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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18, lines 7-8 recite: “of the region of the body of the body of the user” which is repetitive. Likely one instance of “of the body” should be deleted from this phrase. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0161304 to Reinhard.
Regarding claim 1, Reinhard teaches: A device for reducing pressure against a region of a body of a user (see Fig. 2, seat rest 6), the device comprising:
a plurality of inflatable cushion surfaces (see Fig. 3-5, individual cushions/bladders 44/50) for supporting the body region of the user;
an expansion console comprising a power source (see para [0051]: “battery of seat rest 6”, Fig. 7 and para [0053]: battery 94, and para [0059]: “optional power supply by a battery”) and an inflation unit (see Fig. 2, hollow body 40 and bellows 43, “act as a pump”, see para [0043]);
a plurality of channels connecting the cushion surfaces to the inflation unit (see Fig. 3-5, hoses 48); and
a controller (see Fig. 1, computer 80 or smartphone 70 used with sensors 98) configured to cause the expansion console to inflate and/or deflate any one of cushion surfaces so as to vary degrees of inflation of the cushion surfaces over time to create a cyclical pattern of pressure redistribution (see para [0062, 0068-0069]).
Regarding claim 2, Reinhard teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the cushion surfaces are arrangeable to form a shape with an open center area configured to elevate the region of the body of the user off an underlying surface (see Fig. 3 and 5, four air chambers 50 surround an open middle area).
Regarding claim 3, Reinhard teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: further comprising at least one sensor mounted on an individual cushion surface (see Fig. 3, sensors 98a-d, see also para [0009]: “sensor integrated into the cushion”).
Regarding claim 4, Reinhard teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 3, and additionally teaches: wherein the at least one sensor comprises any one of: a pressure distribution sensor; a tissue oxygenation sensor; a pulse oximetry sensor; a doppler ultrasound sensor; a moisture sensor; a humidity sensor; a temperature sensor; a tissue color sensor; an electrocardiogram sensor; and a motion sensor (see para [0024]: “position sensor, Hall sensor,”, or para [0045-55]: piezoelectric sensors, acceleration sensors).
Regarding claim 5, Reinhard teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 4, and additionally teaches: wherein the controller is configured to adjust the inflation and deflation of the cushion surfaces based on sensor data (see para [0062, 0068-0069], see also claim 17).
Regarding claim 6, Reinhard teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 4, and additionally teaches: wherein the controller is configured to create the cyclical pattern of pressure redistribution based on sensor data (see para [0062, 0068-0069], see also claim 21: “time as a function of the measured values”).
Regarding claim 7, Reinhard teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 5, and additionally teaches: wherein the controller is further configured to: receive data from a plurality of sensors (see claim 21: “measured values are continuously sent to data processing device [e.g. computer/smartphone]); compare the received data to preset thresholds; and responsive to comparing the received data to preset thresholds, provide an alert to the user (see para [0062, 0068-0069], see also claim 23: “output signal comprises an optical, acoustic … which can be sensed by a person”).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 7,392,557 to Kohlman.
Regarding claim 18, Kohlman teaches: A method for reducing pressure against a region of a body of a user (see Kohlman: Abstract and col. 1, lines [44-60]), the method comprising:
positioning a plurality of inflatable cushion surfaces against the region of the body of the user (see Fig. 1, inflatable cells 30); and
inflating or deflating each individual cushion surface to vary a degree of inflation of each individual cushion surface over time and create a cyclical pattern of pressure redistribution such that pressure exerted on any specific point of the region of the body of the body of the user is periodically relieved (see col 1, lines [44-61] and col. 4, lines [24-34] varying individual cells such as first cell group 31 and second cell group 32 with inflation/deflation cycles are contemplated).
Regarding claim 19, Kohlman teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 18, and additionally teaches: wherein the cyclical pattern comprises alternating periods of first range of pressure and a second range of pressure for each individual cushion surface, and wherein the periods of the first and second ranges of pressure for adjacent cushion surfaces are offset in time to maintain overall support of the user body while providing localized pressure relief (see col. 1, lines [44-61]).
Regarding claim 20, Kohlman teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 18, and additionally teaches: wherein a duration and intensity of inflation and deflation cycles are adjustable (see col. 5, lines [18-36]: independent control of amount of fluid pressure in each group of cells 31/32) based on user-specific parameters including at least one of body weight, wound status data, and a likelihood of pressure ulcer formation (see col. 3, lines [55-59]: facilitates pressure relief in areas of greatest concern for development of pressure sores).
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0161304 to Reinhard in view of U.S. Patent 9,808,194 to Bhat et al. (hereinafter Bhat).
Regarding claim 8, Reinhard teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection to claim 7, however, does not explicitly teach: wherein the alert indicates any one of: a likelihood of pressure ulcer formation, a likelihood of device damage, and a likelihood of device failure.
Bhat teaches: wherein the alert indicates any one of: a likelihood of pressure ulcer formation (see Bhat, col. 1, lines [13-20]: “preventing and treating pressure ulcers using monitoring of user parameters” and Fig. 9-11, and col. 15, lines [5-50], alert 138), a likelihood of device damage, and a likelihood of device failure.
Reinhard and Bhat are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of inflatable cushioning, therapy, and support devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Reinhard with these aforementioned teachings of Bhat in order to modify the controller of Reinhard to further have a capability to send an alert to the user based on a likelihood of pressure ulcers development based on sensed data with a reasonable expectation of success to better prevent and treat pressure ulcers (see Bhat, col. 1, lines [13-20]).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0161304 to Reinhard in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0111227 to Shanker.
Regarding claim 9, Reinhard teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however it does not teach the following: further comprising a treatment dispenser for providing a treatment to the user.
Shanker teaches: further comprising a treatment dispenser for providing a treatment to the user (see Fig. 1-2, support device 100 with contact surface 116 having a plurality of infrared emitters 104 used for therapy of user).
Reinhard and Shanker are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of cushions and supports for therapy. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Reinhard with these aforementioned teachings of Shanker in order to further include infrared emitters on the existing cushion surfaces of Reinhard with a reasonable expectation of success to provided improved user therapy effects including low-level light therapy which increases the temperature in the muscles and tissues of a treatment area, and improves blood circulation to the treatment area (see Shanker, para [0014]).
Regarding claim 10, Reinhard, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 9, however it does not teach the following: wherein the treatment dispenser is mounted on at least one of the cushion surfaces.
Shanker teaches: wherein the treatment dispenser is mounted on at least one of the cushion surfaces (see Fig. 1-2, emitters 104 on contact surface 116 of cushion 100).
Regarding claim 11, Reinhard, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 9, however it does not teach the following: wherein the treatment dispenser comprises a light therapy device configured to provide light therapy to the region of the body of the user.
Shanker teaches: wherein the treatment dispenser comprises a light therapy device configured to provide light therapy to the region of the body of the user (see Fig. 1-2, infrared emitters provide low-level electromagnetic radiation transdermally, see also para [0014, 0019]).
Reinhard and Shanker are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of cushions and supports for therapy. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Reinhard with these aforementioned teachings of Shanker in order to further include infrared emitters on the existing cushion surfaces of Reinhard with a reasonable expectation of success to provided improved user therapy effects including low-level light therapy which increases the temperature in the muscles and tissues of a treatment area, and improves blood circulation to the treatment area (see Shanker, para [0014]).
Claim(s) 9 (alternatively) and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0161304 to Reinhard in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0298482 to Hamilton.
Regarding claim 9 (alternatively), Reinhard teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however it does not teach the following: further comprising a treatment dispenser for providing a treatment to the user.
Hamilton teaches: further comprising a treatment dispenser for providing a treatment to the user (see para [0024, 0026]: removable washable surface configured to apply lotion or ointments).
Reinhard and Hamilton are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of cushions and supports for therapy. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Reinhard with these aforementioned teachings of Hamilton in order to further include a washable surface configured to apply lotions or ointments of on the existing cushioning surfaces of Reinhard with a reasonable expectation of success to provided improved user therapy effects such as itch relief, moisturizing, relief from tension, relaxation (see Hamilton, para [0026]).
Regarding claim 12, Reinhard, as modified teaches all the limitations as described in claim 9, however, it does not teach the following: wherein the treatment dispenser comprises a layer of material coated with a medication, an ointment, or a therapeutic solution.
Hamilton teaches: wherein the treatment dispenser comprises a layer of material coated with a medication, an ointment, or a therapeutic solution (see para [0024, 0026]: removable washable surface configured to apply lotion or ointments).
Reinhard and Hamilton are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of cushions and supports for therapy. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Reinhard with these aforementioned teachings of Hamilton in order to further include a washable surface configured to apply lotions or ointments of on the existing cushioning surfaces of Reinhard with a reasonable expectation of success to provided improved user therapy effects such as itch relief, moisturizing, relief from tension, relaxation (see Hamilton, para [0026]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0161304 to Reinhard in view of U.S. Patent 7,392,557 to Kohlman.
Regarding claim 9, Reinhard teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however it does not explicitly teach the following: wherein the cushion surfaces are constructed using a heat-sealable material.
Kohlman teaches: wherein the cushion surfaces are constructed using a heat-sealable material (see col. 3, lines [7-20]: discusses materials such as rubber, neoprene, urethan, vinyl, and connection using heat sealing to connect the base 20 and cells 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have selected a heat sealable material such as the ones discussed by Kohlman for the cushion surfaces of Reinhard, 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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0161304 to Reinhard in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0035216 to MacKenzie et al. (hereinafter MacKenzie).
Regarding claim 14, Reinhard teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however it does not explicitly teach the following: wherein the cushion surfaces comprise any one of: an antimicrobial material; a moisture-wicking material; and a friction-reducing material.
MacKenzie teaches: wherein the cushion surfaces comprise any one of: an antimicrobial material; a moisture-wicking material; and a friction-reducing material (see para [0020]: “At the same time, the anti-frictional character of the top layer 20 contributes to reducing frictional and shear forces on the user's skin, and the porosity of the top layer 20 and the spacer fabric layers 14 promote airflow to similarly help mitigate overheating and moisture conditions adjacent the user's body that also contribute to decubitus ulcers”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have selected a moisture-wicking or friction-reducing material such as the one discussed by MacKenzie in place of the generic cushion surfaces of Reinhard, 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) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0161304 to Reinhard in view of U.S. Patent 2,260,437 to Chambers.
Regarding claim 15, Reinhard teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however it does not explicitly teach the following: further comprising a fastener for securing the cushion surfaces to an external surface.
Chambers teaches: further comprising a fastener for securing the cushion surfaces to an external surface (see Fig. 1-6, rubber suction cups 4 for securing seat cushion body 1 to “a bed pan 3 or other supporting structure” see col. 1, lines [18-25]).
Reinhard and Chambers are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of cushions and supports for therapy. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Reinhard with these aforementioned teachings of Chambers in order to further include suction cups the existing cushion surfaces of Reinhard for securement to an external structure with a reasonable expectation of success for ready application and removal of the cushion from the supporting structure and used interchangeably (see Chambers, col. 1, lines [6-11]).
Regarding claim 16, Reinhard, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 15, however it does not explicitly teach the following: wherein the fastener comprises any one of a seatbelt mechanism, glue, a suction cup, and a hook-and-loop fastener.
Chambers teaches: wherein the fastener comprises any one of a seatbelt mechanism, glue, a suction cup (see Fig. 1-6, rubber suction cups 4 for securing seat cushion body 1 to “a bed pan 3 or other supporting structure” see col. 1, lines [18-25]), and a hook-and-loop fastener.
Regarding claim 17, Reinhard, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 15, however it does not explicitly teach the following: wherein the fastener comprises an elastic material for positioning the cushion surfaces on the external surface.
Chambers teaches: wherein the fastener comprises an elastic material for positioning the cushion surfaces on the external surface (see Fig. 1-6, rubber suction cups 4 may be considered an “elastic material”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited patents show seating cushions and therapy devices with similar properties to the claimed invention. They show the general state of the art and are of general relevance with respect to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R HARE whose telephone number is (571)272-4420. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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.
Sincerely,
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
2/13/2026