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 with respect to claim(s) 1, 19, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner has provided a second reference, Daly, to show the pressure relief valve. Furthermore, the newly amended structure appears to lack written description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim recites in part: “… at least one discrete pressure relief valve or aperture … that allows air transfer but prevents water transfer therethrough.” The specification discloses vents, apertures, and/or pressure relief structures for pressure equilzation and airflow. The specification further discloses waterproof cover materials that protect cushioning components from fluid exposure. However, the specification does not describe either explicitly or inherently, a pressure relief valve or aperture configured to allow air transfer while preventing water transfer. The specification describes vents as providing pressure equilization and airflow.
The claim further recites in part “the pressure relief valve or aperture being welded to a vertical side of the pressure relief system”. The specification discloses welding or sealing techniques for joining cover materials, such as welding patient interface materials to bottom cover materials and forming sealed seams around cushioining components. The specification does not describe a pressure relief valve attached via welding or specifically to a vertical side of the pressure injury relief system.
The examiner speculates that the limitation “that allows air transfer but prevents water transfer therethrough” refers to the “fabric” not the “vent” therefore if that is the case the examiner will interpret the limitation in that manner and the 112 (a) rejection regarding the prevention of water transfer through the vent is withdrawn. However, the 112 (a) rejection regarding the specific placement and welding of the vent is maintained.
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, 3, 5, 7-9, 21-25, 28-30, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20230027662 issued to Nonnemaker in view of U.S. Patent No. 10524721 issued to Lee further in view of Great Brittan Patent No. 2505935 issued to Allaway further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20220211189 issued to Ulrich further in view of Great Brittan Patent No. 2413487 issued to Daly.
Regarding claim 1,
Nonnemaker discloses a pressure injury relief system for recovery and transport of a patient, (Nonnemaker: FIG. 1 (100) see also Abstract “The present invention is a bed for relieving bed sores and other contact related discomfort while lying in bed.”) comprising: unitary (Nonnemaker: [0028] “The primary mattress 110 and mattress topper 120 may together be considered a mattress.”) a cushioning support (Nonnemaker: FIG. 1 (120)) having a patient interfacing side on which said patient lies and a non- patient interfacing side opposite said patient interfacing side, said cushioning support further comprising a plurality of adjacent padded regions (Nonnemaker: see annotated figure below) … and a plurality of cut-out region traversing said cushioning support from the patient interfacing side through the non-patient interfacing side (Nonnemaker: FIG. 1 (152) see also [0028] “The primary mattress 110 and the mattress topper 120 may define a first opening 152 vertically through (entirely or at least partially through) the bed 100.” See also FIG. 7 (140) and [0030] “The first opening 152 and the second openings 140 may be formed by cutting out portions of the primary mattress 110.”) and configured to correspond to a selected bony prominence of said patient when said patient lies on said cushioning support and eliminate contact with said selected bony prominence with said cushioning support in the at least one cut-out region. (Nonnemaker: [0029] “The first opening 152 may be rectangular in shape and sized to extend from the thoracic area of a person to the coccyx region of a person.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
501
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nonnemaker does not appear to disclose padded regions of varying density each padded region comprising an open-cell foam support material.
However, Lee discloses padded regions of varying density (Lee: col. 13 lines 50-53 “The zones 112-120 may be constructed using different densities and types of materials to allow relative support of the patient's body which avoids blood flow restrictions.” See also FIGS. 1 and 4 which shows padded regions (102, 104, 106, and 108) each having different densities and making up each zone. See also col. 9 lines 10-18 “FIG. 5B depicts an example embodiment of a mattress with multiple additional pressure off-loading cradles 504 disposed at these locations that correspond to bony prominences and/or higher interfacial pressure body regions. Note that the pressure off-loading cradles 504/110 may be of different sizes shapes, and orientations, and may be constructed of the same or different materials with the same or different densities and IDF ratings.”) each padded region comprising an open-cell foam support material. (Lee: col. 4 lines 12-16 “In some embodiments, the invention may use various types of foam (polyurethane, memory Foam, synthetic latex, latex, etc.) in a multi-zoned, multi-layered mattress construction to provide a relatively low pressure support environment.” See also col. 8 lines 46-51 “Note in some embodiments, foam materials that allow airflow through the entire mattress may be selected to facilitate ventilation for temperature and moisture control.” Wherein the foam materials that allow airflow through may be interpreted as open cell.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker directed to a bedsore relieving bed by configuring each region/zone to be of varying density as taught in Lee directed to a system for monitoring a patient to reduce pressure ulcers. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a “multi-zoned … mattress construction that provides a low pressure support environment” (Lee col. 4 lines 12-16)
Additionally, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker directed to a bedsore relieving bed by choosing to use open-celled memory foam as taught in Lee directed to a system for monitoring a patient to reduce pressure ulcers. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “facilitate ventilation for temperature and moisture control.” (Lee col. 4 lines 12-16)
Nonnemaker in view of Lee does not appear to disclose a cover … wherein the patient interfacing side is made from waterproof, non-breathable, biocompatible, antimicrobial, and stretchable fabric, while the non-patient interfacing side is made from waterproof, non-breathable tear-resistant fabric having at least one discrete pressure relief valve or aperture welded to a vertical side of said pressure injury relief system that allows air transfer but prevents water transfer therethrough…. and wherein the patient interfacing side and non-patient interfacing side are weldable to each other.
However, Allaway discloses a cover … while the non-patient interfacing side is made from waterproof, non-breathable tear-resistant fabric … that allows air transfer but prevents water transfer and wherein the patient interfacing side and non-patient interfacing side are weldable to each other. (Allaway: Abstract “The puncture-resistant layer may be formed from a polyester coated textile and may be bonded to another layer of the fabric using high frequency welding.” See also “a waterproof mattress cover…” The examiner notes that Lee in view of Allaway discloses this feature since the mattress cover will otherwise cover the sides of the mattress that the patient is not immediately located on for it to sit properly on the mattress. The examiner further notes that polyurethane has high tear resistant properties.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mattress cover of Nonnemaker in view of Lee directed to a support for a bed-ridden patient by adding multiple layers that are weldable to each other as taught by Allaway directed to a waterproof puncture resistant mattress cover. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide “A waterproof mattress cover… with improved resistance to puncture or piercing by sharp objects … but at the same time … breathable.” (Allaway: Abstract, see also page 1 lines 12-13)
However, Ulrich discloses the fabric on said patient-interfacing side of said cover is biocompatible. (Ulrich: [0021] “The barrier 24 can be formed of an impermeable material (e.g., the barrier material) that withstands hydrostatic pressure, can prevent penetration by microorganisms in accordance with medical device barrier standards, and meets biocompatibility requirements for limited contact with human skin.”) and antimicrobial. (Ulrich: [0022] “In one embodiment, the film coating can be a polyurethane and can incorporate an antimicrobial and/or antifungal agent such as, for example, antimicrobial metal or borophosphosilicate glass carriers containing silver ions.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fabric of Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway directed to a support for a bed ridden patient by adding films or coats or otherwise substituting the materials of the layers of the sheets of Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway and make them biocompatible as taught by Ulrich since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of avoiding skin reactions of people lying on the cover.
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly does not appear to disclose having at least one discrete pressure relief valve or aperture welded to a vertical side of said pressure injury relief system
However, Daly discloses having at least one discrete pressure relief valve or aperture welded to a vertical side of said pressure injury relief system (Daly: FIG. 4 (60), the examiner notes that the “welding” limitation has no weight because it is a product by process limitation.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly by adding a pressure relief valve as taught in Daly since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing for equalization of the foam and prevent air from being trapped inside the foam cells and relieve internal pressure on a patient.
Regarding claim 7,
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly discloses the pressure injury relief system of claim 1, wherein said cushioning support is comprised of adjoined padded regions of varying density, each padded region having a density tuned for a corresponding region of a patient's body that it is supporting. (Lee: see FIGS. 5A-5b (112, 114, 116, 118, 120) which correspond to different zones comprising of different padded regions of varying density see col. 3 lines 11-15 “The mattress includes several zones that include material of varying densities, indention force deflection (IDF) values, and component shapes which work together to avoid restrictions in oxygenated blood flow.”)
Regarding claim 8,
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly discloses the pressure injury relief system of claim 7, wherein said adjoined padded regions are adhered to one another to define a contiguous foam support cushion. (Nonnemaker: see annotated figure in claim 1, the padded regions define a contiguous foam support cushion)
Regarding claim 9,
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly discloses the pressure injury relief system of claim 1, further comprising a separate plug of foam support material configured to be inserted into said cut-out region of said support foam material.
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly does not appear to disclose further comprising a separate plug of foam support material configured to be inserted into said cut-out region of said support foam material.
However, Lee discloses further comprising a separate plug of foam support material configured to be inserted into said cut-out region of said support foam material. (Lee: FIG. 4 shows how (110) is inserted into the cut-out region and may be interpreted as a foam plug.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly directed to a support for a bed ridden patient by adding the option of an insert as taught in Lee directed to a support for a bed ridden patient since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing for a bed-ridden patient to be properly supported on the mattress when there is no risk for a pressure sore to develop.
Regarding claim 21,
Nonnemaker discloses a pressure injury relief system for recovery and transport of a patient (Nonnemaker: FIG. 1 (100) see also Abstract “The present invention is a bed for relieving bed sores and other contact related discomfort while lying in bed.”) and having a patient interfacing side on which said patient lies and a non-patient interfacing side opposite said patient interfacing side, (Nonnemaker: see annotated figure below) a unitary (Nonnemaker: [0028] “The primary mattress 110 and mattress topper 120 may together be considered a mattress.”) cushioning support (Nonnemaker: FIG. 1 (120)) further comprising of a plurality of adjacent padded regions… including an upper padded region to support the patient's shoulders, head and upper torso, two middle padded regions to support the patient's lower torso and mid-thigh, and a lower padded region to support the patient's mid-thigh and below, wherein each of said regions have a thickness and each region being separately tuned for a portion of the patient body that said unitary cushioning support is supporting, (Nonnemaker: see annotated figure below, each region has a thickness and is separately tuned for a portion of the patient’s body that it is supporting.) and a plurality of cut-out region traversing said unitary cushioning support from the patient interfacing side through the non-patient interfacing side between opposing padded regions (Nonnemaker: FIG. 1 (152) see also [0028] “The primary mattress 110 and the mattress topper 120 may define a first opening 152 vertically through (entirely or at least partially through) the bed 100.” See also FIG. 7 (140) and [0030] “The first opening 152 and the second openings 140 may be formed by cutting out portions of the primary mattress 110.”) and configured to correspond to said patient's bony prominence when said patient lies on said unitary cushioning support and eliminate contact with said bony prominence in the cut-out region. (Nonnemaker: [0029] “The first opening 152 may be rectangular in shape and sized to extend from the thoracic area of a person to the coccyx region of a person.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
501
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nonnemaker does not appear to disclose all formed of an open-cell foam support material… a cover… comprising a first layer made from waterproof,non-breathable, biocompatible, antimicrobial and stretchable fabric and a second layer made from waterproof, non-breathable tear resistant fabric having at least one discrete pressure relief valve or aperture welded to a vertical side of said pressure injury relief system that allows air transfer but prevents water transfer therethrough that allows air transfer but prevents water transfer, wherein said first layer and said second layer are weldable to each other.
However, Lee discloses each padded region comprising an open-cell foam support material. (Lee: col. 4 lines 12-16 “In some embodiments, the invention may use various types of foam (polyurethane, memory Foam, synthetic latex, latex, etc.) in a multi-zoned, multi-layered mattress construction to provide a relatively low pressure support environment.” See also col. 8 lines 46-51 “Note in some embodiments, foam materials that allow airflow through the entire mattress may be selected to facilitate ventilation for temperature and moisture control.” Wherein the foam materials that allow airflow through may be interpreted as open cell.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker directed to a bedsore relieving bed by choosing to use open-celled memory foam as taught in Lee directed to a system for monitoring a patient to reduce pressure ulcers. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “facilitate ventilation for temperature and moisture control.” (Lee col. 4 lines 12-16)
Nonnemaker in view of Lee does not appear to disclose a cover… comprising a first layer made from waterproof,non-breathable, biocompatible, antimicrobial and stretchable fabric and a second layer made from waterproof, non-breathable tear resistant fabric having at least one vent that allows air transfer but prevents water transfer, wherein said first layer and said second layer are weldable to each other.
However, Allaway discloses a cover… comprising a first layer made from waterproof,non-breathable, biocompatible, antimicrobial and stretchable fabric and a second layer made from waterproof, non-breathable tear resistant fabric having at least one vent that allows air transfer but prevents water transfer, wherein said first layer and said second layer are weldable to each other. (Allaway: Abstract “The puncture-resistant layer may be formed from a polyester coated textile and may be bonded to another layer of the fabric using high frequency welding.” See also “a waterproof mattress cover…” The examiner notes that Lee in view of Allaway discloses this feature since the mattress cover will otherwise cover the sides of the mattress that the patient is not immediately located on for it to sit properly on the mattress. The examiner further notes that polyurethane has high tear resistant properties.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mattress cover of Nonnemaker in view of Lee directed to a support for a bed-ridden patient by adding multiple layers that are weldable to each other as taught by Allaway directed to a waterproof puncture resistant mattress cover. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide “A waterproof mattress cover… with improved resistance to puncture or piercing by sharp objects … but at the same time … breathable.” (Allaway: Abstract, see also page 1 lines 12-13)
Ulrich discloses a first layer made from waterproof, non-breathable, biocompatible, and stretchable fabric (Ulrich: [0021] “The barrier 24 can be formed of an impermeable material (e.g., the barrier material) that withstands hydrostatic pressure, can prevent penetration by microorganisms in accordance with medical device barrier standards, and meets biocompatibility requirements for limited contact with human skin.”) and antimicrobial. (Ulrich: [0022] “In one embodiment, the film coating can be a polyurethane and can incorporate an antimicrobial and/or antifungal agent such as, for example, antimicrobial metal or borophosphosilicate glass carriers containing silver ions.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fabric of Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway directed to a support for a bed ridden patient by adding films or coats or otherwise substituting the materials of the layers of the sheets of Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway and make them biocompatible as taught by Ulrich since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of avoiding skin reactions of people lying on the cover.
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly does not appear to disclose having at least one discrete pressure relief valve or aperture welded to a vertical side of said pressure injury relief system
However, Daly discloses having at least one discrete pressure relief valve or aperture welded to a vertical side of said pressure injury relief system (Daly: FIG. 4 (60), the examiner notes that the “welding” limitation has no weight because it is a product by process limitation.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly by adding a pressure relief valve as taught in Daly since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing for equalization of the foam and prevent air from being trapped inside the foam cells and relieve internal pressure on a patient.
Regarding claim 22,
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly discloses the pressure injury relief system of claim 21.
Nonnemaker does not appear to disclose wherein said regions are tuned by varying the density or stiffness of the foam support material in said region.
However, Lee discloses wherein said regions are tuned by varying the density or stiffness of the foam support material in said region. (Lee: col. 13 lines 50-53 “The zones 112-120 may be constructed using different densities and types of materials to allow relative support of the patient's body which avoids blood flow restrictions.” See also FIGS. 1 and 4 which shows padded regions (102, 104, 106, and 108) each having different densities and making up each zone. See also col. 9 lines 10-18 “FIG. 5B depicts an example embodiment of a mattress with multiple additional pressure off-loading cradles 504 disposed at these locations that correspond to bony prominences and/or higher interfacial pressure body regions. Note that the pressure off-loading cradles 504/110 may be of different sizes shapes, and orientations, and may be constructed of the same or different materials with the same or different densities and IDF ratings.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly directed to a bedsore relieving bed by configuring each region/zone to be of varying density as taught in Lee directed to a system for monitoring a patient to reduce pressure ulcers. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a “multi-zoned … mattress construction that provides a low pressure support environment” (Lee col. 4 lines 12-16)
Regarding claim 23,
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly discloses the pressure injury relief system of claim 21, wherein said regions are adhered to one another to create a contiguous foam support. (Nonnemaker: see annotated figure in claim 21, the padded regions define a contiguous foam support cushion)
Regarding claim 32,
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly discloses the pressure injury relief system of claim 21, further comprising a separate plug of foam support material configured to be inserted into said cut-out region of said support foam material.
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly does not appear to disclose further comprising a separate plug of foam support material configured to be inserted into said cut-out region of said support foam material.
However, Lee discloses further comprising a separate plug of foam support material configured to be inserted into said cut-out region of said support foam material. (Lee: FIG. 4 shows how (110) is inserted into the cut-out region and may be interpreted as a foam plug.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker directed to a support for a bed ridden patient by adding the option of an insert as taught in Lee directed to a support for a bed ridden patient since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing for a bed-ridden patient to be properly supported on the mattress when there is no risk for a pressure sore to develop.
Claim(s) 6, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20230027662 issued to Nonnemaker in view of U.S. Patent No. 10524721 issued to Lee further in view of Great Brittan Patent No. 2505935 issued to Allaway and Ulrich further in view of Great Brittan Patent No. 2413487 issued to Daly further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4536906 issued to Varndell.
Regarding claim 6,
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly discloses the pressure injury relief system of claim 1.
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly does not appear to disclose where said foam support material is flame retardant.
However, Varndell discloses where said foam support material is flame retardant. (Varndell: col. 2 lines 8-10 “Referring to FIG. 1, a first embodiment of the invention has a single layer mattress body 10 cut from a porous, resilient fire-retardant foam plastics material.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly directed to a support for a bed-ridden patient by choosing an open-celled memory foam material that is flame retardant as taught in Varndell directed to a foam mattress since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of preventing fires.
Regarding claim 31,
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly discloses the pressure injury relief system of claim 21.
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly does not appear to disclose where said foam support material is flame retardant.
However, Varndell discloses where said foam support material is flame retardant. (Varndell: col. 2 lines 8-10 “Referring to FIG. 1, a first embodiment of the invention has a single layer mattress body 10 cut from a porous, resilient fire-retardant foam plastics material.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly directed to a support for a bed-ridden patient by choosing an open-celled memory foam material that is flame retardant as taught in Varndell directed to a foam mattress since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of preventing fires.
Claim(s) 12 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20230027662 issued to Nonnemaker in view of U.S. Patent No. 10524721 issued to Lee further in view of Great Brittan Patent No. 2505935 issued to Allaway and Ulrich and Daly further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20210401195 issued to Miles.
Regarding claim 12,
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly discloses the pressure injury relief system of claim 2.
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly does not appear to disclose further comprising indicia on said cover to indicate proper placement of the patient on said system.
However, Miles discloses further comprising indicia on said cover to indicate proper placement of the patient on said system. (Miles: [0027] “When mounted on a mattress 160, the bedsheet 100 has a pair of side surfaces 104, 106 with a plurality of sleeves or pockets 150, a headboard side surface 108 having the label with indicia or graphics 1080 to notify a user that the fitted sheet label 100 is in a proper position or orientation before being fitted to the mattress 160.” The examiner notes that the indicia may also be capable of indicating proper placement of a patient based on where the indicia is located so that it can be used as a reference point for a caregiver.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly directed to a support for bed-ridden patients by adding an indicia as taught by Miles. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to notify a user that the fitted sheet label 100 is in a proper position or orientation before being fitted to the mattress 160” and allow for the indicia to be used as a reference point for a caregiver in which one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as a predictable result.
Alternatively, the examiner has interpreted the limitation above to be “printed matter” which is the first step highlighted in MPEP section 2111.05. The second step is to determine if a functional relationship exists with respect to the invention. Since the “indicia” serves as a notification, the term is present for instructional purposes and one of ordinary skill in the art could have figured out how to use the invention regardless of the presence of the indicia. Furthermore, there is no functional relationship with respect to the invention as a whole other than to indicate the obvious, that is, indicating proper placement of a patient. Thus, the term “indicia deserves no patentable weight over the prior art.
Regarding claim 35,
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly discloses the pressure injury relief system of claim 21.
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly does not appear to disclose further comprising indicia on said cover to indicate proper placement of the patient on said system.
However, Miles discloses further comprising indicia on said cover to indicate proper placement of the patient on said system. (Miles: [0027] “When mounted on a mattress 160, the bedsheet 100 has a pair of side surfaces 104, 106 with a plurality of sleeves or pockets 150, a headboard side surface 108 having the label with indicia or graphics 1080 to notify a user that the fitted sheet label 100 is in a proper position or orientation before being fitted to the mattress 160.” The examiner notes that the indicia may also be capable of indicating proper placement of a patient based on where the indicia is located so that it can be used as a reference point for a caregiver.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly directed to a support for bed-ridden patients by adding an indicia as taught by Miles. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to notify a user that the fitted sheet label 100 is in a proper position or orientation before being fitted to the mattress 160” and allow for the indicia to be used as a reference point for a caregiver in which one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as a predictable result.
Claim(s) 13 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20230027662 issued to Nonnemaker in view of U.S. Patent No. 10524721 issued to Lee further in view of Great Brittan Patent No. 2505935 issued to Allaway and Ulrich and Daly further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20210169713 issued to Kenalty.
Regarding claim 13,
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly discloses the pressure injury relief system of claim 1.
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly does not appear to disclose further comprising a flap of fabric to assist in packing and holding said system into a rolled configuration.
However, Kenalty discloses further comprising a flap of fabric to assist in packing and holding said system into a rolled configuration. (Kenalty: FIG. 6A-6D (3200) see also [0060] “When rolled-up sled 3000 reaches the opening 3201 of the foot pouch 3200, the rolled-up sled 3000 is stuffed in the foot pouch 3200 (FIG. 6C).”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly directed to a support for bed-ridden patients by incorporating a pocket or pouch at the end of the cover as taught by Kenalty directed to a rapid evacuation sled since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing it to be held in a rolled configuration and be deployed on a supporting surface when necessary in which one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as a predictable result.
Regarding claim 36,
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly discloses the pressure injury relief system of claim 21.
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly does not appear to disclose further comprising a flap of fabric to assist in packing and holding the open-cell foam support material into a rolled configuration.
However, Kenalty discloses further comprising a flap of fabric to assist in packing and holding said system into a rolled configuration. (Kenalty: FIG. 6A-6D (3200) see also [0060] “When rolled-up sled 3000 reaches the opening 3201 of the foot pouch 3200, the rolled-up sled 3000 is stuffed in the foot pouch 3200 (FIG. 6C).”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly directed to a support for bed-ridden patients by incorporating a pocket or pouch at the end of the cover as taught by Kenalty directed to a rapid evacuation sled since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing it to be held in a rolled configuration and be deployed on a supporting surface when necessary in which one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as a predictable result.
Claim(s) 15-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20230027662 issued to Nonnemaker in view of U.S. Patent No. 10524721 issued to Lee further in view of Great Brittan Patent No. 2505935 issued to Allaway and Ulrich and Daly further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7100226 issued to Walton.
Regarding claim 15,
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly discloses the pressure injury relief system of claim 7, wherein said unitary cushioning … including an upper rectangular padded region to support the patient's shoulders, head and upper torso, two middle padded regions to support the patient's lower torso and mid-thigh, (Nonnemaker: see annotated figure in claim 1) and a lower … pad to support the patient's mid-thigh and below. (Nonnemaker: see annotated figure in claim 1)
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly in view of Daly does not appear to disclose wherein said cushioning support is hexagonal to conform to a patient's body… a lower trapezoidal pad
However, Walton discloses wherein said cushioning support is hexagonal to conform to a patient's body … a lower trapezoidal pad (Walton: FIG. 1 (1) has 6 sides due to the taper at the end. See also col. 2 lines 60-63 “The headward end 5 of pad 1 that accommodates a patient's head when viewed from the top tapers as to follow the contour of many spinal boards with similar tapering.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the mattress of Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly directed to a bed ridden patient by tapering the end parts of the mattress as taught by Walton. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the mattress of Nonnemaker in view of Lee “can be used on spinal boards with similar tapering.” (Walton: col 2 lines 60-63)
Regarding claim 16,
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly in view of Walton discloses the pressure injury relief system of claim 15, wherein the cut-out region is positioned between said two middle padded regions and corresponds to a patient's sacral area. (Nonnemaker: [0029] “The first opening 152 may be rectangular in shape and sized to extend from the thoracic area of a person to the coccyx region of a person.” See also the annotated figure in claim 1.)
Regarding claim 18,
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly in view of Walton discloses the pressure injury relief system of claim 15, wherein the upper and lower padded regions are comprised of foam with a density ranging between 1.2-1.8 lbs/ft3. (Lee: col. 6 lines 1-15, the pad (108) has at least a 1.6-2.76 lb/ft^3 rating which extends throughout the upper and lower regions as well as calf pillow (106) which has a rating between 0.88-1.5 lb/ft^3)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20230027662 issued to Nonnemaker in view of U.S. Patent No. 10524721 issued to Lee further in view of Great Brittan Patent No. 2505935 issued to Allaway, Ulrich, Daly, Walton, further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7100226 issued to Walton further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20210169713 issued to Kenalty.
Regarding claim 17,
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly in view of Walton discloses the pressure injury relief system of claim 16.
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly in view of Walton does not appear to disclose wherein the padded regions are less than four inches thick.
However, Kenalty discloses wherein the padded regions are less than four inches thick. (Kenalty: [0024] “Preferably, the folded-up mattress is approximately 20-36 inches long, 20-36 inches wide, 3-6 inches thick, and weighs approximately 14-18 pounds.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly in view of Walton padded regions to be less than four inches as taught by Kenalty since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of saving money on manufacturing costs and allowing for the mattress to be easily transportable between different surfaces.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20230027662 issued to Nonnemaker in view of U.S. Patent No. 10524721 issued to Lee further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20220061546 issued to Gladney further in view of Great Brittan Patent No. 2505935 issued to Allaway further in view of Ulrich further in view of Daly further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20220061546 issued to Gladney (2).
Regarding claim 19,
Nonnemaker discloses a pressure injury relief system for recovery and transport of a patient, (Nonnemaker: FIG. 1 (100) see also Abstract “The present invention is a bed for relieving bed sores and other contact related discomfort while lying in bed.”) comprising: a cushioning support (Nonnemaker: FIG. 1 (120)) having a plurality of adjacent padded regions … , including an upper padded region to support the patient's shoulders, head and upper torso, two middle padded regions to support the patient's lower torso and mid-thigh, and a lower padded region to support the patient's mid-thigh and below, (Nonnemaker: see annotated figure below) …
PNG
media_image1.png
501
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nonnemaker in view of Lee does not appear to disclose each padded region comprising an open-cell foam support material, the two middle padded regions being comprised of a first layer of foam with a density ranging between 1.2-1.8 lbs/ft3 and a second layer of foam with a density ranging between 1.5-2.1 lbs/ft3.
Lee discloses padded regions having different properties (Lee: col. 13 lines 50-53 “The zones 112-120 may be constructed using different densities and types of materials to allow relative support of the patient's body which avoids blood flow restrictions.” See also FIGS. 1 and 4 which shows padded regions (102, 104, 106, and 108) each having different densities and making up each zone. See also col. 9 lines 10-18 “FIG. 5B depicts an example embodiment of a mattress with multiple additional pressure off-loading cradles 504 disposed at these locations that correspond to bony prominences and/or higher interfacial pressure body regions. Note that the pressure off-loading cradles 504/110 may be of different sizes shapes, and orientations, and may be constructed of the same or different materials with the same or different densities and IDF ratings.”) each padded region comprising an open-cell foam support material. (Lee: col. 4 lines 12-16 “In some embodiments, the invention may use various types of foam (polyurethane, memory Foam, synthetic latex, latex, etc.) in a multi-zoned, multi-layered mattress construction to provide a relatively low pressure support environment.” See also col. 8 lines 46-51 “Note in some embodiments, foam materials that allow airflow through the entire mattress may be selected to facilitate ventilation for temperature and moisture control.” Wherein the foam materials that allow airflow through may be interpreted as open cell.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker directed to a bedsore relieving bed by configuring each region/zone to be of varying density i.e. different properties as taught in Lee directed to a system for monitoring a patient to reduce pressure ulcers. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a “multi-zoned … mattress construction that provides a low pressure support environment” (Lee col. 4 lines 12-16)
Additionally, It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker directed to a bedsore relieving bed by choosing to use open-celled memory foam as taught in Lee directed to a system for monitoring a patient to reduce pressure ulcers. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “facilitate ventilation for temperature and moisture control.” (Lee col. 4 lines 12-16)
Gladney discloses a first layer of foam with a density ranging between 1.2-1.8 lbs/ft3 and a second layer of foam with a density ranging between 1.5-2.1 lbs/ft3…. Wherein the second layer of foam is within a range of 2.33 to 1.86 times thicker than the first layer of foam and said plurality of adjacent padded regions are tuned with different properties including foam density and foam stiffness (Gladney: FIG. 1 (102, 104) see also [0021] which talks about selecting foam layers with different properties as well as the sentence “The density of the layers can generally range from about 1 to 2.5 pounds per cubic foot for non-viscoelastic foams and 1.5 to 6 pounds per cubic foot for viscoelastic foams.” Which falls within the selected range when the 2nd layer is taken to be 1.5 to 6 lbs per cubic foot. The same logic applies for the limitation of 2.33 to 1.86 thickness limitation.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker in view of Lee directed to a support for bed-ridden patients by adding foam layers with different properties as taught in Gladney directed to a mattress with foam layers. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for a “user to choose which side of the mattress meets its desired characteristics in terms of firmness, coolness, comfort, and/or the like. (Gladney: [0012])
The examiner notes that the combination of Nonnemaker, Lee and Gladney would otherwise teach the layers to be in the middle layer since Lee teaches a mattress with different zones having different densities, Gladney teaches having foam layers with different properties and Nonnemaker teaches the two middle padded regions.
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Gladney does not appear to disclose a cover having a patient interfacing side on which said patient lies and a non-patient interfacing side opposite said patient interfacing side, wherein the patient interfacing side is made from waterproof, non-breathable, biocompatible, antimicrobial, and stretchable fabric, while the non-patient interfacing side is made from waterproof, non-breathable tear-resistant fabric having at least one vent that allows air transfer but prevents water transfer, and wherein the patient interfacing and non-patient interfacing side are weldable to each other.
However, Allaway discloses a cover having a patient interfacing side on which said patient lies and a non-patient interfacing side opposite said patient interfacing side… while the non-patient interfacing side is made from waterproof, non-breathable tear-resistant fabric having at least one vent that allows air transfer but prevents water transfer, and wherein the patient interfacing and non-patient interfacing side are weldable to each other. (Allaway: Abstract “The puncture-resistant layer may be formed from a polyester coated textile and may be bonded to another layer of the fabric using high frequency welding.” The examiner notes that the any of the fabrics are capable of being welded to one another and that a cover that is breathable has a plurality of vents installed.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mattress cover of Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Gladney directed to a support for a bed-ridden patient by adding multiple layers that are weldable to each other as taught by Allaway directed to a waterproof puncture resistant mattress cover. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide “A waterproof mattress cover… with improved resistance to puncture or piercing by sharp objects … but at the same time … breathable.” (Allaway: Abstract, see also page 1 lines 12-13)
However, Ulrich discloses the fabric on said patient-interfacing side of said cover is biocompatible. (Ulrich: [0021] “The barrier 24 can be formed of an impermeable material (e.g., the barrier material) that withstands hydrostatic pressure, can prevent penetration by microorganisms in accordance with medical device barrier standards, and meets biocompatibility requirements for limited contact with human skin.”) and antimicrobial. (Ulrich: [0022] “In one embodiment, the film coating can be a polyurethane and can incorporate an antimicrobial and/or antifungal agent such as, for example, antimicrobial metal or borophosphosilicate glass carriers containing silver ions.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fabric of Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway directed to a support for a bed ridden patient by adding films or coats or otherwise substituting the materials of the layers of the sheets of Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Gladney in view of Allaway and make them biocompatible as taught by Ulrich since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of avoiding skin reactions of people lying on the cover.
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Gladney in view of Ulrich does not appear to disclose having at least one discrete pressure relief valve or aperture welded to a vertical side of said pressure injury relief system
However, Daly discloses having at least one discrete pressure relief valve or aperture welded to a vertical side of said pressure injury relief system (Daly: FIG. 4 (60), the examiner notes that the “welding” limitation has no weight because it is a product by process limitation.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Gladney in view of Ulrich by adding a pressure relief valve as taught in Daly since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing for equalization of the foam and prevent air from being trapped inside the foam cells and relieve internal pressure on a patient.
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Gladney in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly in view of Gladney (2)in view of Daly does not appear to disclose wherein the second layer of foam is within a range of 2.33 to 1.86 times thicker than said first layer of foam.
However, Gladney (2) discloses wherein the second layer of foam is within a range of 2.33 to 1.86 times thicker than said first layer of foam. (Gladney (2): [0029] “For this as well as the other embodiments disclosed herein, the base core foam layer 12 is chosen to have a thickness of about 4 inches to about 10 inches, with about 6 inches to about 8 inches thickness in other embodiments, and about 6.5 inches in still other embodiments.” And [0039] “Layer 16 is generally characterized as having a thickness of 1 to 3 inches, a density of 1 to 4 lb/ft.sup.3, and a hardness of 10 to 20 pounds-force. In one embodiment, layer 16 is a viscoelastic polyurethane foam layer having a thickness of 1.5″, and a density of about 3.4 lb/ft.sup.3.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Gladney in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly in view of Gladney (2)by slightly increasing the range of the thickness of layer 1 as suggested in Gladney ([0020]) and taught in Gladney (2) directed to a layered mattress since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing for a greater range of thicknesses of layered foam mattresses to be used to conform to a bed-ridden user’s needs.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20230027662 issued to Nonnemaker in view of U.S. Patent No. 10524721 issued to Lee further in view of Great Brittan Patent No. 2505935 issued to Allaway and Ulrich and Daly further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20160213175 issued to Melcher.
Regarding claim 38,
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly the pressure injury relief system of claim 1.
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly does not appear to disclose wherein said cover is a plurality of covers, each corresponding to an invidivual padded region.
However, Melcher discloses wherein said cover is a plurality of covers (Melcher: [0159] “For example, in some embodiments, the support element 120 can include multiple separate stackable support portions each having a cushion member and an outer casing, and multiple stackable riser elements 122 each having a cushion member or pillow insert within an outer casing.” The examiner notes that each individual cushion member has its own cover.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly in view of Daly to have multiple covers for each padded region since the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20230027662 issued to Nonnemaker in view of U.S. Patent No. 10524721 issued to Lee further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20220061546 issued to Gladney further in view of Great Brittan Patent No. 2505935 issued to Allaway further in view of Ulrich further in view of Daly further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20220061546 issued to Gladney (2) further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20160213175 issued to Melcher.
Regarding claim 39,
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Gladney in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly in view of Gladney (2) discloses the pressure injury relief system of claim 19.
Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Gladney in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly does not appear to disclose wherein said cover is a plurality of covers, each corresponding to an individual padded region.
However, Melcher discloses wherein said cover is a plurality of covers (Melcher: [0159] “For example, in some embodiments, the support element 120 can include multiple separate stackable support portions each having a cushion member and an outer casing, and multiple stackable riser elements 122 each having a cushion member or pillow insert within an outer casing.” The examiner notes that each individual cushion member has its own cover.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonnemaker in view of Lee in view of Gladney in view of Allaway in view of Ulrich in view of Daly in view of Gladney (2) to have multiple covers for each padded region since the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
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 ADAM C ORTIZ whose telephone number is (303)297-4378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-3:30 pm.
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 on 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.
/ADAM C ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673