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 .
Remarks
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/992,873 filed on 01/09/2025.
Claims 12 and 17 are cancelled.
Claims 1-11, 13-16, and 18-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)(s) submitted on 01/09/2025, 04/09/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 01/09/2025 are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation Under 35 USC § 112
No claim elements in this application are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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(s) 7 and 10 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claims 7 and 10, the use word “substantial” when indicating a value, duration, numerical range, location, shape, or comparative sizing or proximity is considered indefinite as the specification or arguments previously presented fails to provide some standard for measuring that degree; and there is no standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of said degree.
NOTE: any prior art rejection provided below is made as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues above.
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.
(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) 1-2, 4-9, 11, 13-16, 18-22, as best understood in view of the issues above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by EP 2 662 064 A2, hereinafter D1.
As to claim 1.
A microclimate management system (generally 64 in fig. 1; FIG. 1 is a simplified side elevation view of a hospital bed showing a "negative pressure" topper assembly and a related support apparatus and FIGS. 7-8 are a side elevation view and a plan view showing a "positive pressure" variant of the topper assembly) for an occupant support (62 in fig. 1) having an occupant receiving surface (upper surface of 62), the microclimate management system comprising:
a top layer (topper 66 has layers 150/80/114 in annotated figure 3) disposable (the use of ‘disposable’ indicates this is a statement of intended use. All functional implications have been carefully considered but are deemed not to impose any patentably distinguishing structure over that disclosed by the prior art reference. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114) above the occupant receiving surface (upper surface of 62) of the occupant support (62 in fig. 1) ;
an intermediate air diffusion layer (liquid transport layer 80, see annotated figure 3) operatively interposable the use of ‘interposable’ indicates this is a statement of intended use. All functional implications have been carefully considered but are deemed not to impose any patentably distinguishing structure over that disclosed by the prior art reference. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114) between the top layer (topper 66 has layers 150/80/114 in fig. 4) and the occupant receiving surface (upper surface of 62) of the occupant support (62 in fig. 1) ; and
a bottom air distribution manifold (either or both of L/R conduits 140) mountable (the use of ‘mountable’ indicates this is a statement of intended use. All functional implications have been carefully considered but are deemed not to impose any patentably distinguishing structure over that disclosed by the prior art reference. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114) with the occupant support (note fig. 1 which shows 142 passing through, i.e. ‘mountable’ with mattress 62) and having a plurality of air distribution conduits (collectively referring to the plurality of 142 in fluid communication with the numerous liquid transport channels 98 defined by liquid transport layer 80 and in communication with openings 152 in fig. 2), each extending at least partially through the occupant support (62 in fig. 1) upwardly towards the occupant receiving surface (upper surface of 62, see fig. 1) for (the use of ‘for’ is typically used to connect structure to a function, and usually means the structure can perform the function with no additional modification therefore this recitation is interpreted as a functional recitation. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally; apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP 2114. All functional implications have been carefully considered but are deemed not to impose any patentably distinguishing structure over that disclosed by the prior art reference. The function of for distributing air to the intermediate air diffusion layer is an inherent characteristic of the prior art structure because it is disclosed in D1) distributing air (via pressure differential created by fan/pump/blower 120) to the intermediate air diffusion layer (liquid transport layer 80, fig. 3), the plurality of air distribution conduits (collectively referring to the plurality of 142 in fluid communication with the numerous liquid transport channels 98 defined by liquid transport layer 80 and in communication with openings 152 in fig. 2) being arranged according to a predetermined pattern relative to the occupant receiving surface (upper surface of 62) defining a microclimate managed area. (referring to pattern of 152 in fig. 2).
As to claim 2.
D1 further discloses wherein the top layer (topper 66 has layers 150/80/114 in fig. 4) is moisture permeable ([0010]).
As to claim 4.
D1 further discloses wherein the microclimate management system is configured to remove moisture ([0010]) that permeates the top layer (topper 66 has layers 150/80/114 in fig. 4).
As to claim 5.
D1 further discloses wherein the air distributed to the intermediate air diffusion layer (liquid transport layer 80, fig. 3) via the bottom air distribution manifold diffuses throughout ([0009]) the intermediate air diffusion layer (liquid transport layer 80, fig. 3).
As to claim 6.
D1 further discloses wherein the top layer (topper 66 has layers 150/80/114 in fig. 4) is air permeable (flow through openings 152).
As to claim 7.
D1 further discloses a substantial portion of the air distributed to the air distribution conduits is evacuated through the top layer (topper 66 has layers 150/80/114 in fig. 4).
As to claim 8.
D1 further discloses wherein the top layer (topper 66 has layers 150/80/114 in fig. 4) is non-air permeable ([0008]).
As to claim 9.
D1 further discloses wherein the top layer (topper 66 has layers 150/80/114 in fig. 4) is removably connectable to the occupant support (62 in fig. 1) via at least one attachment element (e.g. zipper [0006]).
As to claim 11.
D1 further discloses wherein the microclimate management system is configured to regulate at least one of a moisture content ([0008) and a temperature in the microclimate managed area.
PNG
media_image1.png
997
1554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 13.
D1 further discloses wherein the air distribution conduits are arranged in at least two distant groups (see annotated figure 3 where any arbitrary ‘group’ can be selected).
As to claim 14.
D1 further discloses wherein the at least two distant groups correspond to at least two microclimate managed areas (as in annotated fig. 3).
As to claim 15.
D1 further discloses wherein the at least two microclimate managed areas correspond to distinct anatomical regions of the occupant (see annotated figure 2 where any arbitrary ‘group’ can be selected corresponding to an “occupant”).
PNG
media_image2.png
932
1394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 16.
D1 further discloses a bottom layer removably connectable to the top layer (topper 66 has layers 150/80/114 in fig. 4) to form a compartment for enclosing the occupant support (62 in fig. 1) and the bottom air distribution manifold therein (fig. 1).
As to claim 18.
D1 further discloses a fluid-resistant envelope for enclosing the occupant support (outer layer of 62 in fig. 1) therein, the fluid-resistant envelope having a plurality of air circulation apertures (apertures through 62 for 142, fig. 1), each being operatively connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of air distribution conduits (fig. 1).
As to claim 19.
D1 further discloses wherein the bottom air distribution manifold (either or both of L/R conduits 140) comprises an elongated air supply section (see annotated figure 1) disposed below the occupant support (62 in fig. 1), the elongated air supply section (144) being operatively connectable to each of the plurality of air distribution conduits (142, fig. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
903
1555
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 20.
D1 further discloses the elongated air supply section (see explanation for claim 19) comprises a three-dimensional spacer extending therein (122 in fig. 1).
As to claim 21.
D1 further discloses wherein the intermediate air diffusion layer (liquid transport layer 80, fig. 3) comprises at least one fabric ([0007] The topper includes a liquid transport layer 80 comprising a liquid permeable filler material 82, also referred to as a transport material…The
filler material is illustrated as fibrous mesh. Other suitable material architectures include open cell foam, open cell reticulated materials or other porous materials).
As to claim 22.
D1 further discloses wherein the at least one fabric of the intermediate air diffusion layer (liquid transport layer 80, fig. 3) exhibits a plurality of gas channeling features (the transport material has numerous liquid transport channels 98 sized for accommodating liquid transport therethrough under the influence of a gas pressure gradient).
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 as applied to claim 1.
As to claim 3.
D1 does not disclose wherein the top layer (topper 66 has layers 150/80/114 in fig. 4) has a moisture vapor transmission rate between about 50 g/m2/24hrs and 600 g/m2/24hrs when measured according to ASTM E96-00.
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The applicant has not disclosed that having a moisture vapor transmission rate between about 50 g/m2/24hrs and 600 g/m2/24hrs when measured according to ASTM E96-00 solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the device reduces vapor concentration, which is what D1 does ([0010]). Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus, a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the D1 to have the claimed moisture vapor transmission rate, because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious. Further, the use of a known standard to measure a desired value is obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the attached PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as each further discloses a state of the art.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or pointed out by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. T. Newton, Esq. whose telephone number is (313)446-4899. The examiner can normally be reached 0700-1500 M-F.
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, SPE 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.
/J. T. Newton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673 7 May 2026
Prosecution Insights