DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 02/26/2025. Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 1-16 are rejected.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 11-13, 15-18, 22, 24, 30, 33-34, 36, and 38 of U.S. Patent Application No. 19/119,125. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the recited claims limitations of the instant application are found in the same or similar language in the co-pending application. Specifically, the co-pending application recites “an air supply module”, various valves including a ”mode selection valve” with a “pilot port”, and an “inflatyable bladder”.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the recited claims can be found entirely within the subject matter of the claims of the patented claims. The claims of the instant Application are therefore fully encompassed by (and anticipated by) the claims of the patent regardless of the differing scope of the claims. Furthermore, to the degree to which the claims are different from the patented claims, the changes would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
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 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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2009/0237264 to Bobey et al. (“Bobey”) in view of US Patent 6,073,289 to Bolden et al. (“Bolden”).
Claim 1. A pneumatic control assembly for a patient support surface, comprising: a first air supply device providing air at a high flow rate and a low pressure; a second air supply device providing air at a low flow rate and a high pressure (Bobey discloses a high volume, low pressure air blower and low volume, high pressure air compressor in at least paragraphs [0006] and [0092]); and at least one first valve configured to be fluidly connected to at least one inflatable section of the patient support surface, the at least one first valve being selectively actuated to fluidly connect the first air supply device with a corresponding one of the at least one inflatable section (Bobey discloses a pneumatic valve control box #58 in at least Fig. 8), the at least one first valve being piloted by the second air supply device (Bobey does not disclose a pilot valve mechanism however such mechanisms are known in the art of beds at taught by Bolden in Fig. 8 and discussed in column 6, line 63 through column 7, line 20; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bed of Bobey with pilot-operated check valves, as taught by Bolden, for the motivation provide by Bolden, that being “The check valve 142 is configured to close upon interruption of air supply from the blower 82 to maintain air within the various air zones of the bed 10”).
Claim 2. The pneumatic control assembly of claim 1, wherein: the first air supply device provides air at a first flow rate and a first pressure; the second air supply device provides air at a second flow rate and a second pressure; the first flow rate is greater than the second flow rate; and the second pressure is greater than the first pressure (Bobey discloses a high volume, low pressure air blower and low volume, high pressure air compressor in at least paragraphs [0006] and [0092])
Claim 3. The pneumatic control assembly of claim 1, wherein the first air supply device is a blower and the second air supply device is a compressor (Bobey discloses a high volume, low pressure air blower and low volume, high pressure air compressor in at least paragraphs [0006] and [0092]).
Claim 6. The pneumatic control assembly of claim 1, wherein: each of the at least one first valve has a pilot port; the pneumatic control assembly further comprises at least one solenoid valve, the at least one solenoid valve being fluidly connected to the second air supply device and to the pilot port of the at least one first valve; and the at least one solenoid valve is selectively actuated to control air flow from the second air supply device to the pilot port of the at least one first valve to thereby actuate the at least one first valve (Bobey discusses a solenoid #206 in paragraph [0162]; additionally it can be seen that the solenoid is attached to compressor #204 in Fig. 15).
Claim 7. The pneumatic control assembly of claim 6, wherein each of the at least one first valve is a diaphragm valve (Bolden, Fig. 8, #174).
Claim 8. The pneumatic control assembly of claim 7, wherein each diaphragm valve includes a diaphragm that is selectively deformable from a first position to a second position in response to the pilot port being in fluid communication with the second air supply device (Bolden column 7, lines 22-31).
Claim 9. The pneumatic control assembly of claim 7, further comprising a manifold comprising the at least one first valve, the manifold being in fluid communication with the first air supply device (Bobey teaches multiple combined valves at #163 in Fig. 8, which comprise a manifold).
Claim 10. The pneumatic control assembly of claim 1, wherein: the at least one inflatable section is at least one first inflatable section; the first air supply device is in selective fluid communication with the at least one first inflatable section via at least one first valve (Bobey Fig. 5 is a schematic view of air zones and valves); the pneumatic control assembly further comprises: a third air supply device providing air at the high flow rate and the low pressure; and at least one second valve configured to be fluidly connected to at least one second inflatable section of the patient support surface, the at least one second valve being selectively actuated to fluidly connect the third air supply device with the at least one second inflatable section, the at least one second valve being piloted by the second air supply device (regarding a third air supply device and associated valves, Bobey discloses the claimed two air supply devices and discloses “air supply 152 is an air pump, compressor, blower, or other suitable air source”; it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an additional, third air source, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Claim 11. The pneumatic control assembly of claim 10, wherein the third air supply device is a blower (Bobey, paragraph [0084] discloses “Air supply 152 is an air pump, compressor, blower, or other suitable air source”).
Claim 13. The pneumatic control assembly of claim 1, further comprising a housing (Bobey, Fig. 9, #284, or alternatively Fig 18, #232) enclosing the first air supply device, the second air supply device and the at least one first valve.
Claim 14. A patient support surface for a patient support apparatus comprising: a plurality of inflatable sections; the pneumatic control assembly of claim 1 for controlling air flow to the inflatable sections; and a cover enclosing the inflatable sections and the pneumatic control assembly (Bobey Fig. 5 is a schematic view of inflatable sections and valves; a cover is seen at Fig. 9, #284, or alternatively Fig 18, #232).
Claim 15. The patient support surface of claim 14, wherein the pneumatic control assembly is located near a foot end of the patient support surface (Bobey, Fig. 4, pneumatic valve control box #58 is located near a foot end of the patient support surface).
Claim 16. The patient support surface of claim 15, wherein the inflatable sections include an inflatable foot section, the pneumatic control assembly being disposed underneath the inflatable foot section (Bobey, Fig. 4, pneumatic valve control box #58 is located near a foot end of the patient support surface, and there is a foot section bladder assembly #64).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2009/0237264 to Bobey et al. (“Bobey”) and US Patent 6,073,289 to Bolden et al. (“Bolden”), in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0240340 to Driscoll, Jr. et al. (“Driscoll”).
Claim 4. The pneumatic control assembly of claim 1, wherein the first air supply device has a pressure capacity that is less than 15 kPa (Bobey does not disclose pressure output statistics, however many air pumps, blowers, and compressors are available, such as the blower which is disclosed by Driscoll paragraph [0040] and which provides “air pressure in the range of five (5) to fifteen (15) psi”, which reads on Applicant’s claim of less than 15 kPa; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bed of Bobey with the air compressor of Driscoll since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2009/0237264 to Bobey et al. (“Bobey”) and US Patent 6,073,289 to Bolden et al. (“Bolden”), in view of US Patent Application Publication 2002/0099409 to Hui.
Claim 5. The pneumatic control assembly of claim 1, wherein the second air supply device has a pressure capacity that is more than 50 kPa (Bobey does not disclose pressure output statistics, however many air pumps, blowers, and compressors are available, such as the compressor which is disclosed by Hui paragraph [0004] and which teaches “squirrel-cage blowers are generally limited to about 0.1-0.5 psi.”, which reads on Applicant’s claim of more than 50 kPa; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bed of Bobey with the air compressor of Hui since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2009/0237264 to Bobey et al. (“Bobey”) and US Patent 6,073,289 to Bolden et al. (“Bolden”), in view of US Patent Application Publication 2011/0163885 to Poulos et al. (“Poulos”).
Claim 12. The pneumatic control assembly of claim 1, further comprising: a reservoir that is fluidly connected to the second air supply device, the reservoir being filled by the second air supply device to contain pressurized air therein, the at least one first valve being selectively piloted by the reservoir (Bobey does not disclose the use of an air reservoir; however Poulos teaches a similar air bed and discusses using an air reservoir in paragraphs [0124]-[0129]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an air reservoir on the bed of Bobey as an alternate air source in the event that electricity is not available).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Troutman can be reached at 571-270-3654. 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.
/MYLES A THROOP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights