DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 4/9/2026. Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are pending. Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9,949,882 to Holladay in view of US Patent Application Publication 2007/0299153 to Hager et al. (“Hager”).
Claim 1. An operating table anti-skid pad (Holladay, Fig. 7), the pad comprising: a body having a longitudinal axis, a first edge, a second edge spaced apart and opposite from the first edge, a third edge extending between the first edge and the second edge, and a fourth edge opposite and spaced apart from the third edge (Holladay, Fig. 7; the pad is seen to have four edges); wherein the body comprises non-viscoelastic (as best understood from Applicant’s disclosure, Applicant considers a “non-viscoelastic” foam to be a “resiliently deformable material having a rate of recovery of 2.0 seconds or less” as stated in Applicant’s paragraph [0005]; Applicant also cites the use of ASTM D357417 in paragraph [0037] as the appropriate method to determine the recovery rate of foam), resiliently deformable material having Hager, in Table 1B, Examples 1, 4, and 5, which exhibit 95% height recovery in zero seconds; also see paragraphs [0116], [0117], and [0119]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the claimed foam since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice; In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416; furthermore Applicant has not disclosed that there is any criticality to the specific chosen foam, and it would have been obvious to select a foam with the desired recovery rate since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results) wherein the material comprises an active response polyurethane having the instantaneous rate of recovery (Hager, Table 1B, Examples 1, 4, and 5) or air infused polyurethane comprised of a combination of toluene diisocyanate (TDI) (Hager discloses the use of TDI in at least paragraphs [0023] and [0025]) [[or]] and a high molecular weight polyol (as best understood from Applicant’s disclosure, a high-molecular weight polyol has “a molecular weight from 2000 to 10,000”; Hager discloses prior art knowledge of such polyols for use with soft polyurethane foams in paragraph [0005], which discloses “a polyol having a molecular weight of 2000 to 8000”; it would have been an obvious matter of material choice for a user of Halladay’s apparatus to select the claimed foam, since doing so would have been simply the use of a known technique with a known device to yield predictable and obvious results; In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416), and wherein the material provides substantially instantaneous customized support to a shape of a patient laying thereon and substantially instantaneously responds to shifting of the patient such that the body may substantially instantaneously contour to the patient in a new position (regarding foam with an instantaneous response, such foam is known in the prior art, at least as seen in ADMET1 and ADMET2, both of which disclose video of polyurethane foam that exhibits the claimed instantaneous recovery property; moreover, with respect to the technical definition of an instantaneous response as determined by ASTM D3574, the foams disclosed by Hager in Table 1 have a height recovery time of zero seconds;, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use any of the foams of Hager, ADMET1, or ADMET2 as an obvious matter of design choice in order to optimize a user’s comfort, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice; In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Claim 2. The pad of claim 1, wherein the rate of recovery is 1.5 seconds or less (see Hager,Table 1B, Examples 1, 4, and 5, which exhibit 95% height recovery in zero seconds).
Claim 3. The pad of claim 2, wherein the rate of recovery is 1.0 seconds or less (see Hager,Table 1B, Examples 1, 4, and 5, which exhibit 95% height recovery in zero seconds).
Claim 7. The pad of claim 1, wherein the body has a glass transition temperature of less than -20 degrees C (Hager paragraph [0003] teaches prior art knowledge of flexible polyurethane foams with “a glass transition point within a range of from -80⁰C to -60⁰ C”; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the claimed foam since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice; In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Claim 8. The pad of claim 7, wherein the glass transition temperature is less than -50 degrees C (Hager paragraph [0003] teaches prior art knowledge of flexible polyurethane foams with “a glass transition point within a range of from -80⁰C to -60⁰ C”; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the claimed foam since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice; In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Claim 12. The pad of claim 1, wherein the body further has a first surface extending between the first edge, the second edge, the third edge, and the fourth edge and a second surface opposite and spaced apart from the first surface, wherein the body has a thickness as measured between the first surface and the second surface, wherein the thickness of the body is 4 inches or less (see Holladay, column 11, lines 18-30).
Claim 13. The pad of claim 12, wherein the thickness is from about 1 inch to about 2 inches (see Holladay, column 11, lines 18-30).
Claim 14. The pad of claim 12, wherein the body has a variable the thickness (see Holladay, column 11, lines 18-30 and Fig. 7).
Claim 15. The pad of claim 1, wherein the body further has a first surface extending between the first edge, the second edge, the third edge, and the fourth edge and a second surface opposite and spaced apart from the first surface, wherein the first surface of the body defines a cutout adjacent the first edge and extending toward the second surface (Halladay teaches a cutout as seen at #730 in Fig. 7).
Claim 16. The pad of claim 15, wherein the cutout is at least partially defined by the first edge (Halladay teaches a cutout as seen at #730 in Fig. 7).
Claim 17. The pad of claim 15, wherein the cutout is semi-circular or circular as viewed in a plane defined by the first surface (Halladay teaches a semi-circular cutout as seen at #730 in Fig. 7).
Claim 18. The pad of claim 1, further comprising one or more straps extending from the third edge or the fourth edge (Halladay teaches a cutout as seen at #140, 141, 142, and 143 in Fig. 7).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9,949,882 to Holladay and US Patent Application Publication 2007/0299153 to Hager et al. (“Hager”), in view of US Patent Application Publication 2022/0289897 to Lewis et al. (“Lewis”).
Claim 6. The pad of claim 1, wherein the material is a non-viscoelastic foam (by definition a non-viscoelastic foam has a recovery rate of less than 3 seconds as discussed in paragraph [0175] of Lewis; Hager, Table 1B, teaches foam Examples 1, 4, and 5, which exhibit 95% height recovery in zero seconds and are therefore non-viscoelastic foams; note that Lewis has been cited herein, not to modify the teachings of Holladay or Hager, but to describe an inherent property of those teachings; see MPEP §2131.01(II)).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9,949,882 to Holladay and US Patent Application Publication 2007/0299153 to Hager et al. (“Hager”) in view of US Patent 9,161,876 to Pigazzi et al. (“Pigazzi”).
Claim 9. The pad of claim 1, wherein a static coefficient of friction of the material is 0.9 or greater (Holladay does not disclose specific material qualities, however various types of foam are known in the prior art, including foam with the claimed coefficient of friction; an instantaneous recovery rate, at taught by Pigazzi column 11, lines 36-37; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the claimed foam since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice; In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Claim 10. The pad of claim 9, wherein the static coefficient of the material is 1.0 or greater (Holladay does not disclose specific material qualities, however various types of foam are known in the prior art, including foam with the claimed coefficient of friction; an instantaneous recovery rate, at taught by Pigazzi column 11, lines 36-37; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the claimed foam since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice; In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Claim 11. The pad of claim 10, wherein the static coefficient of friction of the material is 1.1 or greater (see Pigazzi column 11, lines 36-37; Pigazzi discloses a coefficient of static friction of up to 1.0; however one of ordinary skill would have understood that a greater coefficient of friction would have been desirable in order to allow for a greater tilting angle as in Pigazzi Fig. 6, and therefore would have been motivated to select a known material with a coefficient of friction of 1.1 or greater).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9,949,882 to Holladay and US Patent Application Publication 2007/0299153 to Hager et al. (“Hager”), in view of US Patent Application Publication 2022/0000692 to Gomez.
Claim 19. The pad of claim 1, further comprising one or more arm tucking wings extending from the third edge or the fourth edge, wherein the one or more arm tucking wings are disposed closer to the first edge than to the second edge (Holladay and Hager do not disclose “arm tucking wings”, however such structures are well known in the prior art, as taught by Gomez in at least Fig. 1, at #313A, 313B, 325A, 325B; also see discussion in the Abstract; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wings for that apparatus of Holladay in order to secure the position of a user’s arms, since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9,949,882 to Holladay and US Patent Application Publication 2007/0299153 to Hager et al. (“Hager”), in view of US Patent 12,053,092 to Stewart, Jr. (“Stewart”).
Claim 20. A system comprising: a pad of claim 1; and a vacuum sealed package, wherein the pad is disposed within the vacuum sealed package, the pad being compressed by a negative pressure within the vacuum sealed package (Holladay and Hager do not disclose “a vacuum sealed package”, however vacuum sealed packages are known in the prior art, as taught by Stewart in at least the Abstract; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a vacuum-sealed package for that apparatus of Holladay for the reasons discussed by Stewart, those being “benefits for storing, shipping, and delivering the foundation”).
Response to Applicant's remarks and amendments
Applicant’s invention is directed toward an operating table cover having fast recovery foam. General structures of the instant invention are disclosed by US Patent 9,949,882 to Holladay (Applicant’s work, but available as prior art due to its disclosure date). The instant invention uses foam with different properties than is disclosed or claimed by the patent. Prior art teachings of Hager have been cited as teaching these foam materials. Applicant argues on pages 5-7 of remarks dated 4/9/2026 that the foams disclosed by Hager are not “non-viscoelastic” and that “Hager’s entire disclosure is directed exclusively to viscoelastic foams, not the non-viscoelastic foams required by claim 1.” However, this is not completely true. While the focus of Hager’s effort is to improve the properties of viscoelastic foams, the pertinent question is not Hager’s focus of research, but rather, do foams with Applicant’s claimed properties exist in the prior art; and the answer is that they do. Hager is interested in viscoelastic foams, but this does not mean that non-viscoelastic foams do not exist. To the contrary, Hager cites numerous examples of foams with varying properties, some of which can be considered viscoelastic, and some of which can be considered to be non-viscoelastic. The definition commonly used in the industry (which is described by Lewis in paragraph [0175]) is that a non-viscoelastic foam has a recovery rate of less than 3 seconds as defined by the test procedure for 95% height recovery time in ASTM D3574-17. Applicant also cites this test procedure in paragraph [0037] of his disclosure and further states in paragraph [0005], that Applicant considers a “non-viscoelastic” foam to be a “resiliently deformable material having a rate of recovery of 2.0 seconds or less”. The cited foams of Hager have an instantaneous recovery rate (effectively zero seconds).
Applicant further attempts to argue against the cited foam of Hager being non-viscoelastic because they allegedly “have resilience values of only 3-4%”. While this may be true, this is not the definition of a viscoelastic foam. A resilience value as measured by the ball rebound test procedure of ASTM 3574-03 is a measure of how high a ball will bounce from the surface of a foam sample. It is not a measure of the slow recovery properties of foam, but rather a measure of the energy absorption capability of the material. This test is sometimes used to corroborate other material properties in classifying foam as viscoelastic or non-viscoelastic. Moreover, large differences in foam samples can be seen in Table 1B of Hager. Samples 1-5 have relatively low resilience % (as has been highlighted by Applicant), when compared to samples 6-10. Table 1B also shows 70% Force Recovery Time, with samples 6-10 having a recovery time of between 94 seconds and greater than 300 seconds. Samples 1-5 have a much lower recovery time. Note that the 95% height recovery time is the pertinent measure to define viscoelastic foams but that trends can be more clearly seen in the 70% force recovery time test of the foams presented by Hager.
More important however, than the definition of the qualitative term “non-viscoelastic”, is that the quantitative material properties of the prior art foams are the same as those of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Applicant additionally argues that Holladay also teaches only viscoelastic foams. Examiner agrees, however the rejection is not based on Halladay alone but on the apparatus of Halladay as modified to use a different type of prior art foam as an obvious matter of material choice.
High resilience foams are known in the prior art. Applicant’s remarks dated 12/12/2025 (at least page 5) make clear that Applicant is aware that high resilience foams exist in the prior art and that Applicant is not purporting to have invented these types of foams. In the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Holladay to exchange the viscoelastic foam of Holladay with prior art non-viscoelastic foam as an obvious matter of design choice and material choice, and additionally because there is no unexpected result from the combination.
Additional prior art cited but not relied upon
US Patent Application Publication 2018/0265622 to Roh et al. teaches High-Resiliency Polyurethane Foam. Roh teaches in paragraph [0005] that “HR polyurethane foam has a very fast recovery and bounces back to its original shape immediately after compression,” which reads on Applicant’s “active response polyurethane having the instantaneous rate of recovery.”
US Patent Application Publication 2025/0320339 to Adkins et al. reiterates that the industry standard definition of viscoelastic is “a ‘viscoelastic’ foam is a foam that exhibits a recovery rate of at least 3 seconds, wherein ‘recovery rate’ refers to the 95% height recovery time as described in ASTM D 3571-11 Test M.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Troutman can be reached on 571-270-3654. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MYLES A THROOP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights