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 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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).
First, the examiner respectfully disagrees that Galbraith teaches away from continuous filament fibers. A reference teaches away only when it criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages such a modification. Galbraith doesn’t criticize or discourage the use of continouous filament fibers; rather, it is silent regarding the specific filament structure of the fabric. Accordingly the modification of Galbraith to employ the woven continuous filament fabric taught by Montgomery would not be inconsistent with the teachings of Galbraith.
Second, in response to applicant's argument that Young is an “all-in-one” device, the applicant appears to misunderstand the examiner’s position. The examiner is not importing Young’s entire device structure but rather is using Young for its teaching of mesh fabric layers used in patient transfer devices. The combination merely incorporates the known mesh material taught by Young into the sling structure of Galbraith to improve breathability and fluid drainage. Such substitution of known materials for their known properties would have been obvious to a PHOSTA.
Third, applicant argues that Montgomery teaches a single ply fabric which allegedly discourages layered fabrics. A reference that describes a “preferred embodiment” does not teach away from alternatives. Montgomery describing a single-ply reference in certain embodiments does not teach away from using the fabric in a multi-layer arrangement. Montgomery’s teaching of woven continuous filament fabrics is relied upon for the fiber structure of the fabric itself, not for limiting the number of layers in a device.
Fourth, applicant argues that the examiner has not established that the woven fabric inherently forms micro-channels. The examiner clarifies that the rejection does not rely solely on inherency. Rather, the woven construction disclosed by Montgomery structurally requires spacing between adjacent yarns and filaments formed by the warp and weft intersections. These spaces define capillary pathways within the textile structure. Such pathways correspond to the micro-channels and are a result of the woven arrangement of the continuous filament fibers.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 6 under Johnson have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Publication No. 20120246797 issued to Montgomery (2).
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
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