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 June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that on pages 6-8 Tarsaud does not disclose the midline, first gap, and second gap limitations now incorporated into claims 1 and 12. This argument is persuasive and the rejection over Tarsaud has been withdrawn. Claims 1 and 12 are rejected on new grounds necessitated by amendment.
Applicant argues that neither Tarsaud nor Bravo teach or suggest “the specific interdigitated staggered geometry in which each gap opens from a different face of the bolster and terminates at different lateral positions relative to the midline.” This argument is not persuasive. Bravo in [0037] discloses that “the two partial lateral cuts 22 that divide the resilient section 12 into three articulated sections 24, 26, 28 are cut from opposite sides, which causes the first and third articulated sections 24, 28 to articulate in opposite directions as referenced from the second section 26.” The same limitation appears in Bravo’s claim 3. Bravo FIG. 5 depicts the geometry.
Applicant argues that the examiner’s rationale for combining Tarsaud and Bravo is conclusory and amounts to impermissible hindsight. This argument is moot as the primary reference has changed.
Applicant argues at page 12 that introducing “open structural gaps (as opposed to flexible weld zones)” into Tarsaud’s inflatable cushions would defeat the airtight integrity of those cushions and render Tarsaud inoperable for its intended purpose. This argument is moot in light of the rejections below.
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)(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, 3-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 20020056159 issued to Bravo.
Regarding claim 1,
Bravo discloses a bolster comprising (Bravo: FIG. 1 (12)) a top side; a bottom side opposite the top side; (Bravo: FIG. 5, see also FIG. 1 and [0036]) a first section (Bravo: FIG. 5 (24)) a second section connected to the first section proximate the top side; (Bravo: FIG. 5 (26)) a third section connected to the second section opposite the first section and proximate the bottom side; (Bravo: FIG. 5 (28)) a midline disposed between the top side and the bottom side; (Bravo: FIG. 5) a first gap extending from the bottom side to a first point located between the midline and the top side, wherein the first gap is located between the first section and the second section; (Bravo: FIG. 5 (22)) and a second gap extending from the top side to a second point located between the midline and the bottom side, wherein the second gap is located between the second section and the third section, (Bravo: FIG. 5 (22)) wherein the first section and the third section are configured to rotate about the second section in opposite directions. (Bravo: [0037] “the two partial lateral cuts 22 that divide the resilient section 12 into three articulated sections 24, 26, 28 are cut from opposite sides, which causes the first and third articulated sections 24, 28 to articulate in opposite directions as referenced from the second section 26.” See also claim 3 of Bravo and FIG. 5)
Regarding claim 3,
Bravo discloses the bolster of claim 1 further comprising: a first tab connected to the first section; and a second tab connected to the third section, wherein the first tab and the second tab are connected between the top side and the bottom side. (Bravo: [0039] see also FIG. 7 (46) which allows straps (42) to attach to sections (24) and (28))
Regarding claim 4,
Bravo discloses the bolster of claim 3, wherein the first tab extends outwardly from the first section, and wherein the second tab extends outwardly from the third section. (Bravo: FIGS. 6 and 7 show the straps 42 extending outwardly from the section 12 to the side rail 70 of the bed 72)
Regarding claim 5,
Bravo discloses the bolster of claim 4, wherein at least one of the first tab and the second tab comprises connection hardware. (Bravo: [0039[ talks about (48) of strap (42) being attached by means of a looped tie (50), a pair of hook and loop fasteners 52 or quick release buckle 56 see also FIG. 7]
Regarding claim 6,
Bravo discloses the bolster of claim 1, wherein the first section, the second section, and the third section are constructed of a foam material. (Bravo: [0036] “The elongated resilient section 12 is constructed from a material such as polyurethane …”)
Regarding claim 7,
Bravo discloses the bolster of claim 1, further comprising a sleeve having a cavity, the sleeve configured to receive at least a portion of the bolster within the cavity. (Bravo: [0040] talks about a cover (60) attached via a zipper (64). FIGS. 4 and 8 show (12) received within the cover (60).)
Regarding claim 9,
Bravo discloses the bolster of claim 1, wherein the bolster is configured to abut a patient support surface. (Bravo: [0001] and [0034] see FIG. 7)
Claim(s) 8, 10-12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bravo in view of U.S. Publication No. 20110047709 issued to Tarsaud.
Regarding claim 8,
Bravo discloses the bolster of claim 2.
Bravo does not appear to disclose wherein the first section, the second section, and the third section comprise an inflatable air cell.
However, Tarsaud discloses wherein the first section, the second section, and the third section comprise an inflatable air cell. (Tarsaud: FIGS. 5-6 see [0135] which talks about the cushion being inflated and adjusted to a desired pressure.)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the sectioned bolster of Bravo as an inflatable cell having pneumatically connected sections, as taught by Tarsaud, to yield the predictable result of permitting the firmness of the bolster to be adjusted to suit the patient and the support
surface, and of permitting the bolster to be deflated for storage and transport.
Regarding claim 10,
Bravo discloses the bolster of claim 9.
Bravo does not appear to disclose wherein the bolster is configured to abut an air mattress.
However, Tarsaud discloses wherein the bolster is configured to abut an air mattress. (Tarsaud: FIG. 1; see also [0135])
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the body guard of Bravo on a bed having an inflatable mattress as taught by Tarsaud, such that the body guard abuts that mattress, since this is a simple substitution of one known patient support surface for another with a predictable of result of being able to adjust the firmness of the mattress and redistribute interface pressure at the patient’s skin to prevent pressure ulcers.
Regarding claim 11,
Bravo in view of Tarsaud discloses the bolster of claim 8, further comprising a plurality of seams connecting opposing sides of the inflatable air cell along the midline. (Tarsaud: FIG. 6 shows weld lines (310, 312, 302) connecting inflatable cells)
Regarding claim 12,
Bravo discloses a bolster comprising (Bravo: FIG. 1 (12)) a top side; a bottom side opposite the top side; (Bravo: FIG. 5, see also FIG. 1 and [0036]) a first section (Bravo: FIG. 5 (24)) a second section connected to the first section proximate the top side; (Bravo: FIG. 5 (26)) a third section connected to the second section opposite the first section and proximate the bottom side; (Bravo: FIG. 5 (28)) a midline disposed between the top side and the bottom side; (Bravo: FIG. 5) a first gap extending from the bottom side to a first point located between the midline and the top side, wherein the first gap is located between the first section and the second section; (Bravo: FIG. 5 (22)) and a second gap extending from the top side to a second point located between the midline and the bottom side, wherein the second gap is located between the second section and the third section, (Bravo: FIG. 5 (22)) wherein the first section and the third section are configured to rotate about the second section in opposite directions. (Bravo: [0037] “the two partial lateral cuts 22 that divide the resilient section 12 into three articulated sections 24, 26, 28 are cut from opposite sides, which causes the first and third articulated sections 24, 28 to articulate in opposite directions as referenced from the second section 26.” See also claim 3 of Bravo and FIG. 5)
Bravo does not appear to disclose that the second section is pneumatically connected to the first section or the third section is pneumatically connected to the second section.
However, Tarsaud discloses a lateral cushion 2a, 2b arranged along the longitudinal side of ap patient support and divided along its length into parts 2-1, 202, and 203, the parts being inflatable and pneumatically connected with one another across sections 3-1, 3-2 (Tarsaud: [0135] and FIGS. 1, 5-6)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the sectioned bolster of Bravo as an inflatable cell having pneumatically connected sections, as taught by Tarsaud, to yield the predictable result of permitting the firmness of the bolster to be adjusted to suit the patient and the support
surface, and of permitting the bolster to be deflated for storage and transport.
Regarding claim 14,
Bravo in view of Tarsaud discloses the bolster of claim 12, wherein the bolster may be adjusted to a desired air pressure. (Tarsaud: [0135] the cells are capable of being inflated)
Regarding claim 15,
Bravo in view of Tarsaud discloses the bolster of claim 14, wherein the bolster is configured to abut an air mattress. (Tarsaud: FIG. 1 shows the lateral cushions abutting the inflatable mattress)
Regarding claim 16,
Bravo in view of Tarsaud discloses the bolster of claim 14, wherein the desired pressure is about equal to or greater than an air pressure of the air mattress. (Tarsaud: [0135] the cells are capable of being inflated)
Conclusion
It is noted that claims 1, 6-7, and 9-10 are also a 102 under U.S. Publication No. 20130340168 to Meyer.
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 ADAM C ORTIZ whose telephone number is (303)297-4378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-3:30 pm.
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.
/ADAM C ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights