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 filed 6/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-8, 10-11, and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained for the reasons set forth below
A General Allegation That the References Do Not Disclose Each Claimed Feature
Applicant “maintains their previous arguments that these documents do not disclose ‘each and every’ feature of Applicant’s claims” (Remarks, p. 6) without identifying any particular claim limitation alleged to be absent from the cited art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention, without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references, does not comply with 37 CFR 1.11(b). Applicant’s previous arguments were fully addressed in the Office action mailed 3/11/2026, and the Examiner’s responses thereto are maintained and incorporated herein.
B. Alleged “Fundamental Incompatibility” of the References and Teaching Away (Claims 1 and 13)
In response to Applicant’s argument that Galbraith, Young, and Montgomery embody “three distinct and mutually exclusive engineering choices” such that a PHOSITA would not have been motivated to combine them, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argument is premised on the bodily incorporation of Young’s continuous boarder construction (118) and Montgomery’s integrally-woven, narrow high-strength load-bearing bands (11) into Galbraith’s device. The rejection of record proposes no such combination. Young is relied upon solely for its teaching that a first fabric comprising a mesh structure in combination with a second fabric comprising a woven structure was known in patient transfer devices (Young: [0034]; FIGS. 2-3, (202) and (116)), and Montgomery is relied upon solely for its teaching of a woven fabric formed of a plurality of continuous filament fibres (Montgomery: [0128]). Neither Young’s border construction nor Montgomery’s integrated load-bearing bands forms any part of the proposed combination, and Galbraith’s two-sheet construction and external lifting strap arrangement remain unchanged remain unchanged. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Second, Montgomery teach away from the proposed combination. A reference teaches away only when a PHOSTIA, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant; the mere disclosure of alternative designs does not teach away. Montgomery’s stated objective of obviating the need for webbings sewn across the undercarriage (Montgomery: [0015]) describes an advantage of Montgomery’s own undercarriage construction; it does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the use of woven continuous filament fabrics in a liing employing external lifting straps or loops. Montgomery is silent regarding such use, and silence does not constitute teaching away.
C. Alleged Lack of a Reasonable Expectation of Success
Applicant argues that the combination would create “conflicting load paths” and “unpredictable failure points” because Galbraith’s straps would not align with Montgomery’s integrated high-strength bands. This argument assumes that Montgomery’s load-bearing bands are imported into Galbraith’s device, which is not the modification proposed in the rejection. The rejection employs Montgomery’s woven continuous-filament fabric, for its known properties of providing a smooth, even patient-contact surface and reducing the risk of skin trauma and pressure ulcers (Montgomery: [0128]), as the second fabric of Galbraith’s patient layer; Galbraith’s load-bearing strap arrangement is not modified. The combination is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Moreover, Applicant has submitted no objective evidence demonstrating the proposed combination would be inoperable, unsafe, or unpredictable.
D. Young’s Unitary Border Construction
Applicant argues that Young’s unitary, continuous thickened border (118) is fundamentally incompatible with Galbraith’s multi-strap system and Montgomery’s fabric-band structure. As explained in section B above and in the Office action mailed 3/11/2026, the Examiner does not import Young’s device structure; Young is cited only for its teaching of mesh and woven fabric layers in patient maneuvering devices. 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).
E. Dependent Claims 2-8, 10-11, and 14
With respect to claims 2-8, 10-11, and 14, Applicant relies solely upon the arguments presented for independent claims 1 and 13, asserting that Montgomery ‘797, Hollabaugh, and Duck “do not cure the deficiencies” of the base combination. Because the arguments directed to the independent claims are unperssuassive for the reasons given above, and because Applicant presents no separate argument addressing the additional teachings of Montgomery ‘797, Hollabaugh, or Duck, the rejections of the dependent claims are maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7, 10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20160374883 issued to Galbraith in view of U.S. Publication No. 20170266072 issued to Young further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20190060147 issued to Montgomery.
Regarding claim 1,
Galbraith discloses a patient sling for handling patients, (Galbraith: FIG. 1 (100)) comprising a support layer comprising a first fabric, and having a first side and a second side opposite to the first side of the support layer, (Galbraith: FIG. 1 (10)) a patient layer comprising a second fabric, and having a first side and a second side, opposite to the first side of the patient layer, (Galbraith: FIG. 1 (50)) wherein the second side of the patient layer is attachable to the first side of the support layer, (Galbraith: [0025] “The fastening strips 12 and 14, as well as complimentary strips 52 and 54 can be any known type of fabric hook and loop fastener or the like commonly used to adhere various fabrics together; thus, preventing the sheets 10 and 50 from slipping out of alignment and configuration with one another. The strips (12, 14, 52, 54) should be durable and washable, but not bulky so as to avoid patient P bed sores.”) and the first side of the patient layer is configured to be in contact with the body of a patient, (Galbraith: FIG. 1) and a plurality of lifting means arranged along opposite edges of the support layer, (Galbraith: FIG. 2 (20))
Galbraith does not appear to disclose wherein the first fabric comprises a mesh structure, and the second fabric comprises a woven structure.
However, Young discloses wherein the first fabric comprises a mesh structure, and the second fabric comprises a woven structure. (Young: [0034], see also FIGS. 2-3 (202) and (116), wherein the first fabric (116) is a mesh structure, and the second fabric is a woven structure i.e. cotton or cotton/polyester blend)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Galbraith to have the selected materials as taught in Young since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemicical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Furthermore, Galbraith indicates that the selection of suitable material is understood by one having ordinary skill in the art in [0029].
Gailbraith in view of Young does not appear to disclose wherein the woven structure of the second fabric comprises a plurality of continuous filament fibres
However, Montgomery discloses wherein the woven structure of the second fabric comprises a plurality of continuous filament fibres wherein at least a first portion of the plurality of continuous filament fibres. (Montgomery: [0128] talks about polyester filament fibres that are arranged in a plain weave construction and claim 2 talks about the different patterns of the weaves. The examiner notes that at least a portion of the filament fibres would otherwise be arranged in at least two different directions based on the plain satin or twill weave patterns.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gailbraith in view of Young directed to a patient support by having the polyester fibres woven a certain way as taught in Montgomery directed to a patient support since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of reducing the development of pressure ulcers (Montgomery: [0128])
Regarding claim 2,
Gailbraith in view of Young in view of Montgomery discloses the patient sling according to claim 1, wherein the first fabric comprises a first synthetic material, and the second fabric comprises a second synthetic material. (Galbraith: [0029] mentions using synthetic material)
Regarding claim 3,
Gailbraith in view of Young in view of Montgomery discloses the patient sling according to claim 1, wherein the mesh structure of the first fabric is in an open-grid like pattern is configured to transport at least one of moisture and heat away from the patient. (Young: [0034] talks about transporting moisture away from the patient, the examiner notes if the material is breathable it will also transport heat away as well. See also FIG. 1 (116))
Regarding claim 4,
Gailbraith in view of Young in view of Montgomery discloses the patient sling according to claim 1, wherein the patient layer extends along an longitudinal direction, and a horizontal direction, perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, wherein at least a first portion of the plurality of continuous filament fibres is arranged along the longitudinal direction, and at least a second portion of the plurality of continuous filament fibres is arranged along the horizontal direction. (Montgomery: [0128] talks about polyester filament fibres that are arranged in a plain weave construction and claim 2 talks about the different patterns of the weaves. The examiner notes that at least a portion of the filament fibres would otherwise be arranged in at least two different directions based on the plain satin or twill weave patterns.)
Regarding claim 5,
Gailbraith in view of Young in view of Montgomery discloses the patient sling according to claim 4, wherein the plurality of continuous filament fibres of the second fabric is arranged to establish micro-channels in the second fabric configured to transport at least one of moisture and heat away from the patient. (Montgomery: [0056] discloses a plain satin or twill weave pattern, The examiner notes that woven in woven constructions, warp and weft yarns intersect and define spaces between adjacent yarns, thereby forming capillary pathways within the textile structure which correspond to the micro-channels.)
Regarding claim 10,
Gailbraith in view of Young in view of Montgomery discloses the patient sling according to claim 9, wherein each of the loops of the lifting means are configured to be length-adjustable by comprising sub- loops wherein each of the sub-loops of a loop is of different lengths. (Gailbraith: FIG. 2 (20))
Regarding claim 7,
Gailbraith in view of Young discloses the patient sling according to claim 1.
Gailbraith in view of Young does not appear to disclose wherein the second fabric comprises an antimicrobial coating.
However, Montgomery discloses wherein the second fabric comprises an antimicrobial coating. (Montgomery: [0109] “Different antimicrobial treatments as described above may be applied to or incorporated into the fabrics, threads, and/or webs individually, and/or in combination with one another, in the products described herein.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fabric of Gailbraith in view of Young by placing a antimicrobial coating in order to “reduce the growth of bacteria.” (Montgomery: [0012])
Regarding claim 14,
Gailbraith in view of Young discloses the patient sling according to claim 13.
Gailbraith in view of Young does not appear to disclose wherein the patient layer extends along an longitudinal direction, and a horizontal direction, perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, and wherein the woven structure of the second fabric comprises a plurality of continuous filament fibres wherein at least a first portion of the plurality of continuous filament fibres is arranged along the longitudinal direction, and at least a second portion of the plurality of continuous filament fibres is arranged along the horizontal direction.
However, Montgomery discloses wherein the patient layer extends along an longitudinal direction, and a horizontal direction, perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, and wherein the woven structure of the second fabric comprises a plurality of continuous filament fibres wherein at least a first portion of the plurality of continuous filament fibres is arranged along the longitudinal direction, and at least a second portion of the plurality of continuous filament fibres is arranged along the horizontal direction. (Montgomery: [0128] talks about polyester filament fibres that are arranged in a plain weave construction and claim 2 talks about the different patterns of the weaves. The examiner notes that at least a portion of the filament fibres would otherwise be arranged in at least two different directions based on the plain satin or twill weave patterns.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gailbraith in view of Young directed to a patient support by having the polyester fibres woven a certain way as taught in Montgomery directed to a patient support since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of reducing the development of pressure ulcers (Montgomery: [0128])
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20160374883 issued to Galbraith in view of U.S. Publication No. 20170266072 issued to Young further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20190060147 issued to Montgomery further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20120246797 issued to Montgomery (2).
Regarding claim 6,
Gailbraith in view of Young in view of Montgomery discloses the patient sling according to claim 5.
Gailbraith in view of Young in view of Montgomery does not appear to disclose wherein the micro-channels of the second fabric are established by the plurality of continuous filament fibres of the second fabric having a clover-shaped cross-section.
However, Montgomery (2) discloses a clover shaped weaving pattern. (Montgomery (2): FIG. 3 see also [0010] “In some embodiments of the present invention, the continuous filament warp or filling yarns with non-round filament cross sections are configured such that adjacent filaments form wicking channels. Exemplary non-round filament cross sections include star shaped cross sections and clover leaf cross sections.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a clover weave in Gailbraith in view of Young in view of Montgomery as taught in Montgomery (2) since such a weaving pattern is known and would have created more holes than the typical weaving pattern which would allow for cooling of the body and form wicking channels.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20160374883 issued to Galbraith in view of U.S. Publication No. 20170266072 issued to Young further in view of Montgomery further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20200060912 issued to Hollabaugh.
Regarding claim 8,
Gailbraith in view of Young in view of Montgomery discloses the patient sling according to claim 1.
Gailbraith in view of Young in view of Montgomery does not appear to disclose wherein the first side of the support layer has a first coefficient of friction, and the second side of the support layer has a second coefficient of friction, wherein the second coefficient of friction is higher than the first coefficient of friction.
However, Hollabaugh discloses wherein the first side of the support layer has a first coefficient of friction, and the second side of the support layer has a second coefficient of friction, wherein the second coefficient of friction is higher than the first coefficient of friction. (Hollabaugh: [0054] “For example, the top and/or bottom sheets 26, 27 may be formed of a material that is liquid repellant and/or impermeable and may have little to no air permeability, while being permeable to moisture vapor. In one embodiment, the top and bottom sheets 26, 27 may be formed of polyester and/or nylon (polyamide), for example, a coated nylon taffeta material, which can provide these properties. The coating on the sheets 26, 27 has a higher coefficient of friction than the sheet material itself, creating a configuration with a high-friction material (the coating) on one portion of the surface and a low-friction material (the sheet material) on another portion of the surface.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gailbraith in view of Young in view of Montgomery to a patient support by adding a friction coating to one of the sides as taught in Hollabaugh directed to a patient support since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of prevented unwanted slipping of the patient support.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20160374883 issued to Galbraith in view of U.S. Publication No. 20170266072 issued to Young further in view of Montgomery further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20170056265 issued to Duck.
Regarding claim 11,
Gailbraith in view of Young in view of Montgomery discloses the patient sling according to claim 1.
Gailbraith in view of Young in view of Montgomery does not appear to disclose wherein the support layer comprises mattress fixation means configured to releasably fixate the patient sling to a mattress.
However, Duck discloses wherein the support layer comprises mattress fixation means configured to releasably fixate the patient sling to a mattress. (Duck: FIG. 6 (401))
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gailbraith in view of Young in view of Montgomery directed to a patient support by adding straps as taught in Duck directed to a mattress cover since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing the sling to be secured to the mattress when it is desired to use it as a patient support.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20160374883 issued to Galbraith in view of U.S. Publication No. 20170266072 issued to Young.
Regarding claim 13,
Galbraith discloses a patient sling for handling patients, (Galbraith: FIG. 1 (100)) comprising a support layer comprising a first fabric, and having a first side and a second side opposite to the first side of the support layer, (Galbraith: FIG. 1 (10)) a patient layer comprising a second fabric, and having a first side and a second side, opposite to the first side of the patient layer, (Galbraith: FIG. 1 (50)) wherein the second side of the patient layer is attachable to the first side of the support layer, (Galbraith: [0025] “The fastening strips 12 and 14, as well as complimentary strips 52 and 54 can be any known type of fabric hook and loop fastener or the like commonly used to adhere various fabrics together; thus, preventing the sheets 10 and 50 from slipping out of alignment and configuration with one another. The strips (12, 14, 52, 54) should be durable and washable, but not bulky so as to avoid patient P bed sores.”) and the first side of the patient layer is configured to be in contact with the body of a patient, (Galbraith: FIG. 1) and a plurality of lifting means arranged along opposite edges of the support layer, (Galbraith: FIG. 2 (20))
Galbraith does not appear to disclose wherein the first fabric comprises a mesh structure, and the second fabric comprises a woven structure.
However, Young discloses wherein the first fabric comprises a mesh structure, and the second fabric comprises a woven structure. (Young: [0034], see also FIGS. 2-3 (202) and (116), wherein the first fabric (116) is a mesh structure, and the second fabric is a woven structure i.e. cotton or cotton/polyester blend)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Galbraith to have the selected materials as taught in Young since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemicical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Furthermore, Galbraith indicates that the selection of suitable material is understood by one having ordinary skill in the art in [0029].
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 ADAM C ORTIZ whose telephone number is (303)297-4378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-3:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin C. Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM C ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights