Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/121,556

INTEGRATED MATTRESS SHEET AND WATERPROOF MATTRESS COVER

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 14, 2023
Examiner
HARE, DAVID R
Art Unit
3673
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Ely Baby LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
408 granted / 607 resolved
+15.2% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+32.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
625
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
49.7%
+9.7% vs TC avg
§102
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
§112
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 607 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Status of the Application Claims 1-9 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to Applicant’s “Amendments/Remarks” filed 12/11/2025. 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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,120,952 to Bass et al. (hereinafter Bass) in view of U.S. Patent 4,844,965 to Foxman. Regarding claim 1, Bass teaches: A method of manufacturing a dual-function sheet (see Fig. 1, protective sheet 10), comprising the steps of: providing an upper layer (see Fig. 3-4, first layer 20) having an upper surface and an underside surface (see Fig. 3-4, first layer 20 has upper and lower surfaces), the upper layer comprising fabric material (see col. 9, lines [63-64]: “absorbent fibrous material 20, such as cotton, facing the user.” See also col. 10, lines [48-57] for other fabric materials disclosed); providing a lower layer (see Fig. 3-4, second layer 22) having an upper surface and an underside surface (see Fig. 3-4, second layer 22 has upper and underside surfaces), the lower layer comprising plastic material (see col. 10, lines [59-67]: “the second layer 22 is a fluid impermeable material having top portion 11 side portion 12, and bottom portion 13. The second layer may be formed from at least one of elastomeric material, such as rubber, waterproof vinyl, or polymeric material such as plastic”); and fusing the entire upper layer to the entire lower layer to form the dual-function sheet (see col. 9, lines [66-67] thru col. 10, lines [1-4]): “The first layer 20 is secured to the second layer 22 forming a substantially unitary article. Preferably, the first layer 20 and the second layer 22 are bonded together by thermocoupling. However, any method of bonding may be used to secure the first layer 20 to the second layer 22”); whereby the underside surface of the lower layer is configured to contact a mattress (see Fig. 3, mattress 14) to be covered by the dual-function sheet (see Fig. 3), and the upper surface of the upper layer is configured to contact a person (see col. 9, lines [63-64]: “absorbent fibrous material 20, such as cotton, facing the user.”). Bass, teaches bonding its first 20 and second 22 layers via thermocoupling (see col. 9, lines [66-67] thru col. 10, lines [1-4]), however, it does not explicitly teach the following: applying a heating compound to at least one of the underside surface of the upper layer and the upper surface of the lower layer; aligning the underside surface of the upper layer with the upper surface of the lower layer; subjecting the aligned upper layer and lower layer to a heat source such that the heating compound is brought to a sufficient temperature to cause the upper surface of the lower layer to fuse with the underside surface of the upper layer. Foxman teaches: applying a heating compound to at least one of the underside surface of the upper layer and the upper surface of the lower layer (see Fig. 3-4, interposed thermal plastic film membrane 34); aligning the underside surface of the upper layer with the upper surface of the lower layer (see Fig. 1-6, layers are shown as aligned [in other words, vertically stacked] in a final form so this implies the layers were also aligned initially); subjecting the aligned upper layer and lower layer to a heat source (see col. 4, lines [7-10]: “when heat is applied”); such that the heating compound is brought to a sufficient temperature to cause the upper surface of the lower layer to fuse with the underside surface of the upper layer (see col. 4, lines [6-12]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Bass with these aforementioned teachings of Foxman to have applied a heating compound of Foxman between the upper and lower layers of the device of Bass and subsequently applying heat to fuse the upper and lower layers of Bass together using the method of Foxman with a reasonable expectation of success to further provide a liquid impervious barrier (see Foxman, col. 4, lines [9-12]). Bass further notes (see col. 9, lines [66-67] thru col. 10, lines [1-4]): “The first layer 20 is secured to the second layer 22 forming a substantially unitary article. Preferably, the first layer 20 and the second layer 22 are bonded together by thermocoupling. However, any method of bonding may be used to secure the first layer 20 to the second layer 22”. Regarding claim 2, Bass, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the plastic material is waterproof (see col. 10, lines [59-67]: “the second layer 22 is a fluid impermeable material”). Regarding claim 3, Bass, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the plastic material is water-resistant (see col. 10, lines [59-67]: “the second layer 22 is a fluid impermeable material”). The examiner notes that fluid impermeable material is also consider water-resistant. Regarding claim 4, Bass teaches: A method of manufacturing a dual-function sheet (see Fig. 1, protective sheet 10), comprising the steps of: providing an upper layer (see Fig. 3-4, first layer 20) having an upper surface and an underside surface (see Fig. 3-4, first layer 20 has upper and lower surfaces), the upper layer comprising fabric material (see col. 9, lines [63-64]: “absorbent fibrous material 20, such as cotton, facing the user.” See also col. 10, lines [48-57] for other fabric materials disclosed) formed via weaving and subsequently dyed or printed prior to fusing (see below section regarding product-by-process limitations); providing a lower layer (see Fig. 3-4, second layer 22) having an upper surface and an underside surface (see Fig. 3-4, second layer 22 has upper and underside surfaces), the lower layer comprising plastic material (see col. 10, lines [59-67]: “the second layer 22 is a fluid impermeable material having top portion 11 side portion 12, and bottom portion 13. The second layer may be formed from at least one of elastomeric material, such as rubber, waterproof vinyl, or polymeric material such as plastic”); and whereby the underside surface of the lower layer is configured to contact a mattress (see Fig. 3, mattress 14) to be covered by the dual-function sheet (see Fig. 3), and the upper surface of the upper layer is configured to contact a person (see col. 9, lines [63-64]: “absorbent fibrous material 20, such as cotton, facing the user.”). The claim recitation “formed via weaving and subsequently dyed or printed prior to fusing” is best understood and interpreted by the examiner as a product-by-process claim limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2113, Section I. As, such the process of forming the fabric material via weaving and subsequently dyeing/printing does not yield a patentable distinction over the apparatus. Bass, teaches bonding its first 20 and second 22 layers via thermocoupling (see col. 9, lines [66-67] thru col. 10, lines [1-4]), however, it does not explicitly teach the following: applying a heating compound to the underside surface of the upper layer or the upper surface of the lower layer; aligning the upper layer and lower layer; subjecting the upper layer and lower layer to a heat source; and applying heat such that the heating compound is brought to a temperature configured to cause the upper surface of the lower layer to fuse with the underside surface of the upper layer to form the dual-function sheet. Foxman teaches: applying a heating compound to the underside surface of the upper layer or the upper surface of the lower layer (see Fig. 3-4, interposed thermal plastic film membrane 34); aligning the upper layer and lower layer (see Fig. 1-6, layers are shown as aligned in final form); subjecting the upper layer and lower layer to a heat source (see col. 4, lines [7-10]: “when heat is applied”); and applying heat such that the heating compound is brought to a temperature configured to cause the upper surface of the lower layer to fuse with the underside surface of the upper layer to form the dual-function sheet (see col. 4, lines [6-12]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Bass with these aforementioned teachings of Foxman to have applied a heating compound of Foxman between the upper and lower layers of the device of Bass and subsequently applying heat to fuse the upper and lower layers of Bass together using the method of Foxman with a reasonable expectation of success to further provide a liquid impervious barrier (see Foxman, col. 4, lines [9-12]). Bass further notes (see col. 9, lines [66-67] thru col. 10, lines [1-4]): “The first layer 20 is secured to the second layer 22 forming a substantially unitary article. Preferably, the first layer 20 and the second layer 22 are bonded together by thermocoupling. However, any method of bonding may be used to secure the first layer 20 to the second layer 22”. Regarding claim 5, Bass, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 4, and additionally teaches: wherein the plastic material is waterproof (see col. 10, lines [59-67]: “the second layer 22 is a fluid impermeable material”) Regarding claim 6, Bass, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 4, and additionally teaches: wherein the plastic material is water-resistant (see col. 10, lines [59-67]: “the second layer 22 is a fluid impermeable material”). The examiner notes that fluid impermeable material is also consider water-resistant. Regarding claim 7, Bass teaches: A method covering a mattress, comprising the steps of: providing a dual-function sheet (see Fig. 1, protective sheet 10) comprising: an upper layer (see Fig. 3-4, first layer 20) having an upper surface and an underside surface (see Fig. 3-4, first layer 20 has upper and lower surfaces), the upper layer comprising fabric material (see col. 9, lines [63-64]: “absorbent fibrous material 20, such as cotton, facing the user.” See also col. 10, lines [48-57] for other fabric materials disclosed); a lower layer (see Fig. 3-4, second layer 22) having an upper surface and an underside surface (see Fig. 3-4, second layer 22 has upper and underside surfaces), the lower layer comprising plastic material (see col. 10, lines [59-67]: “the second layer 22 is a fluid impermeable material having top portion 11 side portion 12, and bottom portion 13. The second layer may be formed from at least one of elastomeric material, such as rubber, waterproof vinyl, or polymeric material such as plastic”); and fusing the entire upper layer to the entire lower layer to form the dual-function sheet (see col. 9, lines [66-67] thru col. 10, lines [1-4]): “The first layer 20 is secured to the second layer 22 forming a substantially unitary article. Preferably, the first layer 20 and the second layer 22 are bonded together by thermocoupling. However, any method of bonding may be used to secure the first layer 20 to the second layer 22”); whereby the underside surface of the lower layer is configured to contact a mattress (see Fig. 3, mattress 14) to be covered by the dual-function sheet (see Fig. 3), and the upper surface of the upper layer is configured to contact a person (see col. 9, lines [63-64]: “absorbent fibrous material 20, such as cotton, facing the user.”). Bass, teaches bonding its first 20 and second 22 layers via thermocoupling (see col. 9, lines [66-67] thru col. 10, lines [1-4]), however, it does not explicitly teach the following: wherein the entire upper layer is fused to the entire lower layer by application of a heating compound to at least one of the underside surface of the upper layer and the upper surface of the lower layer and subjecting the layers to a heat source, such that the heating compound causes the upper surface of the lower layer to fuse with the underside surface of the upper layer to form the dual-function sheet. Foxman teaches: wherein the entire upper layer is fused to the entire lower layer by application of a heating compound to at least one of the underside surface of the upper layer and the upper surface of the lower layer (see Fig. 3-4, interposed thermal plastic film membrane 34); and subjecting the layers to a heat source (see col. 4, lines [7-10]: “when heat is applied”); such that the heating compound causes the upper surface of the lower layer to fuse with the underside surface of the upper layer to form the dual-function sheet (see col. 4, lines [6-12]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Bass with these aforementioned teachings of Foxman to have applied a heating compound of Foxman between the upper and lower layers of the device of Bass and subsequently applying heat to fuse the upper and lower layers of Bass together using the method of Foxman with a reasonable expectation of success to further provide a liquid impervious barrier (see Foxman, col. 4, lines [9-12]). Bass further notes (see col. 9, lines [66-67] thru col. 10, lines [1-4]): “The first layer 20 is secured to the second layer 22 forming a substantially unitary article. Preferably, the first layer 20 and the second layer 22 are bonded together by thermocoupling. However, any method of bonding may be used to secure the first layer 20 to the second layer 22”. Regarding claim 8, Bass, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 7, and additionally teaches: wherein the plastic material is waterproof (see col. 10, lines [59-67]: “the second layer 22 is a fluid impermeable material”) Regarding claim 9, Bass, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 7, and additionally teaches: wherein the plastic material is water-resistant (see col. 10, lines [59-67]: “the second layer 22 is a fluid impermeable material”). The examiner notes that fluid impermeable material is also consider water-resistant. Response to Arguments The Drawing Objections and 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections presented in the Non-Final Rejection of 6/11/2025 have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment/remarks. Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In view of Applicant’s amendments presented on 12/11/2025, the claims 1-9 have been modified to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by U.S. Patent 7,120,952 to Bass in view of U.S. Patent 4,844,965 to Foxman. The updated rejections and interpretations have been presented above in light of the claim amendments made. In response to Applicant’s specific argument with respect to claim 4 that neither Bass nor Foxman teaches the limitation: “[fabric material] formed via weaving and subsequently dyed or printed prior to fusing,” the Examiner interprets this newly added portion as a product-by-process limitation. See above for further detail. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R HARE whose telephone number is (571)272-4420. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, 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. Sincerely, /DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673 1/9/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 14, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 11, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599524
Inflatable Mat for Use in Lateral Positioning
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599525
SUPPORT APPARATUS, SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588767
FUNCTIONAL MATTRESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569202
TRANSPORT APPARATUS IN MEDICAL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569389
SURGICAL TABLE CLADDING PROTECTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+32.7%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 607 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month