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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive only insofar as they relate to the reference not including the amended claim language in the independent claim. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below as necessitated by the amendment(s). See the rejection below for details. With regard to applicant’s argument of the transfer sheet “includes” the at least one inflatable chamber, when assembled that is the case. Nevertheless, see below and note that the inflatable chambers are readily known as taught as being either separable or integral, with integral necessarily showing that the transfer sheet includes the element(s) at issue and meeting the amended claim language. Applicant admits as much in the third full paragraph in the arguments.
With regard to the argument as to claim 4, the position is simply not persuasive. Applicant argues that one cannot have separately inflatable compartments as an accordion structure “as that term is known and as that term is used in the present application.” Applicant does not include a limiting definition in the instant application. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim is believed to still be met. There is nothing in the claim that prevents the interpretation as applied regarding the “accordion side panels” and applicant’s attempt to limit the interpretation to something narrower than the BRI is improper. If applicant wishes to have the recitation prevent separately inflatable compartments, then applicant should amend the claim to specifically claim the structure and function desired. Applicant is attempting to improperly import limitations from the spec into the claims and is improperly attempting to narrow the BRI without amending the claim language. Applicant’s argument is incorrect and not persuasive. It is further noted that applicant may wish to review US 20190307257 A1 which was previously made of record; see all figures.
Regarding claim 3, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant appears to have misunderstood or misinterpreted the rejection and official notice statement. The official notice statement was that it is old and well known in the art to have interior regions / chambers / pads mats etc. which are inflatable for improved user support and comfort. Applicant has not properly and adequately traversed that official notice statement. The official notice statement is now therefore taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03. Applicant asserts that there is no motivation to limit an interior chamber to some unidentifiable between position in the pad, but provides no support or explanation for the conclusory statement. Applicant has not specifically pointed out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action including stating why the notice fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. Applicant next again argues regarding the wedges being separate from the sheet, but see the rejection below and see the arguments above regarding integral arrangement of the elements. It is noted that the rejection stated that the interior region / chamber is disposed at least between said lateral chamber on each lateral side of the transfer sheet and referred applicant to see all figures, but seen most easily in figure 3.
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.
Claims 1-6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said inflatable chamber.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this recitation in the claim. Note that the claim previously introduces “at least one lateral inflatable chamber.”
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) 1-2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US PG Pub No. US 20250161131 A1) in view of Davis (US PG Pub No. US 20210154069 A1).
Re Claim 1
Williams discloses:
A patient transfer and positioning device (see all figures) comprising:
a transfer sheet sized for receiving a supine patient (9 or 10), the sheet including at least one lateral inflatable chamber disposed at one lateral side of the transfer sheet (any one or more of 22; see figs. 2 and 6, for example) … ;
and an air inlet connected to said at least one lateral inflatable chamber and connectable to a source of pressurized air ([0025], fig. 4), wherein;
the lateral inflatable chamber is substantially flat in an uninflated configuration (when deflated / uninflated, this would be the case; see figs. 3-4 as well);
and the lateral inflatable chamber is in an expanded configuration when inflated (see figs. 3-4 and 6), the expanded configuration adapted to tilt the patient on the transfer sheet (see figs. 3-4 and 6; see [0027]; see abstract).
Williams does not explicitly disclose:
said inflatable chamber defined by a lower panel of said transfer sheet, an elongated upper panel, an end panel and a pair of side panels connected between said lower panel and said upper and end panels.
As noted by applicant, the Williams chamber is separate, not integral. Davis teaches that the inflatable wedges can be releasably attached and/or integrally formed with the panel (see [0025] for example) as two alternative arrangements of the transfer and positioning apparatus. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Williams to include the limitation at issue above, i.e. via the teachings of Davis to make the arrangement an integral one (examiner notes again applicants statements and admission that an integral arrangement meets the limitation at issue). Such a modification would have been obvious for the purpose of ease of assembly, facilitating cleaning and/or maintenance, and/or as simply being obvious to try as there are only a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (e.g. integral vs. not integral).
Re Claim 2
Williams as modified above discloses:
wherein the at least one lateral chamber includes a lateral chamber on each lateral side of the transfer sheet (see figs. 2-4 and 6; see [0025]-[0027]), wherein the lateral chamber on each lateral side is selectively inflatable into the expanded configuration (see figs. 2-4 and 6; see [0025]-[0027]).
Re Claim 4
Williams as modified above discloses:
wherein said elongated upper wall is attached at one end edge to said transfer sheet (see figs. 3-6);
said end panel is an accordion end panel connected between said transfer sheet and another end edge of said upper wall opposite said one end edge (see figs. 3-6, in particular fig. 4); and
said side panels are accordion side panels connected between said transfer sheet and corresponding opposite side edges of said upper wall between said one end edge and said another end edge (see figs. 3-6, in particular see figs. 3-4).
Re Claim 6
Williams as modified above discloses:
wherein the at least one lateral chamber includes a lateral chamber on each lateral side of the transfer sheet, wherein the lateral chamber on each lateral side is selectively inflatable into the expanded configuration (see figs. 2-4 and 6; see [0025]-[0027]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US PG Pub No. US 20250161131 A1) in view of Davis (US PG Pub No. US 20210154069 A1) and further in view of Official Notice / Admitted Prior Art.
Re Claim 3
Williams as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, but does not appear to explicitly disclose:
further comprising an inflatable interior chamber disposed at least between said lateral chamber on each lateral side of the transfer sheet.
The interior region / chamber is disposed at least between said lateral chamber on each lateral side of the transfer sheet (see all figs, but most easily seen in fig. 6) in Williams, but it does not appear to be inflatable. Examiner hereby takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to have interior regions / chambers / pads / mats etc. which are inflatable for improved user support and comfort. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Williams as modified above to have the claim limitation identified above for the purpose as articulated above. The official notice statement is admitted prior art due to applicant not properly and adequately traversing the statement in the remarks dated 7/8/26.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US PG Pub No. US 20250161131 A1) in view of Davis (US PG Pub No. US 20210154069 A1) and further in view of Ermalovich et al. (US PG Pub. No. US 20230165382 A1 and hereinafter “Ermalovich”).
Re Claim 5
Williams as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, but does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein said lateral inflatable chamber includes two wedge-shaped chambers connected by a conduit.
Ermalovich teaches the use of conduits extending from / connecting bladders (figs. 3A and 3B; [0030]; claim 8) for the purpose of facilitating inflation / deflation and allowing routing from a manifold which would improve support, comfort, and positioning abilities of the apparatus. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Williams as modified above to include the limitations above for the purpose(s) as articulated above.
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 E SOSNOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7944. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM and 9 PM through 11:59 PM Monday through Friday, generally.
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.
/DAVID E. SOSNOWSKI/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights