DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 9/13/23. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 300 and 400.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Alternatively, Applicant may amend the specification to include the missing reference numbers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 5,463,785 to McKeel.
Claim 1. A mattress pad (McKeel, Fig. 1) comprising: a mattress body (McKeel, Fig. 2, #10); and channels (McKeel, Fig. 1, #20 and 22; Examiner notes that Applicant’s “channels” #200 appear to be holes or apertures rather than long structures as would typically be understood as channels; in an alternative interpretation in which the channels are shaped as holes, McKeel also discloses air holes at #24) disposed within the mattress body, wherein the channels are configured to redirect fluid away from one or more breathing regions at or above the mattress pad (McKeel discusses this functionality in at least the Abstract).
Claim 2. The mattress pad of claim 1, wherein each channel has a generally streamlined curvature profile (a “generally streamlined curvature profile” has been interpreted as a curved edge as shown in Applicant’s Figs. 4-8 at #306, see McKeel Fig. 3 #28).
Claim 3. The mattress pad of claim 2, wherein the generally streamlined curvature profile is characterized by at least one curvilinear function selected from the group consisting of: a parabolic function, a hemispheric function, a polynomial function, a hyperbolic function, an elliptical function, a sinusoidal function, and any combinations thereof (for any curve that is not discontinuous, there exists a mathematical expression for that curve, therefore it is inherent that the shape of the pad of McKeel can be described by a mathematical function).
Claim 4. The mattress pad of claim 2, wherein the streamlined curvature profile is biased towards a top or a bottom surface of the mattress body (Applicant’s specification does not provide a special definition of the term “biased”; for purposes of examination, “biased toward a top or bottom surface” has been interpreted to mean that there are portions of the mattress body that are thinner than other portions, and the thicker portions are therefore “biased” toward the thinner portions; see McKeel Fig. 3).
Claim 5. The mattress pad of claim 1, further comprising one or more permeable or semi-permeable fabrics disposed within the channels to separate an infant from the redirected fluid (McKeel discloses prior art knowledge of a cloth material in column 1, lines 19-21; cloth is considered to be a semi-permeable material; additionally, McKeel discloses “a plurality of air holes”, which are additionally considered to be permeable).
Claim 6. The mattress pad of claim 1, wherein the channels comprise at least twelve channels (McKeel, Fig. 1, #20 and 22 discloses more than 12 channels; alternatively there are more than 12 air holes, #24)
Claim 7. The mattress pad of claim 1, wherein the channels comprise at least nine channels (McKeel, Fig. 1, #20 and 22 discloses more than 9 channels; alternatively there are more than 9 air holes, #24).
Claim 8. The mattress pad of claim 7, wherein the channels are arranged in a grid, each channel spaced apart by a distance of at least 2" (5.08 cm) (see McKeel, Fig. 1, #20 and 22, and/or 24; regarding the claimed spacing, McKeel discloses that the mattress pad is intended for use in a baby crib; one of ordinary skill would understand that the pad of McKeel would be larger than 6 inches wide; moreover, changes in size are generally considered obvious and it would have been obvious to provide the mattress pad of McKeel with any desired size; see MPEP§ 2144.04)
Claim 9. The mattress pad of claim 1, wherein the mattress body comprises a compressible foam (McKeel, column 2, line 14 discloses the use of foam).
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 10-11, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,463,785 to McKeel, in view of US Patent 5,012,540 to Hockaday.
Claim 10. A system (McKeel, Fig. 1) comprising: a tub (McKeel discloses a mattress pad that is intended to allow for fluids to drain through the pad, but McKeel does not address what happens to the fluids after passing through the pad; Hockaday teaches a similar protective device for draining fluids, and teaches the use of perimeter walls #18 in Fig. 5 “to further contain liquid discharge within the layer 15b and contain the discharge therewithin”; 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 the mattress pad of McKeel with the walls of Hockaday in order to contain any liquid that drains through the mattress pad); and a mattress pad (McKeel, Fig. 2, #10) comprising a mattress body (McKeel, Fig. 2, #10) and channels (McKeel, Fig. 1, #20 and 22; Examiner notes that Applicant’s “channels” #200 appear to be holes or apertures rather than long structures as would typically be understood as channels; in an alternative interpretation in which the channels are shaped as holes, McKeel also discloses air holes at #24) disposed within the mattress body, wherein the channels are configured to redirect fluid away from one or more breathing regions of the mattress pad (McKeel discusses this functionality in at least the Abstract).
Claim 11. The system of claim 10, wherein the tub comprises a plurality of spires (the portions of the thicker mat located between channels #20 and 22 are considered to be spires)
Claim 16. The system of claim 11 wherein one or more of the spires have either a cylindrical or a cuboid profile (the spires of McKeel have a cuboid profile as seen in Fig. 4).
Claim 20. The system of claim 10, wherein the system is configured to redirect the fluid away from the breathing regions at a rate of at least 0.1 gallons (379 milliliters) per minute (the apparatus of McKeel is capable of redirecting fluid at a rate of at least 0.1 gallons per minute; moreover, Applicant has not disclosed any calculation of maximum fluid flow, and to the degree that Applicant’s invention is capable of the claimed rate of discharge, so is the apparatus of McKeel, which comprises the same structures as Applicant’s invention; moreover, in a steady state the discharge of fluid from the pad of McKeel is equal to the amount of fluid that falls upon the pad regardless if that amount is 0.1 gallons per minute or 1000 gallons per minute).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,463,785 to McKeel and US Patent 5,012,540 to Hockaday, in view of US Patent 4,999,868 to Kraft.
Claim 11. The system of claim 10, wherein the tub comprises a plurality of spires (McKeel does not explicitly disclose “spires”; however, egg crate type mattress pads are well known in the prior art, at least as taught by Kraft Figs. 1-7; 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 an egg crate shape of mattress pad for the pad of McKeel in order to optimize a user’s comfort, and since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results).
Claim 12. The system of claim 11, wherein the plurality of spires is configured to support the weight of at least the mattress pad and an infant disposed on the mattress pad (see McKeel Fig. 1).
Claim 13. The system of claim 12, wherein the system is further configured to redirect the fluid to one or more regions disposed between the plurality of spires (it is inherent that fluid draining on a convoluted surface, such as taught by Kraft, would drain to the lowest portion, see valleys #23 in Kraft Fig. 3).
Claim 14. The system of claim 11, wherein the plurality of spires is arranged in a grid, each spire spaced apart by at least 0.1" (0.25 cm) (Kraft teaches varying the size of protrusions in column 4, lines 25-38; 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 spires that are spaced apart by at least 0.1” in order to provide the desired amount of firmness).
Claim 15. The system of claim 11, wherein one or more of the spires have a frustoconical profile (Kraft teaches in claim 6 that spires may be of a truncated, conical shape, otherwise known as frustoconical).
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,463,785 to McKeel and US Patent 5,012,540 to Hockaday, in view of US Patent Application Publication 2005/0060809 to Rogers.
Claim 17. The system of claim 10, wherein an opening of each channel is narrower at a top surface of the mattress pad than at a lower surface of the mattress pad (McKeel does not teach channels as claimed, however an inverted triangle shape is known in the prior art of foam mattresses as taught by Rogers in at least Fig. 4; 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 the undercut shape channel disclosed by Rogers in order to provide a reduced force on a user’s body as discussed in Rogers paragraph [0057]).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,463,785 to McKeel and US Patent 5,012,540 to Hockaday, in view of US Patent 5,675,854 to Zibelin.
Claim 18. The system of claim 10, wherein an opening of each channel is narrower at a bottom surface of the mattress pad than at a top surface of the mattress pad (see Zebelin Fig. 2, wherein channel 24 is narrower at the bottom of the channel than at the top of the channel; 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 V-shaped channels on the apparatus of McKeel in order to facilitate directing the drainage of liquids).
Claim 19. The system of claim 10, wherein the tub comprises one or more trenches configured to receive the redirected fluid (Hockaday does not disclose trenches in the perimeter walls #18 in Fig. 5, however, as the stated purpose of these walls of Hockaday is “to further contain liquid discharge within the layer 15b and contain the discharge therewithin,” 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 the tub of Hockaday with collection trenches as taught by Hockaday in Figs. 1-2, since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results, and doing so would improve the effectiveness of containing and collecting fluid discharge).
Conclusion
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, Justin 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.
/MYLES A THROOP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673