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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the last line of claims 1, 18 and 20, the term “same” should be deleted (since only one first fixing strap is recited in these claims). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 14, 15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,966,762 to Wu. With respect to claims 1, 18 and 20, Wu shows the claimed limitations of a bed, comprising a bedstead (B) and a mattress disposed on the bedstead (as shown in Figures 6 & 7 and as described in column 2, lines 7-10 and in column 3, lines 20-22), wherein the mattress comprises: an airbag structure, wherein the airbag structure comprises: a supporting component (20) (as shown in Figures 1-8 and as described in column 2, lines 22-28); and an airbag component, wherein the airbag component comprises a plurality of airbags (1) and a first fixing strap (i.e., any one of the elements 12 disposed on the right side of element 20 as shown in Figures 1 & 2 and as described in column 2, lines 22-26), each of the plurality of airbags is provided with a second fixing strap (i.e., the plurality of elements 12 disposed on the left side of element 20 also as shown in Figures 1 & 2 and as described in column 2, lines 22-26), a plurality of second fixing straps corresponding to the plurality of airbags (1) are connected to the first fixing strap (i.e., the first and second fixing straps are interconnected together by element 20), and the first fixing strap (12) is connected to the supporting component (20) (as shown in Figures 1-4 and as described in column 2, lines 22-26).
With respect to claim 14, the reference further discloses a condition wherein the airbag component (1, 12) comprises two first fixing straps (12), the two first fixing straps are arranged at intervals (as shown in Figures 1-3 and as described in column 2, lines 22-26), a first end of the second fixing strap (12) is connected to one first fixing strap of the two first fixing straps (12) (via element 20), and a second end of the second fixing strap is connected to the other first fixing strap (12) of the two first fixing straps (also as shown in Figures 1-3 and as described in column 2, lines 22-26).
With respect to claim 15, the reference further discloses a condition wherein the airbag structure comprises a plurality of the airbag components (1, 12), and the plurality of the airbag components are arranged on the supporting component (20) at intervals (as shown in Figures 1-3 and as described in column 2, lines 22-28).
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.
Claims 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu ‘762. Wu does not specifically disclose a conditions wherein the second fixing strap (12) is connected (i.e., joined) to the airbag (1) by welding (via the interconnecting supporting component 20),
and wherein the second fixing strap (12) is connected to the first fixing strap (12) by welding (also via the interconnecting supporting component 20). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the airbag structure of Wu with a second fixing strap which is connected to the airbag and to the first fixing strap by welding, since providing the airbag structure with a connecting or fastening construction such as welding would have been generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu ‘762 in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,148,461 to Cook et al. With respect to claim 9, Wu discloses a condition wherein the plurality of airbags (1) are arranged in sequence along an extension direction of the first fixing strap (12) (as shown in Figures 1-3 and as described in column 2, lines 22-26); however, Wu does not specifically disclose conditions wherein each airbag (1) comprises a first airbag and a second airbag connected to an communicated with the first airbag, the first airbag is located above the second airbag, and the second fixing strap is connected to the second airbag. Cook et al. provide the basic teaching of an airbag structure (10) comprising a supporting component (as described in column 2, line 57) and an airbag component comprising a plurality of airbags (11), wherein each airbag comprises a first airbag (12) and a second airbag (13) connected to and communicated with the first airbag, the first airbag is located above the second airbag, and a fixing strap (14) is connected to the second airbag (as shown in Figures 1 & 2 and as described in column 2, lines 51-61). The skilled artisan
would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the airbag structure disclosed in Wu with the first and second airbags taught in Cook et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable result of "[providing] a 'safety net' for a patient supported on the [airbag structure]", thereby imparting enhanced patient comfort and support as taught by Cook et al. (column 1, lines 61-65).
With respect to claim 10, Wu further teaches a condition wherein airbags of two adjacent airbags (1) are connected to each other (via elements 12 and 20) (as shown in Figures 1-3 and as described in column 2, lines 22-24).
With respect to claim 11, Wu further teaches a condition wherein a first connection part (41) and a second connection part (41) are provided on an upper surface (i.e., a surface above a bottom surface of airbag 40) of a second lower airbag (40), the first connection part and the second connection part (41) are arranged in sequence along an extension direction of the second fixing strap (12), the second fixing strap is connected to the first connection part (41) (via element 2) and the second fixing strap is connected to the second connection part (41) (also via element 2) (as shown in Figures 1, 3 & 4 and as described in column 2, lines 22-24 & 32-50).
With respect to claims 12 and 13, Wu further teaches conditions wherein a part of one airbag (1) of two adjacent airbags (1, 40) is superimposed on a part of the other airbag (40) of the two adjacent airbags, and wherein a first airbag (1) of one airbag of the two adjacent airbags (1, 40) is superimposed on a first airbag (40) of the other airbag of the two adjacent airbags (as shown in Figures 3 & 4).
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 7 and 8 of the amendment with respect to the objections to the claims and specification, the examiner respectfully agrees. Accordingly, these objections have been respectfully withdrawn.
Lastly, in response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-11 of the amendment with respect to the claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, the examiner respectfully disagrees as specified above in paragraph 5 of this Office action. Hence, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 have been respectfully maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 16, 17 and 19 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. The examiner respectfully asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the airbag structure of Wu '762 to include the particular structural configurations wherein the first fixing strap is bonded to the airbag component by means of adhesive as specifically recited in dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 8 and 19; and the distinct arrangement and cooperation between the first and second supporting members and the air pipe of the supporting component as recited in dependent claims 16 and 17.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT G SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-7048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-11:30am and 2pm-7:30pm.
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.
/ROBERT G SANTOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673