the one or more expandable chambers ([4:1-27]).
Regarding claim 7, Flick discloses (FIGS. 2-4) the bedding elevation device of claim 1, wherein the one or more expandable members comprise a first expandable chamber configured to elevate the blanket higher than a user's feet and a second expandable chamber configured to contact and conform the feet. As eminently illustrated in FIGS. 2-4 and as set forth in the 112b section previously.
Regarding claim 12, Flick discloses (FIGS. 2-4) the bedding elevation device of claim 1, wherein the expandable members are configured to transition from an expanded state to a retracted state within the base membrane (as eminently illustrated in FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Flick discloses (FIGS. 2-4) a bedding lift system comprising: a base (as eminently illustrated in FIG. 4) positionable on a bed under a blanket (as eminently illustrated in FIG. 2-4), at least one expandable chambers (60; FIGS. 2-4, and claim 2 and 4) configured to transition between an expanded configuration and a compressed configuration (as illustrated in FIGS. 2-4), the at least one expandable members comprising an attachment element configured to engage the base (as eminently illustrated in FIG. 4); and an expansion system ([3:48-57] “check valves”) configured to transition of the at least one expandable chambers between the expanded configuration and the compressed configuration (as eminently illustrated in FIG. 2-4). It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter 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 part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Respectfully, it’s considered the invention is used to hold a person’s feet upon a bed, upon which a sheet would be located in the ordinary use of the invention as “A leg rest for supporting a person's legs while the person is lying on a bed,” It has also been held that the recitation with respect to the matter 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 part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 14, Flick discloses (FIGS. 2-4) the bedding lift system of claim 13, wherein the at least one expandable member is configured to provide a cavity under the blanket configured to accommodate anatomy of a user.
Regarding claim 16, Flick discloses (FIGS. 2-4) the bedding lift system of claim 13, wherein the at least one expandable member is coupled to a valve on the base, the valve configured to control a flow of air into the at least one expandable member.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flick in further view of Brzenchek et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20170239131); hereafter “Brzenchek”.
Regarding claim 5, Flick discloses (FIGS. 2-4), the bedding elevation device of claim 1, wherein the expansion system comprises a control unit in wireless communication with a controller configured to control expansion and deflation of each of the one or more expandable members.
However, Flick does not provide a pendant with a control unit and controller of the expansion system is in wireless communication in particular.
Regardless, Brzenchek teaches (FIGS. 7-9) a bed assembly with a pendant controller that is wirelessly connected (as clarified in [0061]: “a second user control panel 67, which is provided on a handheld control unit which is sometimes referred to in the art as a pendant” and [0063]: “GUI 142 is provided on a hand-held device such as a tablet, phone, pod or pendant that communicates via a wired or wireless connection with control circuitry 98),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the wireless operation means of Brzenchek ([0061] and [0063]) into the pendant operating means of Flick. Where the results would have been predictable as both Flick and Brzenchek are concerned with hospital bedding. Where it is considered that it would be advantageous to utilize a wireless pendant as Brzenchek avails as such wireless nature would prevent tangling with any lines, leads or tubes on an accommodated patient that would improve comfort and ease of use of the apparatus over a wired pendant/controller.
Claims 6, and 8-9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flick in view of Borgman (U.S. Pub. No. 20190262201).
Regarding claim 6, Flick discloses (FIG. 2-4) the bedding elevation device of claim 1,
However, Flick does not explicitly disclose further comprising one or more therapeutic elements configured to supply heat, cooling, vibration, or electrical stimulation to the user.
Regardless Borgman teaches (FIGS. 1-2, 5-6, 11-16 and 40-44) a bedding elevation device (FIGS. 1-2, 5-6, 11-16, and 40-44), further comprising one or more therapeutic elements configured to supply heat, cooling, vibration, or electrical stimulation to the user (as set forth in [0271]: “the microclimate system 12, heaters, and any therapy that may vibrate or pulse the support surface 250” availing at least heating, and vibration, [0248]: “air box (not shown) may be coupled to the support surface 16 to provide conditioned air to the support surface 16 in order to cool and dry the interface between a patient and the support surface 16”, and [0359] concerning pulses/impulses that provide a form of electrically driven stimulation for percussion therapy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the microclimate system and therapeutic elements of Borgman into Flick. Where the results would have been predictable as both are concerned with hospital bedding and as Borgman acknowledges, the microclimate would improve the comfort by drying/cooling/stimulating [0359].
Flick in view of Borgman’s combination is considered for claims 8 due to necessitating the microclimate and adjoint elements therewith.
Regarding claim 8, Flick in view of Borgman discloses (Borgman: FIGS. 1-2, 5-6, 11-16 and 40-44) the bedding elevation device of claim 1 (as set forth in claim 6 prior), wherein the expansion system comprises a pump (202; FIG. 6, clarified in [0260]) in communication with the base (As illustrated in FIG. 6), the pump configured to supply air pressure to the one or more expandable chambers through the base (as illustrated in FIG. 6, and further conveyed through FIGS. 2, 5, and 40-44, clarified in [0260]: “blower 202 is fluidly coupled to the microclimate system 12 and the bladders”).
Regarding claim 9, Flick in view of Borgman discloses (Borgman: FIGS. 1-2, 5-6, 11-16 and 40-44) the bedding elevation device of claim 1, wherein the base comprises a first attachment element configured to engage an attachment element on the one or more expandable members (Where [0205] clarifies “the therapeutic layer and protective layer coupled to the foam base with a fastener” that establishes a first attachment element (a fastener) configured to engage an attachment element on the one or more expandable members (by the ‘therapeutic layer; where [0363] establishes such fasteners as “snaps, zippers, buckles, etc” that necessitate a first attachment element (a male component or compliment), and an attachment element on the expandable member (a female or complimenting element)). Where Borgman elucidates in [0406] elements from different embodiments may be used together.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flick in further view of Boso et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20030163874); hereafter “Boso”.
Regarding claim 10, Flick discloses (FIGS. 2-4) the bedding elevation device of claim 1.
However, Flick does not explicitly disclose further comprising a strap in communication with the base, the strap configured to hold the base to a bed.
Regardless, Boso teaches a bedding assembly that utilizes a fastener for its topper to the base thereof in the form of a strap ([0004]: “Known… using hook and loop fasteners, zippers, elastic straps or the like”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the straps of Boso into Flick, where the results would have been predictable, where Boso acknowledges mounting means including straps is known to the art of securing bedding elements together [0004].
25. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flick in further view of Augustine et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20150366367); hereafter “Augustine”.
26. Regarding claim 11, Flick discloses (FIGS. 2-4) the bedding elevation device of claim 1.
However, Borgman does not explicitly disclose wherein the attachment layer is magnetic, and the magnetic attachment layer is configured to magnetically engage the base positioned on top of the fitted sheet.
Regardless, Augustine teaches (FIGS. 11) an inflatable base for a bed with air bladders/expandable members thereof (108; [0169]), and wherein a magnetic attachment layer is provided ([0135]: “pad can be secured to a patient, about a patient, or to a surgical table with one or more magnets 574 and/or ferrous metal pieces”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the magnetic fastening means of Augustine into Flick (as stated in [0135]/0169] of Augustine and as stated in [0019] of Borgman). Where the results would have been predictable as both Flick and Augustin are concerned with patient bedding assemblies with bladder/expandable members thereof (Augustine: [0169]/Borgman: [FIGS. 2, 5-6, and 40-44). Where additionally, Augustine acknowledges in [0135] “The metal piece 576 and the magnet 574 are both contained between the sheets 504, 506 and therefore do not complicate the cleaning of the warming blanket or pad”. Whereby similar incorporation into Flickwould improve the cleanability of Borgman by reducing zippers and other fastening securement means that can collect insult in the teeth therein, thereby improving the overall cleanliness of the assembly of Flick and the relatively safety by availing a more sterile coverlet.
Claim(s) 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgman (U.S. Pub. No. 20190262201) in view of Lee (U.S. Pub. No. 20110067178).
Regarding claim 13, Borgman in view of Lee discloses (FIGS. 1, 11-16 and 40-44) a bed lifting system (As conveyed through FIGS. 1-2, 5, 11-16, and 40-44) comprising: a base (correspondent 1214; FIG. 42-43) positionable on a bed (as illustrated between FIG. 1 and 2, [0247]: “microclimate system 12 mounted on a frame structure 14 that supports the microclimate system 12 above a floor 11”);at least one expandable member comprising an attachment element (at least coverlet 40 FIG. 1 and explained in [0249]) configured to engaged the base ([0249]: coverlet encasing the topper 20 and lower ticking 22; FIG. 2); and an expansion system (202; FIG. 6) configured to transition of the at least one expandable member between the expanded configuration and the compressed configuration (as illustrated between FIGS. 40-44). It should be understood the embodiment is primarily kept to FIGS. 1-2, 5-6, and 11-16, however, FIGS. 40-44 demonstrate operation of the air bladders and clarifies in [0315] and [0318] the support surface “may be any one of the support surfaces described in FIGS. 1-33”.
However, Borgman does not explicitly disclose wherein the base is configured to be positioned under a blanket and the one or more expandable chambers configured to lift the blanket.
Regardless, Lee teaches (FIGS. 1-2, [0044]) an inflatable/expanding chamber bed assembly (as illustrated in FIG. 1-2), with a base (bottoms surface of 110; FIG. 1-2), and wherein the base is configured to be positioned under a blanket and the one or more expandable chambers configured to lift the blanket (As set forth in [0044]: “a blanket is covered on the user sitting or lying on the mat body 110”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated and combined the blanket of Lee into Borgman where the results would have been predictable as both Borgman and Lee are concerned with pump/pressurized bedding assemblies for support thereon (Borgman: FIGS. 1-2, 5, and 40-44/ Lee: FIGS. 1-2). Where the blanket of Lee would continue to facilitate heat management therewith, while Borgman would continue to avail support of the user thereon and microclimate therewith. Where further Lee acknowledges “it is possible to minimize heat loss and reduce energy consumption while increasing heating efficiency by eliminating a need for heating the overall space of the room, when a blanket is covered on the user sitting or lying on the mat body 110” [0044]. Therefore, by using a blanket the overall energy consumption of the room may be reduced by using a blanket with the system of Borgman. Where in use such blanket on Borgman would thus avail a base so configured to be positioned under a blanket (with the blanket atop the person where the person is atop the base) and the one or more expandable chambers configured to lift the blanket (as would occur in the lifting of the user that the blanket is under).
Regarding claim 14, Borgman in view of Lee discloses (Borgman: FIGS. 1-2, 5-6, 11-16 and 40-44) the bedding lift system of claim 13, wherein the at least one expandable member is configured to provide a cavity under the blanket configured to accommodate anatomy of a user (Where as illustrated in FIGS. 42-43 particularly, the bed is able to operate to provide a cavity (of which a blanket is provided over by the combination of Lee) such that an anatomy of the user is accommodated to include a foot as being lower than prior and more relieved therein).
Regarding claim 15, Borgman in view of Lee discloses (Borgman: FIGS. 1-2, 5-6, 11-16 and 40-44) the bedding lift system of claim 13, wherein the expansion system comprises a pump in fluid communication with the base, the pump configured to expand the at least one expandable member with a fluid.
Regarding claim 16, Borgman in view of Lee discloses (Borgman: FIGS. 1-2, 5-6, 11-16 and 40-44) the bedding lift system of claim 13, wherein the at least one expandable member is coupled to a valve on the base (As conveyed through FIGS. 5-6 and 40-44, further clarified in [0251]: “housing 52 may include a valve system to selectively provide air flow to one of the microclimate system 12 or the bladders”), the valve configured to control a flow of air into the at least one expandable member ([0251]).
Regarding claim 17, Borgman in view of Lee discloses (Borgman: FIGS. 1-2, 5-6, 11-16 and 40-44) the bedding lift system of claim 13, further configured to adjust the temperature of an exterior surface of the at least one expandable member ([0271]: “for example, the microclimate system 12, heaters, and any therapy that may vibrate or pulse the support surface 250” and [0279]: “foot warmer 412 is illustrated in FIG. 9 as being incorporated into the support surface 250. However, the foot warmer 412 may be an additional component that is positioned on the support surface 250”).
Regarding claim 18, Borgman in view of Lee discloses (Borgman: FIGS. 1-2, 5-6, 11-16 and 40-44) the bedding lift system of claim 13, the at least one expandable member further comprising a therapeutic element configured to provide vibration or electronic stimulation when in contact with a user (as clarified in at least [0271]: “the microclimate system 12, heaters, and any therapy that may vibrate or pulse the support surface 250” including at least vibrators, and alternatively [0359] concerning “the control unit 2290 may provide percussion therapy by sending impulses or vibrations to the bladders 2270” where such percussion therapy would provide electronic stimulation, electronically driven and pulsed stimulation).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgman in view of Lee in further view of Brzenchek et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20170239131); hereafter “Brzenchek”.
Regarding claim 19, Borgman in view of Lee discloses (Borgman: FIGS. 1, 5-6, 11-16 and 40-44) the bedding lift system of claim 13, wherein the expansion system comprises a control unit ([0055]) in communication with a mobile device ([0272]: a pendent is a mobile device in the broadest reasonable sense as a small, handheld computer), the control unit being configured to control the transition between a compressed configuration and expanded configuration (As conveyed through FIGS. 40-44 as operable lifting states, with deference to [0315] and [0318]); and a GPS locator configured to provide the location of the system (as clarified in [0281]: “transmitter 504 may include a radio-frequency identification tag to identify the support surface 250 at a remote location” wherein it is considered radio frequency identification to identify at a remote location would constitute a basic form of GPS under analogous LORAN radio location identification operations).
However, while Borgman does provide a mobile device in the form of a pendant (FIGS. 11-12; clarified in [0272]-[0275]), Borgman does not explicitly disclose that the control unit and controller of the expansion system is in wireless communication in particular.
Regardless, Brzenchek teaches (FIGS. 7-9) a bed assembly with a pendant controller that is wirelessly connected (as clarified in [0061]: “a second user control panel 67, which is provided on a handheld control unit which is sometimes referred to in the art as a pendant” and [0063]: “GUI 142 is provided on a hand-held device such as a tablet, phone, pod or pendant that communicates via a wired or wireless connection with control circuitry 98),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the wireless operation means of Brzenchek ([0061] and [0063]) into the pendant operating means of Borgman. Where the results would have been predictable as both Borgman and Brzenchek are concerned with articulated bedding assemblies both operated by pendants (Borgman: [0016] and [0272]/ Brzenchek: [0061] and [0063]). Where it is considered that it would be advantageous to utilize a wireless pendant as Brzenchek avails as such wireless nature would prevent tangling with any lines, leads or tubes on an accommodated patient that would improve comfort and ease of use of the apparatus over a wired pendant/controller.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borgman in view of Lee in further view of Augustine et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20150366367); hereafter “Augustine”.
Regarding claim 20, Borgman in view of Lee discloses (Borgman: FIGS. 1, 5-6, 11-16 and 40-44, and 81) the bedding lift system of claim 13, further comprising an attachment layer (correspondent zippers [0055]) positionable between a surface of a bed and a fitted sheet (wherein between is understood to be “amongst”; Merriam Webster: “between”), wherein the attachment layer is configured to engage the base positioned on top of the fitted sheet (by enclosing and securing the base and tickings thereof with the therapeutic layers/topper; correspondent between FIGS. 1-2, 40-44, and 81).
However, Borgman does not explicitly disclose wherein the attachment layer is configured to specifically magnetically engage the base positioned on top of the fitted sheet
Regardless, Augustine teaches (FIGS. 11) an inflatable base for a bed with air bladders/expandable members thereof (108; [0169]), and wherein a magnetic attachment layer is provided ([0135]: “pad can be secured to a patient, about a patient, or to a surgical table with one or more magnets 574 and/or ferrous metal pieces”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the magnetic fastening means of Augustine into Borgman (as stated in [0135]/0169] of Augustine and as stated in [0019] of Borgman). Where the results would have been predictable as both Borgman and Augustin are concerned with patient bedding assemblies with articulating bladder/expandable members thereof (Augustine: [0169]/Borgman: [FIGS. 2, 5-6, and 40-44). Where additionally, Augustine acknowledges in [0135] “The metal piece 576 and the magnet 574 are both contained between the sheets 504, 506 and therefore do not complicate the cleaning of the warming blanket or pad”. Whereby similar incorporation into Borgman would improve the cleanability of Borgman by reducing zippers and other fastening securement means that can collect insult in the teeth therein, thereby improving the overall cleanliness of the assembly of Borgman and the relatively safety by availing a more sterile coverlet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Particularly the claims are rejected in view of Flick and Flick in view of other references respectfully.
Applicant's arguments filed June 8th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With Particularly applicant’s arguments appear to depend amendments rendered to claim 1, but are not present in claim 12, and therefore, claims 12 and dependents thereof remain rejected on previously set forth rationale.
Respectfully, with the matter and manner of lifting a blanket and on possible hindsight bias. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter 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 part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). The invention is used on a bed which in the ordinary use of the bed, particularly in a hospital setting can utilize blankets for any number of conditions, and the raising of the inflatable extensions would raise the blanket. Applicant’s stated that only the blanket is risen, not to a particular extent. Additionally, it has been considered to be ‘above a persons feet’ is a relative term and would require further definiteness that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope and metes and bounds of applicant’s claim. For instance, Flick’s embodiment of FIG. 2/3 would readily raise the inflatable extensions above the foot of an infant.
Conclusion
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights