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 1-14 have been examined in this application. Claims 1, 7, 11, and 12 have been amended. Claim 14 is newly added. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to Applicant’s “Amendments/Remarks” filed 6/5/2026.
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) 1-2, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 8,701,230 to Zerhusen et al. (hereinafter Zerhusen).
Regarding claim 1, Zerhusen teaches: A bed (see Abstract: “person support surface” comprising:
a mattress (see Fig. 1A, person support surface 12) including a topper (see Fig. 1A-1C, outer ticking layer 26 forming instability apparatus 14) for supporting a user's body, and a mattress body (see Fig 1A-1C, portion below 14, with hash marks denoting the mattress portion) disposed below the topper to support the topper (see Fig. 1B-1C);
a frame supporting the mattress (see Fig. 1A, deck 44);
one or more air receiving parts (see Fig. 1A-1C, bladder or instability apparatus 14) disposed on top of the mattress body so as to be supported by the mattress body (see Fig. 1A-1C as shown) and configured to expand by receiving air or contract by discharging air to raise or lower the topper in an up-down direction to stretch the user's body (see Fig. 1B-1C, fluid supply unit 20 inflates/deflates bladder 14);
a pump configured to operates to inflate or deflate the one or more air receiving parts (See Fig. 1B-1C, fluid supply unit 20);
a lifting part which is supported by the frame and moves up and down to raise and lower the mattress in the up-down direction to stretch the user's body (see Fig. 1A, upper frame 42 is shown elevated and inherently can be lifted/lowered); and
a controller (see Fig. 1B-1C, controller 22) for controlling the operation of at least one of the pump and the lifting part to adjust an upward movement distance of the topper (see col. 4, lines [24-29]: “The controller 22 controls the fluid supply unit 20 and therefore controls the volume and pressure inside the bladder of the instability apparatus 14. The controller 22 is integral to the person-support apparatus 10 in one embodiment and responsible for controlling other functions of the person-support apparatus 10”).
Regarding claim 2, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the one or more air receiving parts are arranged to overlap with a region extending directly upward from the lifting part so that the one or more air receiving parts are moved upward together with the mattress when the lifting part moves upward (see Fig. 1A, bladder 14 is located on a head support portion (HP) of mattress 12 and thus directly above the head portion frame 42 which raises and lowers with respect to lower frame 38).
Regarding claim 12, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the lifting part moves a lower surface of the mattress body up and down in the up-down direction to raise or lower the topper (see Fig. 1A, upper frame 42 is shown elevated and inherently can be lifted/lowered).
Regarding claim 14, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: further comprising a fixing part (see Fig. 1A-C, ticking 26) which fixes the one or more air receiving parts to the mattress body (see col. 3, lines [36-46]), the fixing part being disposed on an upper surface of the mattress body (see Fig. 1B-1C).
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) 3-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 8,701,230 to Zerhusen in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230165382 to Ermalovich et al. (hereinafter Ermalovich).
Regarding claim 3, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however it does not explicitly teach: wherein the lifting part includes: a lifting member supported by the frame to be movable up and down and configured to move the mattress up and down; and a driving member for providing driving force to the lifting member.
Ermalovich teaches: wherein the lifting part includes: a lifting member supported by the frame to be movable up and down and configured to move the mattress up and down (see Fig. 1C, support panel 12 is supported by the frame portions 11a-b, 13a-b); and a driving member for providing driving force to the lifting member (see Fig. 1B-C, unlabeled rod extending from support panel 12 to frame).
Examiner Note: Structure and articulation of Emalovich’s adjustable bed is incorporated by reference from U.S. Patent 10,932,583, per para [0027]).
Zerhusen and Emalovich are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of inflatable and elevation adjustable beds and supports. 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 Zerhusen with these aforementioned teachings of Emalovich in order to provide a specific lifting and driving member as taught by Emalovich to raise the frame of Zerhusen with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a modular pneumatic actuation system for lumbar support and head tilt in an articulating bed which may be implemented in a compact vertical space to present a minimum vertical profile for modern bed designs (see Emalovich, para [0027]).
Regarding claim 4, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the controller controls the operation of the pump so that the one or more air receiving parts are expanded to raise the topper by a first movement distance (see col. 4, lines [24-29]: “The controller 22 controls the fluid supply unit 20 and therefore controls the volume and pressure inside the bladder of the instability apparatus 14” and is shown raised a predetermined distance [first movement distance]).
Zerhusen, however it does not explicitly teach: and controls the operation of the pump and the lifting part so that the one or more air receiving parts are expanded and the lifting part is moved upward to raise the topper by a second movement distance greater than the first movement distance.
Ermalovich teaches: and controls the operation of the pump and the lifting part so that the one or more air receiving parts are expanded and the lifting part is moved upward to raise the topper by a second movement distance greater than the first movement distance (see Fig. 1B, head panel 12 is shown raised simultaneously while head tilt actuators 6 are raised by pneumatic modules 3 to a greater distance than shown in Fig. 1A).
Zerhusen and Emalovich are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of inflatable and elevation adjustable beds and supports. 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 Zerhusen with these aforementioned teachings of Emalovich in order to raise the frame using the lifting part in coordination with inflation as taught by Emalovich to raise the frame of Zerhusen with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a modular pneumatic actuation system for lumbar support and head tilt in an articulating bed which may be implemented in a compact vertical space to present a minimum vertical profile for modern bed designs (see Emalovich, para [0027]).
Regarding claim 5, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however it does not explicitly teach: wherein the controller controls the operation of the pump and the lifting part so that the topper is raised by one of the one or more air receiving parts and the lifting part, and then the topper is further raised by the other one of the one or more air receiving parts and the lifting part.
Emalovich teaches: wherein the controller (see Fig. 4, controller 48) controls the operation of the pump and the lifting part so that the topper is raised by one of the one or more air receiving parts and the lifting part, and then the topper is further raised by the other one of the one or more air receiving parts and the lifting part (see Fig. 1A and 1B, in Figure 1A the panel 12 is flat and pneumatic modules 3 are inflated, in Fig. 1B both the panel 12 is raised and the pneumatic modules are inflated thus further raising the mattress and topper 8, see Fig. 1C).
Zerhusen and Emalovich are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of inflatable and elevation adjustable beds and supports. 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 Zerhusen with these aforementioned teachings of Emalovich in order to raise the frame using the lifting part in coordination with inflation as taught by Emalovich to raise the frame of Zerhusen with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a modular pneumatic actuation system for lumbar support and head tilt in an articulating bed which may be implemented in a compact vertical space to present a minimum vertical profile for modern bed designs (see Emalovich, para [0027]).
Regarding claim 6, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however it does not explicitly teach: further comprising: an air flow path for allowing the pump and the one or more air receiving parts to communicate with each other; and a valve configured to be opened and closed to allow or restrict flow of air in the air flow path; wherein the one or more air receiving parts include: a lower cell; and an upper cell disposed on top of the lower cell, and wherein the controller controls the operation of the pump and the valve so that the lower cell and the upper cell are sequentially expanded.
Emalovich teaches: further comprising: an air flow path (see Fig. 3A-C, and 4, inflation conduits 42) for allowing the pump and the one or more air receiving parts to communicate with each other (see para [0030]); and a valve configured to be opened and closed to allow or restrict flow of air in the air flow path (see Fig. 4, regulating valves 44); wherein the one or more air receiving parts include: a lower cell (see Fig. 2A-C, middle expansion segment 30); and an upper cell (see Fig. 2A-C, uppermost expansion segment 30) disposed on top of the lower cell (see Fig. 2A-C, as shown), and wherein the controller controls the operation of the pump and the valve so that the lower cell and the upper cell are sequentially expanded (see para [0028]: “In certain implementations, the segments 30 may be individually and sequentially inflated to provide incremental predetermined tilt positions within the overall tilt range”).
Zerhusen and Emalovich are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of inflatable and elevation adjustable beds and supports. 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 Zerhusen with these aforementioned teachings of Emalovich in order to provide an improved air receiving part having an upper and lower bladder cell as taught by Emalovich in place of the singular bladder of Zerhusen with a reasonable expectation of success to use separate expansion segments in the bladder to allow more precise angular control over a range of tilt angles from substantially 0° with the bladder uninflated to a maximum angle, between 20° and 30° and certain implementations, the segments may be individually and sequentially inflated to provide incremental predetermined tilt positions within the overall tilt range (see Emalovich, para [0028]).
Regarding claim 7, Zerhusen, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 6, however it does not explicitly teach: wherein the upper cell and the lower cell are formed such that a height of the expanded upper cell and a height of the expanded lower cell are the same.
Emalovich teaches: wherein the upper cell and the lower cell are formed such that the height of the expanded upper cell and the height of the expanded lower cell are the same (see Fig. 2A-2B, middle segment 30 and upper segment 30 appear to have the same height when expanded).
Regarding claim 8, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however it does not explicitly teach: wherein a lifting distance of the lifting part is smaller than a height of the one or more air receiving parts expanded.
Emalovich teaches: wherein a lifting distance of the lifting part is smaller than a height of the one or more air receiving parts expanded (see Fig. 1A, when head panel 12 is horizontal, its lifting distance is smaller than the height of expanded pneumatic modules 3).
Zerhusen and Emalovich are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of inflatable and elevation adjustable beds and supports. 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 Zerhusen with these aforementioned teachings of Emalovich in order to provide an improved air receiving part having an upper and lower bladder cell as taught by Emalovich in place of the singular bladder of Zerhusen with a reasonable expectation of success to use separate expansion segments in the bladder to allow more precise angular control over a range of tilt angles from substantially 0° with the bladder uninflated to a maximum angle, between 20° and 30° and certain implementations, the segments may be individually and sequentially inflated to provide incremental predetermined tilt positions within the overall tilt range (see Emalovich, para [0028]).
Regarding claim 9, Zerhusen, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 6, however it does not explicitly teach: wherein the lower cell includes a plurality of lower cells, and the plurality of lower cells are arranged adjacent to each other in a width direction of the bed so that the user's body supported by the topper is positioned in a region extending directly upward between the plurality of lower cells.
Emalovich teaches: wherein the lower cell includes a plurality of lower cells (see Fig. 5A-B, 7A-C, plurality of lobes 50 for segments 30), and the plurality of lower cells are arranged adjacent to each other in a width direction of the bed (see Fig. 5A-B, and 7A-C, a plurality of lower lobes 50 are present across the width of the bed in two areas, denoted by 6) so that the user's body supported by the topper is positioned in a region extending directly upward between the plurality of lower cells (see Fig. 1C and 5A).
Zerhusen and Emalovich are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of inflatable and elevation adjustable beds and supports. 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 Zerhusen with these aforementioned teachings of Emalovich in order to provide an improved air receiving part having an upper and lower bladder cell as taught by Emalovich in place of the singular bladder of Zerhusen with a reasonable expectation of success to use separate expansion segments in the bladder to allow more precise angular control over a range of tilt angles from substantially 0° with the bladder uninflated to a maximum angle, between 20° and 30° and certain implementations, the segments may be individually and sequentially inflated to provide incremental predetermined tilt positions within the overall tilt range (see Emalovich, para [0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Zerhusen, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 6, however it does not explicitly teach: wherein the upper cell is formed in a bar-like shape extending in a width direction of the bed so that the user's body supported by the topper is positioned in a region extending directly upward from the upper cell.
Emalovich teaches: wherein the upper cell is formed in a bar-like shape extending in a width direction of the bed (see Fig. 2A-C, upper segment 30 is “bar-like” and extends across the width direction of bed) so that the user's body supported by the topper is positioned in a region extending directly upward from the upper cell (see Fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 13, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however it does not explicitly teach: wherein the frame includes: a support frame supporting the lifting part and the one or more air receiving parts; and one or more rotation frames arranged to be rotatable relative to the support frame.
Emalovich teaches: wherein the frame includes: a support frame (see Fig. 1A-1C, frame 10 includes side rails 11a/b and end rails 13a/b) supporting the lifting part (see Fig. 1A-1C, support panel 12) and the one or more air receiving parts (see Fig. 1A-1C, pneumatic modules are located on panels 12); and one or more rotation frames arranged to be rotatable relative to the support frame (see Fig. 1C, at least frames 12 and 18 are rotatable upward relative to frame 10).
Examiner Note: Structure and articulation of Emalovich’s adjustable bed is incorporated by reference from U.S. Patent 10,932,583, per para [0027]).
Zerhusen and Emalovich are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of inflatable and elevation adjustable beds and supports. 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 Zerhusen with these aforementioned teachings of Emalovich in order to provide a specific support frame and rotation frames as taught by Emalovich to assist in proper raising of the frame of Zerhusen with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a modular pneumatic actuation system for lumbar support and head tilt in an articulating bed which may be implemented in a compact vertical space to present a minimum vertical profile for modern bed designs (see Emalovich, para [0027]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closet prior art of record (Zerhusen and Emalovich) do not teach nor fairly suggest wherein the frame has a frame hole, the mattress body has a body hole, the frame hole and the body hole communicate with each other, and the air flow path passes through the frame hole and the body hole and is connected to the one or more air receiving parts.
It is the examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the prior art references to have achieved the currently claimed combination of features in the designed configuration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/5/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13 under Emalovich have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zerhusen (U.S. Patent 8,701,230) which discloses air receiving parts disposed on top of a mattress body as now required by the amended independent claim 1. In light of Applicant’s filed amendments, please review the rejections above for an updated reading of how the new grounds of rejection have been specifically applied.
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 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
8/24/2026
Prosecution Insights