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) 1-25 and 27-34 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4-6, 11 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the air inlet opening is one of one to three air inlet openings” – it is unclear how a singular opening (claim 1) can now be “one to three”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the air outlet opening is one of one to five air outlet openings” – it is unclear how a singular opening (claim 1) can now be “one to five”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the upper layer is airtight”. However, claim 1 recites that the upper layer is fluid-permeable – it is unclear how a layer can both be “airtight” and fluid-permeable, i.e. a layer allowing fluids to pass through necessitates that the layer is not air-impermeable (“airtight”).
Claim 11 recites “the entire air stream”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 recites “wherein the textile sheet comprises plastic surfaces”. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-7, 11-12, 17-20, 27-28 and 32-34 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 2017/0049645) in view of Chambers (US 2006/0080778). William et al. disclose a blanket for controlling the temperature of living beings, the blanket comprising: an upper layer (56) to face a living being, a lower layer (60) opposite the upper layer, an air-permeable intermediate layer (58) arranged between the upper layer and the lower layer, and an air inlet opening (54) with a connection for receiving a supply of air into a region of the intermediate layer, and an air outlet opening (68) in an edge region of the blanket remote from the air inlet opening, wherein the blanket is configured such that at least 70% of the air supplied via the air inlet opening escapes from the blanket through the air outlet opening (0049), and wherein the upper layer is liquid-permeable and the lower layer is airtight and liquid-impermeable. While William et al. do not explicitly disclose that intermediate layer is an elastic layer, such construction is well-known in the art. Nonetheless, Chambers teaches a pad with an intermediate elastic layer (0006, 0025-0026, 0044-0045). Williams et al. and Chambers are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. cushions/pads. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify Williams’ intermediate layer as taught by Chambers since the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within an ordinary level of skill in the art. The motivation would have been to provide a more comfortable pad. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Williams et al. as specified in claim 1.
With regards to claim 2, the air inlet opening and the air outlet opening are arranged in opposite edge regions of the blanket (Chambers: 0050).
Regarding claim 3, at least 90% of the air stream supplied via the air inlet opening escapes from the air outlet opening (Williams: 0049).
With regards to claim 4, the air inlet opening is one of one to three air inlet openings.
In regards to claim 5, the air outlet opening is one of one to five air outlet openings.
Regarding claim 6, the upper layer is airtight (Williams: 0049).
In regards to claim 7, the upper layer has a ply comprising a textile sheet (Williams: 0049).
With regards to claim 11, the entire air stream supplied via the air inlet opening escapes from the blanket through the air outlet opening (Williams: 0049).
Regarding claim 12, William et al. teach that the outlet vent may be located at other positions (Williams: 0046). It would have been obvious to form the air outlet opening in the lower layer since it has been held that rearrangement of parts involves routing skill in the art. The motivation would have been to hide the outlet opening.
In regards to claim 17, the intermediate layer has a knitted or woven spacer fabric, the spacer fabric including stiff yet flexible threads arranged between two layers (Chambers: 0025-0026, 0044-0045).
With regards to claim 18, the intermediate layer is multilayered (Chambers: 0025-0026, 0044-0045).
In regards to claim 19, a largest longitudinal extent measured parallel to the living being to be laid on the blanket has a middle region having a length extending over at least 70% of an entire longitudinal extent of the blanket, and the middle region of the blanket has no air outlet openings or only air outlet openings smaller in size than air outlet openings outside the middle region (Williams: 0049).
With regards to claim 20, Williams et al. teach a device (Williams: 26, 182) for supplying warm air to the blanket, the device to be connected to detachable connection at the air inlet opening.
In regards to claim 27, Williams et al. teach that the upper layer is a plastic film or coated textile sheet (Williams: 0049). While Williams et al. don’t explicitly disclose the material of the lower layer, such construction (plastic film or coated textile sheet) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it has been held to be within an the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. The motivation would have been to provide a sufficient liquid impermeable layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Williams et al. as specified in claim 27.
With regards to claim 28, the textile sheet comprises plastic surfaces (Williams: 0049). Additionally, Chambers teaches a layer with plastic surfaces (0032). Nonetheless, such construction (textile sheet with plastic surfaces) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it has been held to be within an the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. The motivation would have been to provide a comfortable upper layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Williams et al. as specified in claim 28.
In regards to claim 32, the two layers of the intermediate layer are textile layers (Chambers: 0025-0026, 0044-0045).
Regarding claim 33, the intermediate layer has two different knitted or woven spacer fabrics lying loosely one on top of the other (Chambers: 0025-0026, 0045-0046).
In regards to claim 34, the device is a heater fan connected to the detachable connection via flexible pipe (Williams: 0047, 0064).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 2017/0049645) in view of Chambers (US 2006/0080778), and in further view Love et al. (US 2012/0053545). Williams et al. teach the invention of claim 1, but not explicitly teach wherein the upper layer has a ply comprising of a textile sheet, and wherein the areal weight of the textile sheet is in a range of 90 g/m2 and 130 g/m2. Love et al. teach a pad comprising an upper textile layer, wherein the areal weight of the textile sheet is in a rage of 90 g/m2 and 130 g/m2 (0014-0045, 0022, 0036). Williams et al. and Love et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. cushions/pads. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the upper layer of Williams et al. as taught by Love et al. Primarily, the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within an ordinary level of skill in the art. Nonetheless, the motivation would have been to provide a more comfortable pad. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Williams et al. as specified in claims 7 and 9.
Claim(s) 8 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 2017/0049645) in view of Chambers (US 2006/0080778) and Love et al. (US 2012/0053545), and in further view of Moutafis (US 20160058641). Williams et al. teach the invention of claim 7, but do not teach wherein the textile sheet comprises polyester in a proportion of over 90% and/or carbon fibers of under 5%. Primarily, the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within an ordinary level of skill in the art. Nonetheless, Moutafis teaches a pad comprising a textile sheet comprising polyester and/or carbon fibers (0021). Williams et al. and Moutafis are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, cushions/pads. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Williams et al. (as modified) as taught by Moutafis. The motivation would have been to provide a more comfortable pad. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Williams et al. (as modified) as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 29, the textile sheet comprises polyester in a proportion of over 90% and/or carbon fibers in proportion of under 5% (Moutafis: 0021)
Claim(s) 10 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 2017/0049645) in view of Chambers (US 2006/0080778) and Love et al. (US 2012/0053545), and in further view of Scales (US 4504990). Williams et al. as modified, teaches the invention of claim 7. However, Williams et al. as modified do not teach wherein the fineness of the threads of the textile sheet is in a range between 90 dtex and 120 dtex. Scales et a pad comprising a textile layer comprising threads with a fineness between 90 dtex and 120 dtex (col. 3, lines 50-65). Williams et al. and Scales are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. cushions/pads. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Williams et al. (as modified) as taught by Scales. Primarily, the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within an ordinary level of skill in the art. Nonetheless, the motivation would have been to provide a more comfortable pad. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Williams et al. (as modified) as specified in claims 10 and 30.
Claim(s) 13, 21 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 2017/0049645) in view of Chambers (US 2006/0080778) and in further view of Cole (US 8745784). Williams et al. as modified teaches the invention of claim 1. However, Williams et al. as modified does not teach wherein the outlet opening is a circular recess. Cole teaches a cushion wherein the outlet opening is a circular recess in the lower or the upper layer (figure 2a: 32a, 32b). Williams et al. and Cole are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. cushions/pads. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Williams et al. (as modified) as taught by Cole. The motivation would have been to provide a means to connect a standard tube/hose to the outlet opening of the cushion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Williams et al. (as modified) as specified in claims 13 and 31.
With regards to claim 21, Cole teaches wherein the air outlet opening has a detachable connection for allowing connection of an air discharge pipe (Cole: col. 7, lines 42-44). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Williams et al. (as modified) as taught by Cole. The motivation would have been to provide a means to control/direct the exhaust/discharge from the cushion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Williams et al. (as modified) as specified in claim 21.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 2017/0049645) in view of Chambers (US 2006/0080778) and in further view of Dee (US 3740777). Williams et al. as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1. However, Williams et al. do not teach wherein the outlet opening has a filter or sieve. Dee teaches a cushion comprising an air outlet opening with a filter or sieve configured to keep contamination inside the blanket and/or to restrict air escape through the air outlet opening (col. 3, lines 39-48). Williams et al. and Dee are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. cushions/pads. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Williams et al. (as modified) as taught by Dee. The motivation would have been to provide a clean and sterile environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Williams et al. (as modified) as specified in claim 14.
With regards to claim 15, the filter or the sieve comprises a net-like textile sheet different from the textile sheets of the upper layer and the lower layer (Dee: col. 3, lines 39-48).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 2017/0049645) in view of Chambers (US 2006/0080778) and in further view of DeFranks (US 20190174930). Williams et al. (as modified) teaches the invention of claim 1. However, Williams et al. as modified do not teach wherein the air outlet opening is arranged in an outlet valve. DeFranks teaches a cushion comprising an air outlet opening arranged in an outlet valve configured to shut off or adjust a flow through the air outlet opening (0036). Williams et al. and DeFranks are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. pads/cushions. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention to Williams et al. (as modified) as taught by DeFranks. The motivation would have been to permit selective deflation of the cushion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Williams et al. (as modified) as specified in claim 16.
Claim(s) 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 2017/0049645) in view of Chambers (US 2006/0080778) and in further view of Rosenberg et al. (US 3017642). Williams et al. as modified teaches a device for stabilizing and/or immobilizing a living being, the device comprising the blanket according to claim 1. However, Williams et al. as modified do not teach a cushion containing a granulate. Rosenberg et al. teach a cushion containing a granulate (35) tightly packed to stiffen the cushion after evacuation of air from the cushion, the granulate being in an inner space of the cushion to be evacuated via a valve (17). Williams et al. and Rosenberg et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. cushions/pads. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Williams et al. as modified (e.g. 22). The motivation would have been to adjust the cushion’s firmness based on a user’s preference. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Williams et al. (as modified) as specified in claim 22.
In regards to claim 23, Williams et al. as modified teaches a granulate (Rosenberg: 35). However, Williams et al. do not teach a plug. Chambers teaches a plug (40, 42, 46) having two textile sheets connected to one another by a plurality of threads. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Chamber’s plug with the invention to Williams et al. as modified (i.e. the cushion of Rosenberg). The motivation would have been to maintain an even spread of the granulate within the cushion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Williams et al. as specified in claim 23.
In regards to claim 24, the plug is a knitted or a woven spacer fabric (Chambers: 0044)
With regards to claim 25, the cushion and the blanket lie one on top of the other, the blanket to be arranged between the cushion and the living being (Williams: figure 1).
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 JONATHAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8227. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thurs, 6-6.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/JONATHAN LIU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights