Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/949,504

ARTICULATING BOLSTER AND METHODS OF USE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 15, 2024
Examiner
ORTIZ, ADAM C
Art Unit
3673
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Sizewise Rentals L L C
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
232 granted / 353 resolved
+13.7% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+35.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
380
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
49.0%
+9.0% vs TC avg
§102
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
§112
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 353 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 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) 1,3-7,9-10,12,14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 20110047709 issued to Tarsaud. Regarding claim 1, Tarsaud discloses a bolster comprising: a top side; a bottom side opposite the top side; (Tarsaud: FIG. 1 (2a, 2b)) a first section; (Tarsaud: FIG. 1 (2-1)) a second section connected to the first section proximate the top side; (Tarsaud: FIG. 1 (2-2)) and a third section connected to the second section opposite the first section and proximate the bottom side, (Tarsaud: FIG. 1 (2-3)) wherein the first section and the third section are configured to rotate about the second section. (Tarsaud: [0162] discusses how the welds in (3-1, 3-2) allow for the bolster to be easily articulated when the deck of the bed articulates) Regarding claim 3, Tarsaud discloses the bolster of claim 1 and discloses the use of snaps to attach cushions 2a and 2b to the mattress. Tarsaud does not appear to disclose 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. However, Schutz discloses the use of tabs having snaps to connect a bumper to a crib. (Schutz: FIG. 1 shows tabs (12, 14) with a snap that connects to (16). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a known technique of adding tabs with snaps to Tarsaud directed to a bolster a known device as taught in Schutz directed to a crib bumper a known device with a reasonable expectation of success because it is the application of a known technique that would have yielded the predictable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, providing a stable and removable attachment to the mattress while distributing load along the side seam. Regarding claim 4, Tarsaud in view of Schultz 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. (Schutlz: FIG. 1 shows (12, 14) extending outward from the sections) Regarding claim 5, Tarsaud in view of Schultz discloses the bolster of claim 4, wherein at least one of the first tab and the second tab comprises connection hardware. (Schultz: FIG. 1 shows snaps on tabs) Regarding claim 6, Tarsaud discloses the bolster of claim 1. Tarsaud does not appear to disclose wherein the first section, the second section, and the third section are constructed of a foam material. However, Hearvin discloses wherein the first section, the second section, and the third section are constructed of a foam material. (Hearvin: [0013]) It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tarsaud by substituting the inflatable cell in the bolster for that of a foamed bolster as taught in Hearvin with a reasonable expectation of success because the substitution would have yielded the predicted result of eliminating the need for pneumatic control systems, where width adjustability is not required and eliminating continuous pressure regulation. Regarding claim 7, Tarsaud 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. (Tarsaud: FIG. 3 (40) see also [0063]-[0064]) Regarding claim 8, Tarsaud discloses the bolster of claim 2, wherein the first section, the second section, and the third section comprise an inflatable air cell. (Tarsaud: FIG. 5) Regarding claim 9, Tarsaud discloses the bolster of claim 1, wherein the bolster is configured to abut a patient support surface. (Tarsaud: FIG. 1 shows cushions 2a 2b abutting an air mattress) Regarding claim 10, Tarsuad discloses the bolster of claim 9, wherein the bolster is configured to abut an air mattress. (Tarsaud: FIG. 1 shows cushions 2a 2b abutting an air mattress) Regarding claim 12, Tarsaud discloses a bolster comprising: a top side; a bottom side opposite the top side; (Tarsaud: FIG. 1 (2a, 2b)) a first section; (Tarsaud: FIG. 1 (2-1)) a second section pneumatically connected to the first section proximate the top side; (Tarsaud: FIG. 1 (2-2)) and a third section pneumatically connected to the second section opposite the first section and proximate the bottom side, (Tarsaud: FIG. 1 (2-3)) wherein the first section and the third section are configured to rotate about the second section. (Tarsaud: [0162] discusses how the welds in (3-1, 3-2) allow for the bolster to be easily articulated when the deck of the bed articulates) Regarding claim 13, Tarsaud discloses the bolster of claim 12. Tarsaud does not appear to disclose further comprising: a midline disposed between the top side and the bottom side; a first gap extending from the bottom side to a first point located between the midline and the top side; anda second gap extending from the top side to a second point located between the midline and the bottom side, wherein the first gap is located between the first section and the second section, wherein the second gap is located between the second section and the third section. However Bravo discloses further comprising: a midline disposed between the top side and the bottom side; a first gap extending from the bottom side to a first point located between the midline and the top side; anda second gap extending from the top side to a second point located between the midline and the bottom side, wherein the first gap is located between the first section and the second section, wherein the second gap is located between the second section and the third section. (Bravo: FIG. 5, discusses the use of gaps (22)) It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tarsaud by adding gaps between the chevron welds as taught in Bravo since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of improving articulation control, reduce buckling, and enhance durability during repeated flexing, as both Tarsaud and Bravo address predictable problem of controlling bending behavior. Regarding claim 14, 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, Tarsaud discloses the bolster of claim 14, wherein the bolster is configured to abut an air mattress. (Tarsaud: FIG. 1) Regarding claim 16, 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) 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 2, 8, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20110047709 issued to Tarsoud in view of U.S. Patent No. 3877090 issued to Bravo. Regarding claim 2, Tarsaud discloses the bolster of claim 1. Tarsaud does not appear to disclose further comprising: a midline disposed between the top side and the bottom side; a first gap extending from the bottom side to a first point located between the midline and the top side; anda second gap extending from the top side to a second point located between the midline and the bottom side, wherein the first gap is located between the first section and the second section, wherein the second gap is located between the second section and the third section. However Bravo discloses further comprising: a midline disposed between the top side and the bottom side; a first gap extending from the bottom side to a first point located between the midline and the top side; anda second gap extending from the top side to a second point located between the midline and the bottom side, wherein the first gap is located between the first section and the second section, wherein the second gap is located between the second section and the third section. (Bravo: FIG. 5, discusses the use of gaps (22)) It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tarsaud by adding gaps between the chevron welds as taught in Bravo since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of improving articulation control, reduce buckling, and enhance durability during repeated flexing, as both Tarsaud and Bravo address predictable problem of controlling bending behavior. Regarding claim 8, Tarsaud discloses the bolster of claim 2, wherein the first section, the second section, and the third section comprise an inflatable air cell. (Tarsaud: FIG. 5) Regarding claim 11, 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 13, Tarsaud discloses the bolster of claim 12. Tarsaud does not appear to disclose further comprising: a midline disposed between the top side and the bottom side; a first gap extending from the bottom side to a first point located between the midline and the top side; anda second gap extending from the top side to a second point located between the midline and the bottom side, wherein the first gap is located between the first section and the second section, wherein the second gap is located between the second section and the third section. However Bravo discloses further comprising: a midline disposed between the top side and the bottom side; a first gap extending from the bottom side to a first point located between the midline and the top side; anda second gap extending from the top side to a second point located between the midline and the bottom side, wherein the first gap is located between the first section and the second section, wherein the second gap is located between the second section and the third section. (Bravo: FIG. 5, discusses the use of gaps (22)) It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tarsaud by adding gaps between the chevron welds as taught in Bravo since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of improving articulation control, reduce buckling, and enhance durability during repeated flexing, as both Tarsaud and Bravo address predictable problem of controlling bending behavior. Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 15, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599250
MULTIPLE POSITION INFANT SUPPORT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589040
PATIENT POSITIONING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12575688
PLAY YARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576759
AIR CONDITIONING FLOW CHANNEL UNIT FOR SEAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564528
AIR CONTROLLED PRESSURE OFF LOADING DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+35.6%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 353 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month