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 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: In each of claims 1 and 6, “bead” should read –plurality of beads—(two instances in each of claims 1 and 6). Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 and 8 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.
Claim 6 discloses “wherein an amount of the first bead is 8 to 12 times an amount of the second bead”. The claim does not make clear what is meant by “amount”. It is not clear of “amount” means the number of beads, the combined mass of the beads, or the size of the bead, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
The term “better” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “better” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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) 1, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2012/0311787 (Purdy et al. hereinafter) in view of USP 6,226,820 (Navarro hereinafter).
With regard to claim 1, Purdy et al. discloses a vacuum cushion for fixing a patient's position, comprising:
a first vacuum bag (110b) forming a first space and deformed according to a vacuum state;
a first bead (14) accommodated in the first space;
a second vacuum bag (110a) accommodating the first vacuum bag (110b), forming a second space together with an outer surface of the first vacuum bag (110b), and deformed according to the vacuum state;
a second bead (14) accommodated in the second space.
Purdy et al. does not disclose a nozzle connected to the first space and the second space. Purdy et al. does disclose evacuating gas from the vacuum bags independently (paragraph [0034]).
Navarro teaches a pad (10) with multiple cavities (24) containing beads (28) wherein gas can be evacuated through a nozzle (30) attached to each cavity (24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the apparatus of Purdy et al. by providing a nozzle connected to the first space and the second space as taught in Navarro for the purposes of evacuating gas from the vacuum bags independently.
With regard to claim 6, insofar as claim 6 is definite, the Purdy et al. modification with regard to claim 1 discloses all of the limitations except for wherein an amount of the first bead is 8 to 12 times an amount of the second bead.
It is known that the size and shape of the vacuum bags, and therefore the relative amount of beads in the first and second vacuum bags depends on the intended use (paragraph [0007] of Purdy et al. discloses different uses requiring different sizes. Therefore, the ratio of the amount of the first bead to the amount of the second bead is considered a result effective variable. Since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the apparatus of the Purdy et al. modification with regard to claim 1 with an amount of the first bead is 8 to 12 times an amount of the second bead. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 198).
With regard to claim 7, the Purdy et al. modification with regard to claim 6 discloses the vacuum cushion of claim 1, wherein a volume of the first space is 8 to 12 times a volume of the second space.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdy et al. in view of Navarro and in further view of USP 7,346,947 (Kruger, Jr. hereinafter).
With regard to claim 2, the Purdy et al. modification with regard to claim 1 discloses all of the limitations except for a connector connecting an outer surface of the first vacuum bag and an inner surface of the second vacuum bag.
Kruger, Jr. discloses first (13, 14) and second (12, 15) nested bags wherein there is a connector connecting an outer surface of the first vacuum bag and an inner surface of the second vacuum bag (right and left edges, Fig. 3A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to further modify the apparatus of the Purdy et al. modification with regard to claim 1 by providing a connector connecting an outer surface of the first vacuum bag and an inner surface of the second vacuum bag as taught in Kruger, Jr. for the purposes of preventing relative shifting between the bags.
With regard to claim 3, the Purdy et al. modification with regard to claim 2 discloses the vacuum cushion of the vacuum cushion of wherein a plurality of connectors are provided and formed to be spaced apart from each other (right and left edges, Fig. 3A).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdy et al. in view of Navarro and Kruger, Jr. and in further view of USP 6,131,219 (Roberts hereinafter).
With regard to claim 4, the Purdy et al. modification with regard to claim 2 discloses all of the limitations except for wherein the connector divides the second space into a plurality of sub-spaces separated from each other, and a connecting passage is formed in the connector to make adjacent sub-spaces communicate with each other.
Roberts teaches an inflatable pillow (10) with multiple nozzles (16a, 16b) and connectors (17, 20) wherein the connector divides the interior space into a plurality of sub-spaces (Fig. 1) separated from each other, and a connecting passage (19, 21) is formed in the connector (17, 20) to make adjacent sub-spaces communicate with each other.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to further modify the apparatus of the Purdy et al. modification with regard to claim 2 by providing wherein the connector divides the second space into a plurality of sub-spaces separated from each other, and a connecting passage is formed in the connector to make adjacent sub-spaces communicate with each other as taught in Roberts for the purposes of allowing communication between sub-spaces thereby continuing to allow the bead medium to flow throughout the vacuum bag(s).
With regard to claim 5, the Purdy et al. modification with regard to claim 4 discloses the vacuum cushion of claim 4 wherein the first vacuum bag has an elongated flat shape, and the connector is formed along a side surface of the first vacuum bag (right and left edges, Fig. 3A).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdy et al. in view of Navarro and in further view of USP 10,098,475 (Liran et al. hereinafter).
With regard to claim 8, insofar as claim 8 is definite, the Purdy et al. modification with regard to claim 1 discloses all of the limitations except for wherein a material of the first vacuum bag has better toughness or strength than a material of the second vacuum bag.
Liran et al. teaches nested first (2) and second (1) bags enclosing a bead material wherein in one embodiment the first (interior) bag is made of TPU (col. 16, lines 29-34) and the second (exterior) bag is made of yarn (denier polyester, e.g.) (col. 8 lines 43-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to further modify the apparatus of the Purdy et al. modification with regard to claim 1 by providing that the material of the first vacuum bag is yarn and the material of the second vacuum bag is TPU as taught in Liran et al. for the purposes of ensuring the quality does not degrade over a year (col. 5 lines 23-28 of Liran et al.), resulting in wherein a material of the first vacuum bag has better toughness or strength than a material of the second vacuum bag.
With regard to claim 9, the Purdy et al. modification with regard to claim 1 discloses all of the limitations except for wherein the second vacuum bag is made of thermoplastic polyurethane.
Liran et al. teaches wherein the second bag is made of thermoplastic polyurethane (col. 16, lines 29-34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to further modify the apparatus of the Purdy et al. modification with regard to claim 1 by providing that the second vacuum bag is made of thermoplastic polyurethane as taught in Liran et al. for the purposes of ensuring the quality does not degrade over a year (col. 5 lines 23-28 of Liran et al.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPAP’s 2011/0191960 and 2018/0279906 as well as USP’s 5,778,470, 6,032,300, 5,556,169, 3,745,998, 3,426,891, 7,562,405, 7,513,002, 7,152,263, 5,708,998, 5,630,651, 5,088,141, 2,500,974, 5,971,006, 3,762,404, and 5,363,524 each disclose pads or pillows similar to that claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON R EASTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/AARON R EASTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673