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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 11-13 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2014/0261193) and further in view of KR 20120039807A.
With reference to claim 1, Smith discloses a cover for covering a patient support apparatus cushion (abstract), said cover comprising:
a top cover layer (12) and a lower cover layer (16) configured to join with said top cover layer for enclosing a cushion (28) there between (figure 5); and
an ePTFE membrane (i.e., GORE-TEX) between said top cover layer and said lower cover layer to form a liquid barrier between said top cover layer and the cushion as set forth in [0023].
The difference between Smith and claim 1 is the explicit recitation that the ePTFE membrane is a separate liquid barrier between the cover layers.
KR 20120039807A (hereinafter “Won”) teaches an analogous cover system including a liquid impermeable top cover layer (131) (see page 6 of translated document provided by applicant) and an ePTFE membrane (132) underlying the cover layer as shown in figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the ePTFE membrane directly under the top cover layer as taught by Won in order to provide a sheet that is impermeable to liquids, but breathable and/or permeable to moisture for additional leakage protection as taught by Won on pages 1-2 of the translated document.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Smith discloses a top cover layer that includes first (12) and second (14,16) layers, said first layer being formed of a material forming an exterior surface of said cover [0021-0022], and said ePTFE membrane secure to said second layer as set forth in [0023].
With respect to claims 5 and 12, Smith discloses a cover wherein said ePTFE membrane is laminated to said second layer as set forth in [0023].
With reference to claim 7, Smith teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Smith and claim 7 provision that the ePTFE membrane is configured as with at least two open sides for receiving the cushion therein.
Smith provides the ePTFE membrane with at least one open side as shown in figure 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the ePTFE membrane of Smith with two open sides, if desired, since it has been held that the mere duplication of essential working parts of a device is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With reference to claim 8, Smith discloses a mattress for a patient support apparatus (abstract), said mattress comprising:
a cushion (28);
aa cover comprising a top cover layer (12) and a lower cover layer (16) configured to join with said top cover layer for enclosing a cushion (28) there between (figure 5); and
an ePTFE membrane (i.e., GORE-TEX) between said top cover layer and said lower cover layer to form a liquid barrier between said top cover layer and the cushion as set forth in [0023].
The difference between Smith and claim 8 is the explicit recitation that the ePTFE membrane is a separate liquid barrier between the cover layers.
Won teaches an analogous cover system including a liquid impermeable top cover layer (131) (see page 6 of translated document provided by applicant) and an ePTFE membrane (132) underlying the cover layer as shown in figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the ePTFE membrane directly under the top cover layer as taught by Won in order to provide a sheet that is impermeable to liquids, but breathable and/or permeable to moisture for additional leakage protection as taught by Won on pages 1-2 of the translated document.
As to claim 13, Smith discloses a mattress wherein said ePTFE membrane is configured as a sock enclosing said cushion therein as shown in figure 5.
Regarding claims 21-22, Smith discloses a top cover layer having a substrate and a polyurethane coating on an exterior side of said substrate, said polyurethane coating providing said first liquid barrier as set forth in [0023].
Claims 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2014/0261193) in view of in view of KR 20120039807A and further in view of GB 2532502.
With reference to claims 14-16 and 20, Smith modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
The difference between Smith modified and claim 14 is the provision that the article further comprises an intrusion indicator configured to indicate moisture or liquid intrusion through said cover, and said instruction detection configured to indicate a change in moisture, wetness, or pH.
GB 2532502 (hereinafter “Susnjar”) teaches an analogous article (page 5, lines 34-35) including an intrusion indicator as set forth on page 2, line 20 to page 3, line 14.
The intrusion indicator may be secured to a top cover layer (cl. 15) as taught by Susnjar on page 4, lines 24-26 and on page 5, lines 34-35.
The intrusion indicator may also comprise a hydrochromic (cl.20) ink printed on or in said top cover layer (cl. 16) as taught by Susnjar on page 3, lines 21-25.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Smith modified with the intrusion indicator as taught by Susnjar to allow for the monitoring of incontinence events comfortable and discretely as taught by Susnjar on page 1, lines 5-8.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2014/0261193) in view of KR 20120039807A and GB 2532502 and further in view of Eidus (US 3,731,685).
With reference to claims 17-18, Smith modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claims 8 and 14-16.
The difference between Smith modified and claim 17 is the provision that the intrusion indicator comprises a tape secured to said top cover layer between said top layer and the cushion.
Eidus teaches an analogous article that includes an intrusion indicator in the form of a tape that is secured the between the top sheet and the underlying cushion) as set forth in col. 1, lines 57-59 and as shown in figure 5.
Eidus also teaches that the tape extends exteriorly of said cover (cl. 18) as shown in figures 1-2 and 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Smith modified with the intrusion indicator as taught by Eidus in order to provide a readily indication of the presence of moisture as taught by Eidus in col. 1, lines 19-27.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2014/0261193) in view of KR 20120039807A and GB 2532502 and further in view of GB 2300806.
With reference to claims 17 and 19, Smith modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claims 8 and 14-16.
The difference between Smith modified and claims 17 and 19 is the provision that the intrusion indicator comprises a tape secured to said top cover layer between said top layer and the cushion and includes a transparent window.
GB 2300806 (hereinafter “Christie”) teaches an analogous article that includes a tape (i.e., hot melt adhesive) that is secured to an underside of the top sheet (i.e., between the top sheet and an underlying layer) where intrusion indicator is visible (cl. 19) therethrough as set forth on page 3, lines 10-16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Smith modified with the intrusion indicator as taught by Christie in order to provide a convenient means to indicate that the article has been soiled as taught by Christie on page 1, lines 19-25.
While Christie does not explicitly recite a transparent window, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the article of Smith modified with a transparent window in view of the teachings of Christie which intends to have a visible indicator as set forth on page 1, lines 19-25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-5, 7-8 and 11-22 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.
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 MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM EST.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 571-270-5879. 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.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights