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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1, and 3-7 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “a grid-type cell” should read “a plurality of air cells arranged in a grid, wherein each air cell has…”.
Regarding claim 3-7, “the grid-type cell” should read “the plurality of air cells” or “each air cell” as appropriate.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, and 3-7 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.
See MPEP 2173.05(b) Section III. E: The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955). Likewise, the phrase "ZSM-5-type aluminosilicate zeolites" was held to be indefinite because it was unclear what "type" was intended to convey. The interpretation was made more difficult by the fact that the zeolites defined in the dependent claims were not within the genus of the type of zeolites defined in the independent claim.
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) 1-5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomas (US9056037B1).
Regarding claim 1,
Thomas teaches A bedsore prevention mattress adapted for use on an upper surface of a bed, comprising: a grid-type air cell (Thomas: FIG. 1 [Col. 13 13-15] mattress matrix assembly 12), each having an independent internal chamber (Thomas: FIG. 1 [Col. 13 40] adjustable hollow mushroom shaped air springs 28); a resonant vibration speaker attached inside the grid-type air cell (Thomas: FIG. 56 [Col. 33 28] exciter 1318 is attached to a bottom of the diaphragm 1316 for generating the sound waves to and through the diaphragm 1316 which in turn generates sound waves to and through the inflatable air cell 1312 to provide fidelity sound to an individual adjacent to the air cell 1312), configured to generate vibrations to massage an affected area of a patient (Thomas: FIG. 56 [Col. 33 47-49] generates sound waves to and through the inflatable air cell 1312 to provide fidelity sound to an individual adjacent to the air cell 1312); and a base positioned below the grid-type air cell and coupled to the grid-type air cell to form an integrated mattress (Thomas: FIG. 2 [Col. 15 61-62] plurality of mushroom shaped air springs 48 of the second air support structure 22).
Regarding claim 2,
Thomas teaches The bedsore prevention mattress of claim 1, wherein the resonant vibration speaker generates vibrations synchronized with music to notify the patient of wake-up or medication times (Thomas: FIG. 63 [Col. 35 4-5] sound or music of the media player intensifies, so does the vibration of the transducer 1560).
Regarding claim 3,
Thomas teaches The bedsore prevention mattress of claim 1, wherein the resonant vibration speaker is attached to an upper portion inside the grid- type air cell (Thomas: FIG. 1 [Col. 13 13-15] mattress matrix assembly 12), and a pocket is formed on a surface of the base at a position corresponding to the resonant vibration speaker (Thomas: FIG. 56 [Col. 33 47-48] generates sound waves to and through the inflatable air cell 1312 to provide fidelity sound to an individual adjacent to the air cell 1312).
Regarding claim 4,
Thomas teaches The bedsore prevention mattress of claim 1, wherein the resonant vibration speaker moves vertically within the pocket as the grid-type air cell expands and contracts to prevent bedsores (Thomas: FIG. 56 [Col. 33 50-51] support structure 1320 is attached to the attachment means 1326 for attaching to a stationary object by mechanical fasteners or other means 1336, whereby the sonic air impact apparatus 1310).
Regarding claim 5,
Thomas teaches The bedsore prevention mattress of claim 1, wherein each independent grid-type air cell expands (Thomas: FIG. 1 [Col. 72 9-10] air flows from the plurality of hollow cylinders 72 to the lower plenum 70 of the lower support structure 64) and contracts vertically by means of a pneumatic pump to reduce pressure caused by the patient's body weight and thereby prevent bedsores (Thomas: FIG. 1 [Col. 20 5-60] Comfort is created by the ability of the mattress matrix assembly 12 to adjust the relative pressure over a large range to suit the various shapes and masses of resting bodies).
Regarding claim 7,
Thomas teaches The bedsore prevention mattress of claim 1, wherein fold grooves are formed at regular intervals on an upper portion of the grid- type air cell (Thomas: FIG. 2 [Col. 22 5-6] apertures 30 may be stamped out from the two layers 24 and 26) and on a lower portion of the base, allowing the mattress to fold in synchronization with elevation of the upper and lower parts of the bed (Thomas: FIG. 1 [Col. 13 14-15] mattress matrix assembly 12 and a box spring assembly 14).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US9056037B1) in view of Augustine (US11103188B2).
Regarding claim 6,
Thomas teaches The bedsore prevention mattress of claim 1, are arranged in a cross pattern within the grid-type air cell to detect changes in the patient's body weight and temperature (Thomas: FIG. 1 [Col. 9 9] biological sensor factors).
Thomas does not teach The bedsore prevention mattress of wherein pressure sensors and temperature sensors.
Augustine teaches The bedsore prevention mattress of wherein pressure sensors (Augustine: FIG. 1 [Col. 15 44-45] pressure sensor for measuring an actual internal air pressure of the groups of inflatable chambers 170) and temperature sensors (Augustine: FIG. 21 [Col. 20 66] temperature sensors 250).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomas in view of Augustine directed to including sensors within inflatable chambers. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect changes in body positioning within the inflatable chambers (Augustine: [Col. 1 63-64]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEANE E. TEJADA whose telephone number is (571)272-3553. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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.
/JOSEANE E. TEJADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
6/13/2026
Prosecution Insights