DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action for non-provisional application 18/932,050 filed October 30, 2024, which claims priority from provisional application 63/604,540 filed November 30, 2023. In amendments filed January 13, 2026, claim 3 has been amended, claims 8-20 have been cancelled, and claims 21-26 are newly presented; claims 1-7 and 21-26 are currently pending, wherein claims 2 and 4-7 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on January 13, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 2 and 4-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 3 and 23-26 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.
Claims 3 and 23-26 each recite the limitation “the intubation device”; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For examination purposes, the limitation “the intubation device” has been interpreted as “the intubation assistance device” as previously recited in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weedling et al. (US 7,681,262) in view of Amini (US 8,973,188).
Regarding claim 1, Weedling discloses a person support surface (patient incline device 10) comprising:
a support body (base member 16) having a head end, a foot end opposite the head end, an upper surface (upper surface 18), and a lower surface opposite the upper surface (18) (Fig. 1; column 5, lines 15-19); and
an intubation assistance device (incline ramp 12/138, centerline spinal support 14/146) positionable between a first position and a second position relative to the support body (16) to adjust a position of shoulders of a person positioned on the upper surface (18) of the support body (16) (Figs. 1 & 8; column 1, lines 27-33; column 11, lines 7-20).
Weedling further discloses that the support body (16) can be any suitable support member and the intubation assistance device (12, 14) is removably attached to the support body (16) (column 6, line 65 – column 7, line 3).
However, Weedling fails to teach that the support body has a cavity formed therein and the intubation assistance device is positionable within the support body.
Amini discloses a person support surface (positioning system 100) comprising:
a support body (base 110) having a head end (back end 114), a foot end (front end 113) opposite the head end (114), an upper surface (top surface 115), a lower surface (bottom surface 116) opposite the upper surface (115), and a cavity (backrest cavity 360 / storage cavity) formed in the support body (110) (Figs. 1-7 & 14F; column 1, lines 40-46; column 2, lines 40-48; column 9, lines 31-36); and
an assistance device (backrest 350) positionable within the support body (110) and positionable between a first position and a second position relative to the support body (110) to adjust a position of shoulders of a person positioned on the upper surface (115) of the support body (110) (Figs. 1-7; column 7, lines 32-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the person support surface taught by Weedling such that the support body has a cavity formed therein and the intubation assistance device is positionable within the support body as taught by Amini for the purpose of providing the intubation assistance device within the support body when a procedure is complete.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Weedling and Amini discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Amini further discloses that the cavity (410) is formed in the lower surface (116) of the support body (110) (Fig. 14F; column 9, lines 31-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the person support surface taught by the combination of Weedling and Amini such that the cavity is formed in the lower surface of the support body as further taught by Amini for the purpose of discretely storing the intubation assistance device when not in use. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention that would not have modified the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Weedling and Amini discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Amini further discloses that a shape of the cavity (360) corresponds to a shape of the assistance device (350) (Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the person support surface taught by the combination of Weedling and Amini such that a shape of the cavity corresponds to a shape of the intubation assistance device as further taught by Amini for the purpose of providing a cavity specifically designed to store the intubation assistance device when not in use.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Weedling and Amini discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Weedling further discloses that a shape of the intubation assistance device (12, 14) is generally triangular in shape (Fig. 1; column 5, lines 45-48; column 6, lines 28-32).
Although the combination of Weedling and Amini fails to expressly teach that a shape of the intubation assistance device is a trapezoidal prism, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the intubation assistance device of the person support surface taught by the combination of Weedling and Amini to have a trapezoidal prism shape since Applicant has not disclosed that such a shape solves any stated problem or is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing an angled elevation of a patient’s torso suitable for intubation. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Weedling and Amini discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Weedling further discloses that the intubation assistance device (12, 14) is removable from the support body (16) (column 2, lines 44-46).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Weedling and Amini discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Weedling further discloses that the intubation assistance device (12, 14) is positionable onto the upper surface (18) of the support body (16) (Fig. 1; column 5, lines 16-19).
Claims 3 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weedling in view of Amini as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Geelen et al. (US 2015/0026895).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Weedling and Amini discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Weedling further discloses that the support body (16) includes a first attachment mechanism (suitable fasteners) and the intubation assistance device (12, 14) comprises a removably support block (incline ramp 12 and centerline spinal support 14 are removable) including a second attachment mechanism (suitable fasteners 40) engaging the first attachment mechanism (Fig. 1; column 2, lines 44-46; column 6, lines 58-64).
However, the combination of Weedling and Amini fails to teach that the first attachment mechanism is a first track and the second attachment is a second track that slidably engaged the first track to permit the removable support block to slide relative to the support body.
Geelen discloses a person support surface (mattress 1) comprising a support body (mattress section 19) including a first attachment mechanism (grooves 8, 10) and an assistance device (mattress section 20) including a removable support block and a second attachment mechanism (ridges 9, 11) engaging the first attachment mechanism (8, 10), wherein the first attachment mechanism (8, 10) is a first track and the second attachment mechanism (9, 11) is a second track that is capable of slidingly engaging the first track to permit the removable support block (20) to slide relative to the support body (19) (Figs. 1-3; ¶ 0029-0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the first and second attachment mechanisms of the person support surface taught by the combination of Weedling and Amini to include first and second tracks, respectively, as taught by Geelen for the purpose of enabling the intubation assistance device to fit tightly with the support body to ensure a strong fastening between the intubation assistance device and the support body.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Weedling and Amini discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Weedling further discloses that the support body (16) has a pair of sides extending between the upper surface (18) and the lower surface of the support body (16) (Fig. 1).
However, the combination of Weedling and Amini fails to teach that the cavity extends through the pair of sides of the support body.
Geelen discloses a person support surface (mattress 1) comprising a support body (mattress section 19) having an upper surface, a lower surface opposite the upper surface, a pair of sides extending between the upper surface and the lower surface, and a cavity (formed by boundary surfaces 4, 6) extending through the pair of sides of the support body (19) (Figs. 1-3; ¶ 0029-0030).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the person support surface taught by the combination of Weedling and Amini such that the cavity extends through the pair of sides of the support body as taught by Geelen since Applicant has not disclosed that such a shape solves any stated problem or is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing a cavity in a person support surface for accommodating an insert. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keri J. Nelson whose telephone number is 571-270-3821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachael E. Bredefeld, can be reached at 571-270-5237. 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.
/KERI J NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 2/5/2026