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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 6, 19, and 22, cancellation of claim 7, and the addition of claim 25 filed 09/04/2026 is acknowledged by the examiner.
Claims 1-2, 10, and 13 remain cancelled.
Claims 3-6, 8-9, 11-12, and 14-25 are currently pending and are under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument: Applicant respectfully submits that the asserted prior art does not render obvious at least the features of amended independent claim 19. Pigazzi is silent regarding how the pad would degrade over time or be disposed of following the medical procedure. In particular, Pigazzi is silent about a pad comprising a biodegradable viscoelastic foam that is configured to partially or completely degrade through chemical reactions and/or by action of living organisms into one or more simple carbohydrates, complex carbohydrates, water, carbon dioxide, or biomass over a period of days, weeks, months, or years. The office action cites Robinson as teaching an analogous viscoelastic foam. Robinson, however, does not teach or suggest that the poly-ester-based polyurethane foam is viscoelastic. Robinson is also silent about whether such poly-ester-based polyurethane foam can be configured to support the torso of the patient on a tiltable operating table as in the claimed invention. Therefore, a person skilled in the art would have no reason to believe that Robinson’s poly-ester-based polyurethane foam would be capable of “forming a depression…under the patient that is a sufficient shape and depth to limit movement of the patient relative to the pad during the medical procedure” and with a “second surface of the pad remaining stationary against the surface of the tiltable medical procedure table due to friction of the foam pad and with the patient remaining in position within the depression formed in the foam pad,” as in amended independent claim 19. Further still, Robinson’s disclosure would not lead a person skilled in the art to believe that Pigazzi’s pad could be modified to “partially or completely degrade through chemical reactions and/or by action of living organisms into one or more of simple carbohydrates, complex carbohydrates, water, carbon dioxide, or biomass over a period of days, weeks, months, or years,” or that Pigazzi’s pad could be made to be disposed of in a “biologically active landfill,” while maintaining the structural integrity required to support a patient on an operating table. As such, the combination of Pigazzi and Robinson does not render obvious these features of the current claims.
Examiner’s response: In light of the amendments to the claims, the office action has been updated. Further, Pigazzi, the primary reference, still reads on the amended claims, as Pigazzi already discloses forming a depression on the first surface of the pad and under that patient that is sufficient shape and depth to limit movement of the patient relative to the pad during the medical procedure, and with the second surface of the pad remaining stationary…within the depression formed in the foam pad. See updated office action below. Therefore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a second reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Since the primary reference of Pigazzi already discloses the amended portions of claim 19, Robinson is only used as a teaching reference to teach a biodegradable viscoelastic foam that is configured to partially or completely degrade through chemical reactions and/or by action of living organisms into one or more simple carbohydrates, complex carbohydrates, water, carbon dioxide, or biomass over a period of days, weeks, months or years. Therefore, there is a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON, as modifying the pad of Pigazzi to be biodegradable leads to a more sustainable product that reduces waste as stated in the office action.
Applicant’s argument: While Curtiss discloses that the apparatus (200) can be “discarded to a landfill,” there is no teaching or suggestion in Curtiss that would cause on skilled in the art to modify Pigazzi to include biodegradable foam and/or foam that can be discarded in a landfill. In particular, a persion skilled in the art would have no reason to believe that Curtiss’s padding, which is disclosed to be soft and pliable, would be capable of forming depressions of “a sufficient shape and depth to limit movement of the patient” and that could remain stationary against a table or surface as in the claimed invention. As such, a person skilled in the art would not replace or modify Pigazzi’s foam pad to include Curtiss’s “pliable polymeric foam” and would have no reason to believe that Pigazzi’s foam could be configured for disposal in a landfill, as required by the current claims.
Examiner’s response: In light of the amendments to the claims, the office action has been updated. Further, Pigazzi, the primary reference, still reads on the amended claims, as Pigazzi already discloses forming a depression on the first surface of the pad and under that patient that is sufficient shape and depth to limit movement of the patient relative to the pad during the medical procedure, and with the second surface of the pad remaining stationary…within the depression formed in the foam pad. See updated office action below. Therefore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a second reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Since the primary reference of Pigazzi already discloses the amended portions of claim 19, Curtiss is only disclosed a teaching reference to teach discarding the patient support device to a landfill. The foam pad of Pigazzi is not being modified to include Curtiss’s pliable polymeric foam. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine the references such that the foam pad of Pigazzi is discared to a landfill would be to lessen the environment impacts as stated in the office action, which is found in Curtiss and is also knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, as Pigazzi already states that the foam pad of Pigazzi is a disposable pad or single-use pad, see Col. 3 lines 55-57 of Pigazzi, meaning it is discarded.
Applicant’s argument: Gao does not cure the deficiencies of Robinson and Curtiss discussed hereinabove because Gao provides no teaching or suggestion that would lead one skilled in the art to understand that viscoelastic and biodegradable foam could be made to form depressions and remain stationary against a surface or table as required by amended independent claim 19. Instead, Gao merely teaches that padded envelopes can comprise foam that can be discarded in a biologically active landfill. However, the person skilled in the art would have no reason to believe that Gao’s foam or padding, which is used for packaging and envelopes, would be capable of forming the depressions to limit movement of the patient’s torso and to remain stationary against a surface, as in the claimed invention.
Examiner’s response: In light of the amendments to the claims, the office action has been updated. Further, Pigazzi, the primary reference, still reads on the amended claims, as Pigazzi already discloses forming a depression on the first surface of the pad and under that patient that is sufficient shape and depth to limit movement of the patient relative to the pad during the medical procedure, and with the second surface of the pad remaining stationary…within the depression formed in the foam pad. See updated office action below. Therefore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a second reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Since the primary reference of Pigazzi already discloses the amended portions of claim 19, Gao is disclosed as a teaching reference to teach a foam material to be discarded to a biologically active landfill to encourage degradation of biodegradable viscoelastic foam. Gao does not need to disclose that the foam forms depressions and remains stationary against a surface or table.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 19, “the foam pad” in line 21 should be recited as “the pad”.
Regarding claim 19, “the foam pad” in line 20 should be recited as “the pad”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 19, 3, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 17-18, 20-21, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigazzi et al. (referred to as “Pigazzi”) (US 8,511,314 B2) in view of ROBINSON et al. (referred to as “ROBINSON”) (US 2022/0098571 A1) in view of Curtiss (US 5,778,887) further in view of Gao et al. (referred to as “Gao”) (US 2024/0117138 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Pigazzi discloses method of positioning a patient (128) on a tiltable medical procedure table (120) during a medical procedure (see Abstract, and Figs. 1-2 and 4-6; a method of positioning a patient 128 on operating table 120 which is tiltable as the operating table 120 may be positioned in the Trendelenburg position, as seen in Fig. 6, during a medical procedure), the method comprising:
providing a patient support device (102) configured to be used for a single medical procedure (see Figs. 1-2 and 4-6, and Col. 3 lines 55-57; the Trendelenburg pad 102 is a patient support device and is configured to be used for a single medical procedure as it is a single-use pad), the patient support device comprising: a pad (102) comprising a viscoelastic foam (see Figs. 1-2 and 4-6, and Col. 1 lines 65-67, and Col. 4 lines 65-67; Trendelenburg pad 102 comprises viscoelastic foam), the pad (102) further comprising a first surface with a coefficient of friction of 0.2 to 2.5 configured to be in contact with the patient (see Fig. 1 which shows a top view of the Trendelenburg pad 102, and thus the top view shows a first surface configured to be in contact with the patient, also see Figs. 4-7, and see Col. 2 lines 58-61 and Col. 5 lines 11-14 which discusses how the pad has a coefficient of friction of 0.2 to 1.0, which is within the claimed range), an opposing second surface with a coefficient of friction of 0.2 to 2.5 configured to contact the tiltable medical procedure table (120) for holding the patient support device (102) in position against the tiltable medical procedure table (120) (see Fig. 2 which shows a bottom view of the Trendelenburg pad 102 and thus the bottom view shows an opposing second surface which is configured to contact the operating table 120 for holding the Trendelenburg pad 102 in position against the operating table 120, which is tiltable as seen in Fig. 6, also see Figs. 4-7, and see Col. 2 lines 58-61 which discusses how the pad has a coefficient of friction of 0.2 to 1.0, which is within the claimed range), and a peripheral edge extending therebetween (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Pigazzi; a peripheral edge is labeled and extends between the first surface and second surface);
positioning the patient support device on the tiltable medical procedure table (120) (see Figs. 4 and 6 and Col. 4 lines 13-40 which discusses positioning the Trendelenburg pad 102 on operating table 120 which is tiltable as the operating table may be placed in the Trendelenburg position as seen in Fig. 6), such that the opposing second surface of the pad (102) contacts a surface of the tiltable medical procedure table (120) (see Figs. 1-2 and 4-7; the second surface or back side of Trendelenburg pad 102, which is shown in Fig. 2, contacts a surface of the operating table 120 as best seen in Fig. 6);
positioning a torso of the patient (128) on the first surface of the pad (102), thereby forming a depression (103) on the first surface of the pad (102) and under the patient (128) that is sufficient shape and depth to limit movement of the patient (128) relative to the pad (102) during the medical procedure (see Figs. 1-2 and 4-7; a torso of patient 128 is positioned on the first surface or front surface of the Trendelenburg pad 102, which is best seen in Figs. 6-7, also see Col. 4 lines 28-31 and Col. 4 lines 41-46, thereby forming a depression 103 on the first surface or front surface of the Trendelenburg pad 102 and under the patient, as best seen in Figs. 5-7, that is a sufficient shape and depth to limit movement of the patient relative to the Trendelenburg pad 102 during the medical procedure as the impression may provide the primary holding for holding a person on the operating table depending on the angle of the patient on the table/Trendelenburg pad 102 and helping to hold the patient on the operating table, also see Col. 4 lines 64-67 et seq. Col. 5 lines 1-2, and Col. 5 lines 46-53, also see claim 6); and
tilting the tiltable medical procedure table (120) to position the torso of the patient (128) at an angle suitable for performing the medical procedure (see Figs. 1-2 and 4-7 and Col. 4 lines 13-40 which discusses tilting the operating table 120 to the Trendelenburg position to position the torso of the patient 128 at an angle suitable for performing the medical procedure), with the second surface of the pad (102) remaining stationary against the surface of the tiltable medical procedure table (120) due to friction of the foam pad (102) and with the patient (128) remaining in position within the depression (103) formed in the foam pad (102) (see Figs. 5-7 and Col. 5 lines 3-10; the second surface or bottom surface of the Trendelenburg pad 102 remains stationary against the surface of the operating table 120 partly due to friction of the Trendelenburg pad 102 and with the patient remaining in position within the impressions 103 formed in the Trendelenburg pad 102, also see claim 6).
Pigazzi is silent on the viscoelastic foam being biodegradable, and wherein the biodegradable viscoelastic foam is configured to partially or completely degrade through chemical reactions and/or by action of living organisms into one or more of simple carbohydrates, complex carbohydrates, water, carbon dioxide, or biomass over a period of days, weeks, months, or years; and following completion of the medical procedure, discarding the patient support device to a biologically active landfill to encourage degradation of the biodegradable viscoelastic foam.
However, ROBINSON teaches an analogous viscoelastic foam (see Abstract, [0001], and [0004], which discusses a polyurethane (PU) foam, which is a viscoelastic foam, as disclosed in Applicant’s specification, see [0049] of Applicant’s specification), and the viscoelastic foam is biodegradable (see Abstract and [0001] and [0004]; the polyurethane foam is manufactured to be biodegradable), wherein the biodegradable viscoelastic foam is configured to partially or completely degrade through chemical reactions and/or by action of living organisms into one or more of simple carbohydrates, complex carbohydrates, water, carbon dioxide, or biomass over a period of days, weeks, months, or years (see [0005]-[0007] and [0046]-[0047] which discusses how the biodegradable foam material is configured to partially or completely degrade by action of living organisms such as soil-dwelling carbon-digesting bacteria such as Bacillus, which is a microbe or living organism, and then water, carbon dioxide, and biomass are the final products of deterioration or degradation of the biodegradable foam, and the biodegradable foam material may degrade over a period of years, also see [0074] which discusses how the rate of biodegradation can be controlled depending on the use of the final foam product and the concentration of bacteria in the foam), providing to be able to control the rate of biodegradation(see [0074]) and provide a more sustainable device that reduces waste.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pad (102) comprising viscoelastic foam in the device of Pigazzi to be a biodegradable viscoelastic foam that is configured to partially or completely degrade by action of living organisms into one or more of water, carbon dioxide, or biomass over a period of days, weeks, months, or years as taught by ROBINSON to have provided an improved patient support device that is able to control the rate of biodegradation (see [0074]) and provide a more sustainable device that reduces waste.
Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON discloses the invention as discussed above.
Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON is silent on following completion of the medical procedure, discarding the patient support device to a biologically active landfill to encourage degradation of the biodegradable viscoelastic foam.
However, Curtiss teaches an analogous patient support device (200) (see Fig. 6 and apparatus 200 is a patient support device, see Col. 1 lines 10-13), and following completion of the medical procedure, discarding the patient support device (200) to a landfill to encourage degradation of the biodegradable viscoelastic foam (see Col. 1 lines 62-65 and Col. 3 lines 45-48 which discusses how the apparatus 200 is for use following completion of a medical procedure, as the apparatus 200 is used post-operatively, and thus following completion of the medical procedure, apparatus 200 is discarded to a landfill, see Col. 2 lines 30-33, Col. 6 lines 12-14, Col. 6 lines 26-36), providing the apparatus to be discarded in landfills without significant environmental impact (see Col. 2 lines 30-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON to include following completion of the medical procedure, discarding the patient support device to a landfill as taught by Curtiss to have provided an improved method that provides the apparatus to be discarded in landfills without significant environmental impact (see Col. 2 lines 30-33).
Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON further in view of Curtiss discloses the invention as discussed above.
Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON further in view of Curtiss is silent on the landfill being a biologically active landfill to encourage degradation of the biodegradable viscoelastic foam.
However, Gao teaches an analogous biodegradable viscoelastic foam (see Abstract and [0069] which discusses how the foamed composition includes polyurethane and thus is a viscoelastic foam, and is biodegradable, see [0054], [0059]), and discarding to a biologically active landfill to encourage degradation of the biodegradable viscoelastic foam (see [0054], [0059] which discusses how the foamed composition ma be biodegradable, which means the foamed composition may be discarded to a biologically active landfill to encourage degradation of the biodegradable viscoelastic foam, see [0019]), providing to accelerate the degradation of the biodegradable materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the landfill in the method of Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON further in view of Curtiss to be a biologically active landfill to encourage degradation of the biodegradable viscoelastic foam as taught by Gao to have provided an improved method that accelerates degradation of the biodegradable materials.
Regarding claim 3, Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao discloses the method as discussed in claim 19. Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao further discloses wherein the biodegradable viscoelastic foam of the pad (102 of Pigazzi) is configured to partially or completely degrade by action of microbes over a period of days, weeks, months or years (as previously modified above, see claim 19, the biodegradable viscoelastic foam of the pad 102 of Pigazzi is configured to partially or completely degrade by action of microbes over a period of years, see [0005]-[0007] and [0046]-[0047] of ROBINSON, also see [0074] which discusses how the rate of biodegradation can be controlled depending on the use of the final foam product and the concentration of bacteria in the foam).
Regarding claim 5, Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao discloses the method as discussed in claim 3. Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao further discloses wherein the biodegradable viscoelastic foam degrades into water, carbon dioxide, and biomass (as previously modified above, see claim 19, water, carbon dioxide, and biomass are the final products of deterioration or degradation of the viscoelastic biodegradable foam, see [0047] of ROBINSON).
Regarding claim 6, Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao discloses the method as discussed in claim 19. Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao further discloses wherein the patient support device further comprises at least one strap (104 of Pigazzi) comprising a first portion (112 of Pigazzi) connected to the pad (102 of Pigazzi) (see Figs. 1-3B of Pigazzi; fasteners 104 of Pigazzi are straps and the fasteners 104 of Pigazzi comprise a central portion 112 of Pigazzi, which is connected to the Trendelenburg pad 102 of Pigazzi, see Col. 3 lines 58-61 of Pigazzi) and a second portion (106,108 of Pigazzi) configured to be connected to the tiltable medical procedure table (120 of Pigazzi) for securing the patient support device to the tiltable medical procedure table (120 of Pigazzi) (see Figs. 1-3B and 6 of Pigazzi; hook portion 108 and loop portion 106 of Pigazzi are second portions of fasteners 104 of Pigazzi which are configured to be connected to the operating table 120 of Pigazzi for securing the Trendelenburg pad 102 of Pigazzi to the operating table 120 of Pigazzi, as seen in Fig. 6 of Pigazzi, also see Col. 3 lines 40-49 of Pigazzi and Col.4 lines 22-26 of Pigazzi).
Regarding claim 8, Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao discloses the method as discussed in claim 19. Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao further discloses wherein the pad (102 of Pigazzi) of the patient support device has a length sufficient to extend from at least thighs of the patient to at least shoulders of the patient to support a torso of the patient placed on the pad (102 of Pigazzi) (see Fig. 6 of Pigazzi; the Trendelenburg pad 102 of Pigazzi has a length that is sufficient to extend from at least thighs of the patient to at least shoulders of the patient to support a torso of the patient placed on the Trendelenburg pad 102 of Pigazzi, see Col. 3 lines 31-34 of Pigazzi).
Regarding claim 9, Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao discloses the method as discussed in claim 19. Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao further discloses wherein the biodegradable viscoelastic foam comprises a polyurethane foam (as previously modified above, the biodegradable viscoelastic foam material of Pigazzi is a polyurethane foam, see Col. 9 lines 4-9 of Pigazzi, and the biodegradable foam material of ROBINSON is a polyurethane foam, see Abstract and [0004] of ROBINSON).
Regarding claim 11, Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao discloses the method as discussed in claim 19. Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao further discloses wherein the biodegradable viscoelastic foam that forms the pad (102 of Pigazzi) has a density of 35 kilograms per cubic meter to 128 kilograms per cubic meter (see Col. 3 lines 22-27 of Pigazzi; as previously modified above, the biodegradable viscoelastic foam that forms the Trendelenburg pad 102 of Pigazzi has a density of 75 kilograms per cubic meter to 110 kilograms per cubic meter, which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 17, Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao discloses the method as discussed in claim 19. Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao further discloses wherein the pad (102 of Pigazzi) has a length that is greater than its width (see Col. 9 lines 10-12 of Pigazzi which discusses the Trendelenburg pad 102 of Pigazzi is 20 inches wide and 30 inches long, and thus the length is greater than its width), and wherein the pad (102 of Pigazzi) is from 0.5 inch to 3.0 inches thick (see Col. 3 lines 3-6 of Pigazzi which discusses the thickness of the Trendelenburg pad 102 of Pigazzi has a thickness of .75 inches to 3 inches or greater, and thus is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 18, Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao discloses the method as discussed in claim 19. Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao further discloses wherein the pad (102 of Pigazzi) of the patient support device is rectangular having a length of 25 inches to 80 inches and a width of 10 inches to 40 inches (see Figs. 1-2 of Pigazzi which shows the Trendelenburg pad 102 of Pigazzi is a rectangular shape, and see Col. 9 lines 10-12 of Pigazzi which discusses the Trendelenburg pad 102 of Pigazzi has a length of 30 inches which is within the claimed range and the Trendelenburg pad 102 of Pigazzi has a width of 20 inches which is also within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 20, Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao discloses the method as discussed in claim 19. Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao further discloses wherein the medical procedure is a procedure performed with the patient (128 of Pigazzi) in a Trendelenburg or the reverse Trendelenburg position (see Fig. 6 of Pigazzi and Col. 4 lines 39-40, and Col. 5 lines 40-42 of Pigazzi; the medical procedure is a procedure performed with the patient 128 of Pigazzi in a Trendelenburg position, as a patient 128 of Pigazzi is positioned on the Trendelenburg pad 102 of Pigazzi in a Trendelenburg position).
Regarding claim 21, Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao discloses the method as discussed in claim 19. Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao further discloses wherein the biodegradable viscoelastic foam comprises a foam made by mixing polyhydroxy polyol with at least one of toluene di-isocyanate, polyester polyols, or polyether (as previously modified above, see claim 19, the biodegradable viscoelastic foam of Pigazzi comprises a foam made by mixing polyhydroxy polyol with toluene di-isocyanate and polyester polyols and polyether, see Col. 9 lines 4-9 of Pigazzi).
Regarding claim 25, Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao discloses the method as discussed in claim 19. Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao further discloses wherein the depression (103 of Pigazzi) formed on the first surface of the pad (102 of Pigazzi) and under the patient (128 of Pigazzi) is a sufficient shape and depth to prevent the patient (128 of Pigazzi) from sliding relative to the pad (102 of Pigazzi) during the medical procedure (see Figs. 5-7 of Pigazzi and Col. 4 lines 64-67 et seq. Col. 5 lines 1-2, and Col. 5 lines 46-53 of Pigazzi; the impressions 103 of Pigazzi formed on the first surface or front surface of the Trendelenburg pad 102 of Pigazzi and under the patient 128 of Pigazzi is sufficient in shape and depth to prevent the patient 128 of Pigazzi from sliding relative to the Trendelenburg pad 102 of Pigazzi during the medical procedure, as the shape and depth of the impressions provides the primary holding for holding a patient relative to the pad during the medical procedure, also see claim 6 of Pigazzi).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao further in view of Mitchell et al. (referred to as “Mitchell”) (US 2008/0000140 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao discloses the method as discussed in claim 3.
Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao is silent on wherein the biodegradable viscoelastic foam degrades into one or more of simple carbohydrates or complex carbohydrates.
However, Mitchell teaches an analogous biodegradable foam (see [0073] which discusses a foam type polymer that is biodegradable), wherein the biodegradable foam degrades into simple or complex carbohydrates (see [0073] which discusses how a foam type polymer is biodegradable and degrades into carbohydrates, such as cellulose, which is a complex carbohydrate), providing a more sustainable device that is environmentally safe for beings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the biodegradable viscoelastic foam of Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao to degrade into simple or complex carbohydrates as taught by Mitchell to have provided an improved patient support device that is a more sustainable device that is environmentally safe for beings.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao further in view of Gomez (US 2022/0000692 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao discloses the method as discussed in claim 19.
Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao is silent on wherein the pad of the patient support device comprises a first foam block comprising the first surface and a second foam block comprising the opposing second surface.
However, Gomez teaches an analogous patient support device (305) and an analogous pad (307+318) (see Fig. 1 and Abstract, and [0033]; bi-wing arm support apparatus 305 is an analogous patient support device as the bi-wing arm support apparatus 305 is made up of upper member 307 + lower member 318 which are both pads to provide a patient with support), and wherein the pad (307+318) of the patient support device (305) comprises a first foam block (307) comprising the first surface (see Fig. 1 and [0033]; the pad is made up of upper member 307 which comprises a foam material that is viscoelastic and thus is a first foam block, and the upper member 307 rests on top of the lower member 318 and thus the upper member 307 comprises the first surface) and a second foam block (318) comprising the second surface (see Fig. 1 and [0033]; the pad is also made up of lower member 318 which comprises a foam material that may also be viscoelastic material and thus forms a second foam block, and the lower member 318 rests below the upper member 307 and thus the lower member 318 comprises the opposing second surface, also see [0006] which discusses the bottom surface of the lower member 3181 facing the top surface of a surgical table), providing a patient support device that is well cushioned so that the patient is comfortable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pad (102 of Pigazzi) in the device of Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao to comprise a first foam block (307) comprising the first surface and a second foam block comprising the opposing second surface as taught by Gomez to have provided an improved patient support device that is well cushioned so that the patient is comfortable.
Regarding claim 14, Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao further in view of Gomez discloses the method as discussed in claim 12. Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao further in view of Gomez further discloses wherein the first foam block (307 of Gomez) and the second foam block (318 of Gomez) are formed from different types of viscoelastic foam materials (see [0033] of Gomez and Fig. 1 of Gomez; the upper member 307 of Gomez may be constructed of a viscoelastic material and the lower member 318 of Gomez may be constructed of other viscoelastic materials having different recovery properties, and thus is formed from a different type of viscoelastic foam material).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao in view of Gomez further in view of Adams et al. (referred to as “Adams”) (US 2008/0057814 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao further in view of Gomez discloses the method as discussed in claim 12.
Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao further in view of Gomez is silent on wherein the first foam block is more absorbent than the second foam block.
However, Adams teaches an analogous first foam block (12) and an analogous second foam block (14) (see Fig. 1; foam layer 12 is a first foam block as it is an upper layer and foam layer 14 is a second foam block as it is a lower layer), and wherein the first foam block (12) is more absorbent than the second foam block (14) (see Fig. 1 and [0017]; the foam layers 12, 14 may be different materials, and thus the foam layer 12 may be an open cell foam material and the foam layer 14 may be a closed cell foam material, and thus the foam material of the foam layer 12 is more absorbent than the foam material of the foam layer 14 due to the open cells of the foam), providing a top foam layer that is more absorbent than the bottom foam layer such that the top layer is able to quickly absorb any fluids on the outer surface to keep the area clean.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first foam block (307 of Gomez) and the second foam block (318 of Gomez) in the device of Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao further in view of Gomez such that the first foam block is more absorbent than the second foam block as taught by Adams to have provided an improved patient support device that provides a top foam layer that is more absorbent than the bottom foam layer such that the top layer is able to quickly absorb any fluids on the outer surface to keep the area clean.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao in view of Gomez further in view of Roleder et al. (referred to as “Roleder”) (US 2006/0290195 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao further in view of Gomez discloses the method as discussed in claim 12.
Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao further in view of Gomez is silent on wherein the first foam block is less dense than the second foam block.
However, Roleder teaches an analogous first foam block (472A) and an analogous second foam block (472B) (see Fig. 4A and [0094]; the first layer 472A and second layer 472B are both made of a foam material and thus the first layer is a first foam block and the second layer is a second foam block), and wherein the first foam block (472A) is less dense than the second foam block (472B) (see Fig. 4A and [0094]; the density of the first layer 472A is 4 pound density per cubic foot of memory foam, which is known in the art as viscoelastic foam, as Applicant also states on Pg. 9 paragraph [0049] of Applicant’s specification that memory foam is viscoelastic foam, and the density of the second layer 472B is 6 pound density per cubic foot of a stiffer memory foam/viscoelastic foam material, and thus the first layer 472A is less dense than the second layer 472B), providing a softer foam material that directly touches a patient’s skin, while the stiffer viscoelastic material helps to reduce the softer foam material from bottoming out (see [0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first block (307 of Gomez) and the second block (318 of Gomez) in the device of Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao further in view of Gomez such that the first foam block is less dense than the second foam block as taught by Roleder to have provided an improved patient support device that provides a softer foam material that directly touches a patient’s skin, while the stiffer viscoelastic material helps to reduce the softer foam material from bottoming out (see [0095]).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao further in view of Sabalaskey (US 5,704,085).
Regarding claim 22, Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao discloses the method as discussed in claim 19.
Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao is silent on wherein the pad of the patient support device comprises an outer foam block defining an opening and an inner foam block positioned in the opening, and wherein the first surface and the opposing second surface of the pad are each formed by portions of the inner foam block and the outer foam block.
However, Sabalaskey teaches an analogous pad (23+32) of a patient support device (see Figs. 1-3; foam layer 23+edge 32 make up an analogous pad of a patient support device as they are made of foam material used to support a patient), and wherein the pad (23+32) of the patient support device comprises an outer foam block (32) defining an opening and an inner foam block (23) positioned in the opening (see Figs. 1 and 3; edge 32 is an outer foam block as it is made out of a foam material and is around the peripheral/edge of foam layer 23, and thus is an outer portion, and edge 32 forms an opening where foam layer 23 is disposed, as best seen in Fig. 3 by the cross section of the pad, and thus foam layer 23 defines an inner foam block as foam layer 23 is surrounded by edge 32, see Col. 4 lines 40-43, Col. 4 lines 56-57), and wherein the first surface and the opposing second surface of the pad (23+32) are each formed by portions of the inner foam block (23) and the outer foam block (32) (see Figs. 1 and 3, and Col. 4 lines 40-43, Col. 4 lines 56-57; the first surface which is the top surface and the second surface which is the back/opposite surface of pad 23+32 are each formed by portions of the foam layer 23 and edge 32), providing a support device that is more comfortable and durable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pad (102 of Pigazzi) of the patient support device in the device of Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss further in view of Gao to comprise an outer foam block (32) defining an opening and an inner foam block (23) positioned in the opening, and wherein the first surface and the opposing second surface of the pad are each formed by portions of the inner foam block and the outer foam block as taught by Sabalaskey to have provided an improved method that provides a support device that is more comfortable and durable.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao in view of Sabalaskey further in view of Thomas (US 12,173,198 B2).
Regarding claim 23, Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao further in view of Sabalaskey discloses the method as discussed in claim 22. Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao further in view of Sabalaskey further discloses wherein the inner foam block (23 of Sabalaskey) is adhered in the opening by an adhesive (34 of Sabalaskey) or fastener (see Figs. 1 and 3 of Sabalaskey, and Col. 4 lines 57-60 of Sabalaskey; as previously modified above, see claim 22, the foam layer 23 of Sabalaskey is adhere in the opening by glue or adhesive 34 of Sabalaskey).
Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao further in view of Sabalaskey is silent on wherein the adhesive or fasteners is biodegradable.
However, Thomas teaches an analogous adhesive that is biodegradable (see Abstract and Col. 1 lines 12-18), providing a more environmentally sustainable repurposing of the used materials (see Col. 1 lines 12-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive or fasteners (34 of Sabalaskey) in the method of Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao further in view of Sabalaskey to be a biodegradable adhesive or fastener as taught by Thomas to have provided an improved method that provides a more environmentally sustainable repurposing of the used materials (see Col. 1 lines 12-18).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao further in view of Sabalaskey further in view of HENSON (US 2011/0083277 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao further in view of Sabalaskey discloses the method as discussed in claim 22.
Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao further in view of Sabalaskey is silent on wherein the inner foam block is less dense than the outer foam block.
However, HENSON teaches an analogous inner foam block (20) and an analogous outer foam block (14+16) (see Fig. 1 and [0020]; pad section 20 is an analogous inner foam block as it is made out of a foam material and is in between pad sections 14+16 and thus is positioned inwards, and pad sections 14+16 are an analogous outer foam block as they are made out of a foam material and are positioned outwards), wherein the inner foam block (20) is less dense than the outer foam block (14+16) (see Fig. 1 and [0010], and [0022] which discusses how the density of the pad section 20 can be less than the density of the pad sections 14+16), providing a pad that is more comfortable in the center while resisting bottoming out.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inner foam block (23 of Sabalaskey) in the method of Pigazzi in view of ROBINSON in view of Curtiss in view of Gao further in view of Sabalaskey to be less dense than the outer foam block as taught by HENSON to have provided an improved method that provides a pad that is more comfortable in the center while resisting bottoming out.
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 ROBIN HAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7579. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9-5 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, Alireza Nia can be reached at (571)270-3076. 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.
/ROBIN HAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/KARI K RODRIQUEZ/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
