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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Sherman does not provide vertically stacked appendages and, accordingly, does not provide the internal relative sliding between vertically stacked appendages, thereby reducing shear transmitted through the upper surface of the mattress to the patient. It is worth pointing out that no particular mattress orientation is being claimed and as such, if the Sherman mattress were simply on its side, all of the limitations would still be met. Additionally, “reducing shear transmitted through the upper surface of the mattress to the patient” is not found in the claims. Neither is Applicant claiming the more than two appendages as disclosed by paragraph 38 (which Applicant points to in support of their argument) when it points out the appendages in Fig. 4. As a result, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 6, 9, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPAP 2018/0028000 (Sherman et al. hereinafter).
With regard to claim 1, Sherman et al. discloses a mattress for a patient support apparatus, the mattress comprising:
a body extending between a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end having appendages extending from the body (paragraphs [0004], [0016], Fig. 1), wherein the appendages are stacked in a vertical arrangement (this occurs when the mattress is positioned on its side); and
a liner (100) positioned between the appendages, the liner (100) reducing a shear force between the appendages.
With regard to claim 2, Sherman et al. discloses the mattress of claim 1, wherein the liner (100) includes a sleeve that fits over at least one of the appendages (there are sleeves at the top and bottom of the liner, on either side of the splits (110, 116).
With regard to claim 6, Sherman et al. discloses the mattress of claim 1, wherein the body is made of a foam material (paragraph [0016]).
With regard to claim 9, Sherman et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a mattress for a patient support apparatus, the method comprising:
forming a body that extends between a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end having appendages extending from the body (paragraphs [0004], [0016], Fig. 1) (this occurs when the mattress is positioned on its side); and
inserting a liner (100) between the appendages on the proximal end of the body, the liner (100) reducing a shear force between the appendages.
With regard to claim 12, in that claim 12 is substantially the same as claim 6, claim 12 is similarly rejected.
With regard to claim 13, Sherman et al. discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising:
fitting the liner (100) over at least one appendage.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherman et al.
With regard to claim 3, Sherman et al. discloses all of the limitations except for wherein the body includes a plurality of grooves between a plurality of appendages at the proximal end of the body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide a plurality of grooves between a plurality of appendages at the proximal end of the body, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378.
With regard to claim 4, the Sherman et al. modification with regard to claim 3 discloses the mattress of claim 3, wherein the liner includes a plurality of sleeves fitting over each appendage of the plurality of appendages.
Claim(s) 7, 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherman et al. in view of USP 5,473,785 (Lager et al. hereinafter).
With regard to claim 7, Sherman et al. discloses all of the limitations except for wherein the liner is made from a ripstop fabric of nylon material.
Lager et al. teaches a bed sheet made of nylon and coated with a film of polyurethane (col. 2 lines 47-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the apparatus disclosed by Sherman et al. by producing making the liner of a ripstop fabric of nylon material with a polyurethane film coating as taught by Lager et al. for the purposes of making it waterproof and easily cleanable (col. 2 lines 47-51 of Lager et al.).
With regard to claim 8, the Sherman et al. modification with regard to claim 7 discloses the mattress of claim 1, wherein the liner is made of a polyurethane film.
With regard to claim 15, the Sherman et al. modification with regard to claim 7 discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the liner is made of a nylon material or a polyurethane film.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherman et al. in view of USPAP 2019/0125096 (Robins et al. hereinafter).
With regard to claim 10, Sherman et al. discloses all of the limitations except for cutting at least one groove into the proximal end of the body to form the appendages. Sherman et al. is silent as to how the body of the foam mattress is manufactured.
Robins et al. teaches a foam mattress (paragraph [0003]) made by both cutting and molding (paragraphs [0012] and [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the apparatus disclosed by Sherman et al. by cutting at least one groove into the proximal end of the body to form the appendages as taught by Finn et al. for the purposes of introducing a known and reliable method of production with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to claim 11, the Sherman et al. modification with regard to claim 10 discloses the method of claim 9, wherein forming the body includes molding a shape that includes at least one groove between the appendages on the proximal end of the body.
Claim(s) 16, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherman et al. in view of USPAP 2015/0196147 (Jensen et al. hereinafter).
With regard to claim 16, Sherman et al. teaches all of the limitations except for a base frame;
a lift system supported by the base frame; and
an upper frame connected to the lift system such that the lift system is operable to move the upper frame vertically relative to the base frame, the upper frame including one or more decks articulated relative to a load frame. Sherman et al. is silent as to what type of frame the mattress is placed upon, only stating that it is adjustable.
Jensen et al. teaches an adjustable bed with a base frame (Fig. 1);
a lift system (paragraph [0003]) supported by the base frame (Fig. 1); and
an upper frame (108) connected to the lift system such that the lift system is operable to move the upper frame (108) vertically relative to the base frame (Fig. 1), the upper frame including one or more decks articulated relative to a load frame.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the apparatus disclosed by Sherman et al. by providing a base frame, a lift system supported by the base frame, and an upper frame connected to the lift system such that the lift system is operable to move the upper frame vertically relative to the base frame, the upper frame including one or more decks articulated relative to a load frame as taught by Jensen et al. for the purposes of providing a known adjustable base with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to claim 17, the Sherman et al. modification with regard to claim 16 discloses the patient support apparatus of claim 16, wherein the body includes at least one groove between the appendages.
With regard to claim 18, the Sherman et al. modification with regard to claim 16 discloses the patient support apparatus of claim 16, wherein the liner includes a sleeve fitting over at least one of the appendages.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherman et al. in view of Jensen et al. and in further view of Lager et al.
With regard to claim 20, the Sherman et al. modification with regard to claim 16 discloses all of the limitations except for wherein the liner is made of a nylon material or a polyurethane film.
Lager et al. teaches a bed sheet made of nylon and coated with a film of polyurethane (col. 2 lines 47-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to further modify the apparatus disclosed by the Sherman et al. modification with regard to claim 16 by making the liner of a fabric of nylon material with a polyurethane film coating as taught by Lager et al. for the purposes of making it waterproof and easily cleanable (col. 2 lines 47-51 of Lager et al.).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AARON R EASTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/AARON R EASTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
