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 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 26 is 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 26 recites the limitation "element". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests this be changed to ‘each bladder element’.
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) 1-6, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being disclosed by Egelund (US Patent Application Publication 20230000702).
Regarding claim 1, Egelund teaches a patient turning apparatus comprising: a reconfigurable support platform comprising: a longitudinally extending central region (Figure 1; 2), and a first lateral side (Figure 1; 5; left) disposed at a first side of the central region and a second lateral side (Figure 1; 5; right) disposed at a second side of the central region; a first primary bladder arrangement (Figure 3; 11) and a first secondary bladder arrangement (Figure 3; 4) disposed at the first lateral side, and configured to impart a tilt to the first side of the platform about the central region; a second primary bladder arrangement (Figure 3; 12) and a second secondary bladder arrangement (Figure 3; 3) disposed at the second lateral side, and configured to impart a tilt to the second side of the platform about the central region; the first primary bladder arrangement and second secondary bladder arrangement forming a first patient turning arrangement, the second primary bladder arrangement and first secondary bladder arrangement forming a second patient turning arrangement (abstract and Figure 3; as shown);and the support platform further comprising: a first (Figure 1; 6 and Figure 2; 33) and second conduit (Figure 1; 6; and Figure 2; 32) along which a fluid is arranged to pass, the first conduit being fluidly coupled to the bladder arrangements of the first patient turning arrangement for simultaneously conveying fluid to and from the bladder arrangement of the first patient turning arrangement (Figures 1-3, 6 and 32 are connected to the first arrangement comprised of bladders 4, 11, and 3), the second conduit being fluidly coupled to the bladder arrangements of the second patient turning arrangement for simultaneously conveying fluid to and from the bladder arrangement of the second patient turning arrangement (Figures 1-3, 6 and 33 are connected to the second arrangement of bladders comprised of bladders 4, 3, and 12).
Regarding claim 2, Egelund teaches the first primary bladder arrangement (Figure 3; 11) and first secondary bladder arrangement (Figure 3; 4) are disposed in a stacked configuration (Figure 4; as shown).
Regarding claim 3, Egelund teaches the first primary bladder arrangement is disposed, in use, upon the first secondary bladder arrangement (Figure 3; 11 and 4, as shown).
Regarding claim 4, Egelund teaches second primary bladder arrangement (Figure 3; 12) and first secondary bladder arrangement (Figure 3; 3) are disposed in a stacked configuration (Figure 3; 12 and 3, as shown).
Regarding claim 5, Egelund teaches the second primary bladder arrangement is disposed, in use, upon the second secondary bladder arrangement (Figure 3; 12 and 3 as shown).
Regarding claim 6, Egelund teaches the primary bladder arrangement of each patient turning arrangement is configured to tilt the respective lateral side of the platform through an angular range greater than that of the secondary bladder arrangement of the same patient turning arrangement (Figure 3; as shown, the top (primary) bladders 11 and 12 tilt more than the lower (secondary) bladders 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 14, Egelund teaches the first conduit comprises a first primary sub-conduit (Figure 2; 32) which is fluidly coupled to the first primary bladder arrangement and a first secondary sub-conduit (Figure 1; 6, right) which is fluidly coupled to the second secondary bladder arrangement.
Regarding claim 17, Egelund teaches the second conduit comprises a second primary sub-conduit (Figure 2; 33) which is fluidly coupled to the second primary bladder arrangement and a second secondary sub-conduit (Figure 1; 6, left) which is fluidly coupled to the first secondary bladder arrangement.
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.
Claim(s) 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egelund (US Patent Application Publication 20230000702) in view of Heo (US Patent Application Publication 20240000644).
Regarding claim 15, Egelund teaches a distal end of the first primary sub-conduit (Figure 3; 32) extends a first distance from a first lateral side edge of the platform and a distal end of the first secondary sub-conduit (Figure 2; 6) extends a second distance from a second lateral side edge of the platform. Egelund does not teach the first and second distances permitting a fluid coupling of the distal end of the first primary sub-conduit with the distal end of the first secondary sub-conduit. Heo teaches the first and second distances permitting a fluid coupling of the distal end of the first primary sub-conduit with the distal end of the first secondary sub-conduit (Figure 1 shoes each bladder’s sub conduit fluidly connected to 130. Examiner notes that were this applied to the primary Egelund reference, the reference would still be operational because of the valves present in Egelund). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Egelund (directed to a first and second patient turning arrangement) and Heo (directed to a fluidly connected sub conduit system) and arrived at a first and second patient turning arrangement with a fluidly connected sub conduit system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “so that expansion and contraction can be performed” (Heo Paragraph 33).
Regarding claim 18, Egelund teaches a distal end of the second primary sub-conduit (Figure 3; 33) extends a first distance from a second lateral side edge of the platform and a distal end of the second secondary sub-conduit (Figure 1; 6, left) extends a second distance from a first lateral side edge of the platform. Egelund does not teach the first and second distances permitting a fluid coupling of the distal end of the second primary sub-conduit with the distal end of the second secondary sub- conduits. Heo teaches the first and second distances permitting a fluid coupling of the distal end of the second primary sub-conduit with the distal end of the second secondary sub- conduits (Figure 1 shoes each bladder’s sub conduit fluidly connected to 130. Examiner notes that were this applied to the primary Egelund reference, the reference would still be operational because of the valves present in Egelund). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Egelund (directed to a first and second patient turning arrangement) and Heo (directed to a fluidly connected sub conduit system) and arrived at a first and second patient turning arrangement with a fluidly connected sub conduit system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “so that expansion and contraction can be performed” (Heo Paragraph 33).
Claim(s) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egelund (US Patent Application Publication 20230000702) in view of Heo (US Patent Application Publication 20240000644) in view of Schultz (US Patent Application Publication 20210321789).
Regarding claim 16, Egelund teaches a section of the first primary sub-conduit (Figure 2; 32) comprises a plurality of perforations (Figure 2; the perforations at 30 and equivalent unnumbered perforations at each of 11.13-11.20) disposed along a length thereof for fluidly coupling with the first primary bladder. Egelund does not teach a section of the first secondary sub-conduit comprises a plurality of perforations disposed along a length thereof for fluidly coupling with the second secondary bladder. Schultz teaches a section of the first secondary sub-conduit comprises a plurality of perforations disposed along a length thereof for fluidly coupling with the second secondary bladder (Figure 1, 34, holes as shown). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Egelund (directed to a first and second patient turning arrangement) and Heo (directed to a fluidly connected sub conduit system) and Schultz (directed to a conduit system with perforations) and arrived at a first and second patient turning arrangement with a fluidly connected sub conduit system with perforations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “for fluid to exit the one or more outlet channels 34 into the case” (Schultz Paragraph 15) and to allow the placement of an ultraviolet source to purify the liquid (Schultz Paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 19, Egelund teaches a section of the second primary sub-conduit (Figure 2; 31) comprises a plurality of perforations (Figure 2; the perforations at 30 and equivalent unnumbered perforations at each of 12.21-12.28) disposed along a length thereof for fluidly coupling with the second primary bladder. Egelund does not teach a section of the second secondary sub-conduits comprises a plurality of perforations disposed along a length thereof for fluidly coupling with second secondary bladder. Schultz teaches a section of the second secondary sub-conduits comprises a plurality of perforations disposed along a length thereof for fluidly coupling with second secondary bladder (Figure 1, 34, holes as shown). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Egelund (directed to a first and second patient turning arrangement) and Heo (directed to a fluidly connected sub conduit system) and Schultz (directed to a conduit system with perforations) and arrived at a first and second patient turning arrangement with a fluidly connected sub conduit system with perforations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “for fluid to exit the one or more outlet channels 34 into the case” (Schultz Paragraph 15) and to allow the placement of an ultraviolet source to purify the liquid (Schultz Paragraph 15).
Claim(s) 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egelund (US Patent Application Publication 20230000702) in view of Bosely (GB 2569231).
Regarding claim 26, Egelund does not teach each bladder arrangement of the first and second patient turning arrangements comprises a plurality of interconnected bladder elements, each element being detachably coupled at a proximal end thereof to the central region. Bosely teaches each bladder arrangement of the first and second patient turning arrangements comprises a plurality of interconnected bladder elements, each element being detachably coupled at a proximal end thereof to the central region (Figure 5; 390a/b). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Egelund (directed to a first and second patient turning arrangement) and Bosely (directed to a first and second patient turning arrangement with detachable bladder ends) and arrived at a first and second patient turning arrangement with detachable bladder ends. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “form a point of rotation for the pivoting of the support elements” as taught in Bosely (Page 19, lines 5-9).
Regarding claim 27, Egelund teaches the first primary bladder arrangement and second primary bladder arrangement separately comprise a two- tier arrangement of bladders with one tier being disposed above the other tier (Figure 3; as shown). Egelund does not teach bladder elements. Bosely teaches bladder elements (Figure 5; 390a/b). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Egelund (directed to a first and second patient turning arrangement) and Bosely (directed to a first and second patient turning arrangement with detachable bladder ends) and arrived at a first and second patient turning arrangement with detachable bladder ends. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “form a point of rotation for the pivoting of the support elements” as taught in Bosely (Page 19, lines 5-9).
Regarding claim 28, Egelund teaches the first secondary bladder arrangement and second secondary bladder arrangement comprises a single tier of bladders (Figure 3; 3 and 4 as shown). Egelund does not teach bladder elements. Bosely teaches bladder elements (Figure 5; 390a/b). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Egelund (directed to a first and second patient turning arrangement) and Bosely (directed to a first and second patient turning arrangement with detachable bladder ends) and arrived at a first and second patient turning arrangement with detachable bladder ends. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “form a point of rotation for the pivoting of the support elements” as taught in Bosely (Page 19, lines 5-9).
Claim(s) 30 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egelund (US Patent Application Publication 20230000702) in view of Garrett (US Patent Application Publication 20180280219).
Regarding claim 30, Egelund does not teach the first primary bladder arrangement and first secondary bladder arrangement are welded together to prevent the first primary bladder arrangement and first secondary bladder arrangement from slipping relative to each other. Garrett teaches the first primary bladder arrangement and first secondary bladder arrangement are welded together to prevent the first primary bladder arrangement and first secondary bladder arrangement from slipping relative to each other (Figure 1b; 204 and 101 and 201 as shown). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Egelund (directed to a first and second patient turning arrangement) and Garrett (directed to welded stacked bladders) and arrived at a first and second patient turning arrangement with welded stacked bladders. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “allows a person using the apparatus and method of the invention to turn themselves as desired without needing assistance from another person” (Garrett Paragraph 10).
Regarding claim 32, Egelund does not teach the second primary bladder arrangement and second secondary bladder arrangement are welded together to prevent the second primary bladder arrangement and second secondary bladder arrangement from slipping relative to each other. Garrett teaches the second primary bladder arrangement and second secondary bladder arrangement are welded together to prevent the second primary bladder arrangement and second secondary bladder arrangement from slipping relative to each other (Figure 1b; 204 and 101 and 201 as shown). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Egelund (directed to a first and second patient turning arrangement) and Garrett (directed to welded stacked bladders) and arrived at a first and second patient turning arrangement with welded stacked bladders. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “allows a person using the apparatus and method of the invention to turn themselves as desired without needing assistance from another person” (Garrett Paragraph 10).
Claim(s) 31 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egelund (US Patent Application Publication 20230000702) in view of Bosely (GB 2569231) in view of Garrett (US Patent Application Publication 20180280219).
Regarding claim 31, Egelund does not teach the bladder elements of the first primary bladder arrangement and first secondary bladder arrangement are welded together. Bosely teaches bladder elements (Figure 5; 390a/b). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Egelund (directed to a first and second patient turning arrangement) and Bosely (directed to a first and second patient turning arrangement with detachable bladder ends) and arrived at a first and second patient turning arrangement with detachable bladder ends. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “form a point of rotation for the pivoting of the support elements” as taught in Bosely (Page 19, lines 5-9). Egelund and Bosely do not teach the bladder elements of the first primary bladder arrangement and first secondary bladder arrangement are welded together. Garrett teaches the bladder elements of the first primary bladder arrangement and first secondary bladder arrangement are welded together (Figure 1b; 204 and 101 and 201 as shown). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Egelund (directed to a first and second patient turning arrangement) and Bosely (directed to a first and second patient turning arrangement with detachable bladder ends) Garrett (directed to welded stacked bladders) and arrived at a first and second patient turning arrangement with detachable ends and with welded stacked bladders. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “allows a person using the apparatus and method of the invention to turn themselves as desired without needing assistance from another person” (Garrett Paragraph 10).
Regarding claim 33, Egelund does not teach the bladder elements of the second primary bladder arrangement and second secondary bladder arrangement are welded together. Bosely teaches bladder elements (Figure 5; 390a/b). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Egelund (directed to a first and second patient turning arrangement) and Bosely (directed to a first and second patient turning arrangement with detachable bladder ends) and arrived at a first and second patient turning arrangement with detachable bladder ends. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “form a point of rotation for the pivoting of the support elements” as taught in Bosely (Page 19, lines 5-9). Egelund and Bosely do not teach the bladder elements of the second primary bladder arrangement and second secondary bladder arrangement are welded together. Garrett teaches the bladder elements of the second primary bladder arrangement and second secondary bladder arrangement are welded together (Figure 1b; 204 and 101 and 201 as shown). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Egelund (directed to a first and second patient turning arrangement) and Bosely (directed to a first and second patient turning arrangement with detachable bladder ends) Garrett (directed to welded stacked bladders) and arrived at a first and second patient turning arrangement with detachable ends and with welded stacked bladders. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “allows a person using the apparatus and method of the invention to turn themselves as desired without needing assistance from another person” (Garrett Paragraph 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORGAN J MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)270-0362. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesdays 12pm-10pm and Thursdays 12pm-10pm.
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 5712728525. 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.
/MORGAN J MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights