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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 27, 2026, with regard to claims 11, 12, 14 and 23 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Arguments (1a), filed April 27, 2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12-14 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.
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.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the singular stacked configuration" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 15-20 and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPAP 2023/0165382 (Ermalovich et al. hereinafter).
With regard to claim 11, Ermalovich et al. discloses a bed system comprising:
a mattress (Fig. 1C);
a support panel (12) supporting the mattress;
a frame (10) supporting the support panel (12); and
a modular pneumatic adjustment system, comprising:
a plurality of pneumatic adjustment modules (3) adjustably positioned on the support panel (12) and disposed between the mattress and the support panel (12), each of the pneumatic adjustment modules (3) comprising a base (22) and a bladder (28);
an inflation manifold (paragraph [0008]) comprising a pneumatic pump (46) and a plurality of regulating valves (44), the pneumatic pump (46) connected to provide pressurized air to the plurality of regulating valves (44);
a flexible conduit (42) interconnecting each respective one of the plurality of regulating valves (44) to the bladder (28) of each respective one of the plurality of pneumatic adjustment modules (3); and
a controller (48) operably connected to the pneumatic pump (46) and the plurality of regulating valves (44), the controller (48) configured to provide open and close commands to each of the regulating valves (44) for providing a flow of pressurized air from the pneumatic pump (46) to the respective bladders (28);
wherein the bladder of at least one of the pneumatic adjustment modules (3) includes at least two expandable chambers (50) in a stacked configuration with one of the expandable chambers (50) being positioned above the other of the expandable chambers (50) to be elevated thereby above the support panel (12) when inflated (Fig. 7A).
With regard to claim 15, Ermalovich et al. discloses the bed system of claim 11, wherein the base (22) of each of the plurality of pneumatic adjustment modules (3) is movable.
With regard to claim 16, Ermalovich et al. discloses the bed system of claim 11, wherein the controller (48) is operable to inflate the plurality of pneumatic adjustment modules (3) to incline selective portions of the mattress relative to the support panel (12).
With regard to claim 17, Ermalovich et al. discloses the bed system of claim 11, wherein the controller (48) is in electrical communication with a first set of pneumatic adjustment modules (3) and a second set of pneumatic adjustment modules (3).
With regard to claim 18, Ermalovich et al. discloses the bed system of claim 17, wherein the controller (48) is configured for selective simultaneous inflation of the first set and the second set of pneumatic adjustment modules (3) (paragraphs [0008] and [0031]).
With regard to claim 19, Ermalovich et al. discloses the bed system of claim 18, wherein the controller (48) is configured for selective independent inflation of the first set and the second set of pneumatic adjustment modules (3) (paragraphs [0008] and [0031]).
With regard to claim 20, Ermalovich et al. discloses the bed system of claim 11, further comprising a sheath (24) disposed over the plurality of pneumatic adjustment modules (3).
With regard to claim 23, Ermalovich et al. discloses a pneumatic adjustment system attachable to a support panel (12) of a bed, the system comprising:
a plurality of pneumatic adjustment modules (3) each having one or more inflatable chambers (30, 50);
an inflation manifold (paragraph [0008]) in pneumatic communication with each of the plurality of pneumatic adjustment modules (3), the inflation manifold (paragraph [0008]) comprising a pump (46) and a plurality of regulating valves (44); and
a controller (48) in communication with the inflation manifold (paragraph [0008]) and arranged to control an operation of the pump (46) and the plurality of regulating valves (44) to selectively inflate the one or more inflatable chambers (30, 50) in each of the plurality of pneumatic adjustment modules (3) wherein at least one of the pneumatic adjustment modules (3) includes at least two expandable chambers (50) in a singular stacked configuration with one of the expandable chambers (50) being positioned above the other of the expandable chambers (50) to be elevated thereby above the support panel (12) when inflated (Fig. 7A).
With regard to claim 24, Ermalovich et al. discloses the pneumatic adjustment system of claim 23, wherein the one pneumatic adjustment module includes at least three of the expandable chambers (50) in the singular stacked configuration with a third of the expandable chambers (50) being positioned above the one expandable chamber (50) and the other expandable chamber (50) to be elevated thereby above the support panel (12) when inflated (Fig. 7C).
With regard to claim 25, Ermalovich et al. discloses the bed system of claim 11, wherein the one pneumatic adjustment module includes at least three of the expandable chambers (50) in the singular stacked configuration with a third of the expandable chambers (50) being positioned above the one expandable chamber (50) and the other expandable chamber (50) to be elevated thereby above the support panel (12) when inflated (Fig. 7C).
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) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ermalovich et al. in view of USPAP 2023/0190199 (Garcia Molina hereinafter) and USPAP 2014/0345060 (Ribble et al. hereinafter).
With regard to claim 12, Ermalovich et al. discloses all of the limitations except for further comprising sensors in electronic communication with the controller, the sensors arranged to generate a signal representative of an inflation condition of each of the plurality of pneumatic adjustment modules and including one or more accelerometers for determining a level of inflation of the bladder of one or more of the pneumatic adjustment modules.
Garcia Molina teaches a bed (112) with sensors (paragraph [0071]) in communication with a controller (paragraph [0061]) wherein the sensor generates a signal representative of a condition of a user on the mattress (paragraph [0062]) and the bed automatically inflates or deflates an air adjustment system based on the condition of the user (paragraph [0062]).
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 Ermalovich et al. by further comprising sensors in electronic communication with the controller, the sensors arranged to generate a signal representative of an inflation condition of each of the plurality of pneumatic adjustment modules wherein the sensor generates a signal representative of a condition of a user on the mattress and the bed automatically inflates or deflates a pneumatic adjustment module based on the condition of the user as taught in Garcia Molina for the purposes of preventing snoring (paragraph [0062] of Garcia Molina).
Ribble et al. teaches one or more accelerometers for determining a level of inclination representative of inflation of a bladder of one or more pneumatic adjustment modules (paragraph [0165]).
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 Ermalovich et al. by further comprising that the sensors are one or more accelerometers for determining a level of inclination representative of inflation of a bladder of one or more pneumatic adjustment modules as taught in Ribble et al. for the determining the inclination of the adjustment modules.
With regard to claim 13, the Ermalovich et al. modification with regard to claim 12 discloses the bed system of claim 12, wherein the sensors are configured to generate a signal representative of a condition of a user on the mattress.
With regard to claim 14, the Ermalovich et al. modification with regard to claim 12 discloses the bed system of claim 12, wherein the controller is configured to adjust the inflation condition of one or more of the plurality of pneumatic adjustment modules based on the level of inflation thereof determined with the accelerometer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 22 are allowed.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights