DETAILED ACTION
In Applicant’s Response filed 10/14/25, Applicant amended claims 1-2, 5-7, 11, 14-15, and 18-20; and amended the abstract. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities which require appropriate correction: in line 2, “at where” should be amended to recite “where” for improved clarity.
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.
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.
Claims 1, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldrige, Jr. et al (US 5036866) in view of Taub (US 5059271) and further in view of Austria et al (US 2011/0052858).
With respect to claim 1, Eldrige discloses a cervicothoracic mat (drape 16 shown in figs 1-3; configured to be placed on a patient 10 that is undergoing surgery adjacent to a surgical field 12; drape 16 is configured as a rectangular mat as shown in fig 2 and is interpreted as being capable of being placed over a patient’s chest and near the neck), comprising: a top surface (top layer 18) including a receiving portion configured to receive surgical instruments (central non-magnetizable portion 42 configured to retain instruments 15 – see col 5 lines 20-24; fig 1); an opposite bottom surface (bottom layer 20) configured to contact a patient (bottom layer 20 of the drape 16 defines a bottom surface 25 which rests directly on the patient 10 – col 4 lines 21-23); a first lateral portion of the top surface extending from the receiving portion generally orthogonal from the receiving portion (identified in annotated fig 2); a second lateral portion of the top surface extending from the receiving portion and generally orthogonal from the receiving portion (identified in annotated fig 2); and a peripheral portion arranged along the perimeter of the cervicothoracic mat (perimeter defined by edges 26, 28) proximate to the receiving portion (long edges 28 are proximate the long edge of portion 42 as shown in fig 2), the peripheral portion including a ridge (non-planar portion 32 in fig 1) and a recessed sub-portion (non-bent portion of drape 16 that is adjacent to the non-planar portion 32) which extends from and is recessed from a portion of the ridge (as shown in fig 1 and in detail in fig 6, the flat, non-bent portion of drape 16 extends from the non-planar portion 32 and is recessed from the uppermost edge portion of the non-planar portion 32) wherein the ridge is maintained in a non-planar configuration (as shown in fig 1, the peripheral portions 32 along edges 26 can be maintained in a bent or non-planar configuration; col 4 lines 43-45) and configured to prevent surgical instruments from falling off of the patient (col 5 lines 56-60). Eldrige also discloses that the cervicothoracic mat is comprised of rubber or synthetic thermoplastic (col 4 lines 7-8). Eldrige does not, however, explicitly disclose that the rubber is silicon.
Taub, however, teaches a method of using a sheet of silicone rubber as a supporting surface for surgical instruments so that they will not slide off the sheet material when it is inclined, agitated or otherwise disturbed (abstract; col 1 lines 15-21). The sheet material is placed on top of a surgical drape that is covering a patient (col 2 lines 47-54; fig 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have use a silicone rubber as taught by Taub as the rubber material for the mat of Eldrige in order to further assist in preventing surgical instruments from sliding off the mat.
Eldrige in view of Taub does not, however, disclose that the ridge extends along the whole perimeter of the cervicothoracic mat.
Austria, however, teaches a mat configured as a stability-enhanced "drape" that is placed upon the patient to hold and retain surgical instruments (para [0002]) which includes first and second peripheral portions, each arranged along the perimeter of the mat, and being maintained in a non-planar configuration and configured to prevent surgical instruments from falling off of the patient (figs 1 and 8 – all 4 edges forming the perimeter of the mat are maintained in a bent or non-planar configuration to retain surgical implements interiorly at the center of the mat). Austria further teaches that the first peripheral portion and the second peripheral portion are a ridge that extends around the whole perimeter of the top surface of the cervicothoracic mat (as shown in fig 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the mat of Eldrige in view of Taub so that the ridge extends around the whole perimeter of the top surface of the cervicothoracic mat, like the mat in figure 8 of Austria, in order to provide physical barriers along all four sides of the mat to further assist in retaining surgical tools and instruments in place on the mat and preventing the tools/instruments from falling or being dropped during a procedure.
ANNOTATED FIG 2 of Eldrige:
PNG
media_image1.png
405
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 4, Eldrige in view of Taub and further in view of Austria discloses the mat substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Eldrige also discloses that the receiving portion includes a recessed area disposed between the first lateral portion and the second lateral portion (portion 42 is recessed in the region located interiorly of lip 44 as shown in fig 3; lip 44 is disposed along the short sides of portion 42 as shown in fig 2 thereby defining a recessed region at the center of portion 42 between the first/second lateral portions).
With respect to claim 5, Eldrige in view of Taub and further in view of Austria discloses the mat substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1). The claimed limitation of a “ridge …formed by additional silicon material formed along the whole perimeter…where the top surface and the bottom surface meet” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the ridge is made by the method steps of adding silicon along the entire perimeter at the intersection of the top/bottom surface. When a claim is directed to a device, the process steps are not germane to the issue of patentability. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102 or 103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Thus, even though Eldrige in view of Taub and further in view of Austria is silent as to the process used to form the ridge, it appears that the product in the prior art of record would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant's product and the prior art product is made of a silicone material (see rejection of claim 1).
With respect to claim 6, Eldrige in view of Taub and further in view of Austria discloses the mat substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but does not disclose that the cervicothoracic mat is sterilizable.
Taub, however, teaches a method of using a sheet of silicone rubber as a supporting surface for surgical instruments so that they will not slide off the sheet material when it is inclined, agitated or otherwise disturbed (abstract; col 1 lines 15-21). The sheet material is placed on top of a surgical drape that is covering a patient (col 2 lines 47-54; fig 3) and can be reused since as it can be repeatedly sterilized by any standard technique without losing its properties (col 2 lines 60-63). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have use a silicone rubber that is sterilizable, as taught by Taub, as the rubber material for the mat of Eldrige, in order to permit the mat to be reused multiple times.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldrige, Jr. et al (US 5036866) in view of Taub (US 5059271) and Austria et al (US 2011/0052858) and further in view of Augustine (US 2011/0162659).
With respect to claim 2, Eldrige in view of Taub and further in view of Austria discloses the mat substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Eldrige also discloses that the ridge extends from the top surface in a direction away from the bottom surface (as shown in figs 1 and 6). Eldrige also discloses that the cervicothoracic mat is comprised of rubber or synthetic thermoplastic (col 4 lines 7-8). Eldrige does not, however, explicitly disclose that the rubber is silicon.
Taub, however, teaches a method of using a sheet of silicone rubber as a supporting surface for surgical instruments so that they will not slide off the sheet material when it is inclined, agitated or otherwise disturbed (abstract; col 1 lines 15-21). The sheet material is placed on top of a surgical drape that is covering a patient (col 2 lines 47-54; fig 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have use a silicone rubber as taught by Taub as the rubber material for the mat (including the ridge which is part of the mat) of Eldrige in order to further assist in preventing surgical instruments from sliding off the mat.
Eldrige also does not disclose that the recessed sub-portion is configured to conform to the chin of the patient.
Augustine, however, teaches a patient covering device which includes a flat, non-bent portion (which is recessed with respect to inflated portions) is configured to conform to the chin of the patient (the outside edge of bib 24, which is a flat, non-bent part of the bib, includes an indent 44 which permits the device to be drawn up to the chin of a patient – para [0045]; fig 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the recessed sub-portion of the mat of Eldrige in view of Taub and further in view of Austria so that it is configured to conform to the chin of the patient, like the flat, non-bent portion of the device of Augustine, in order to allow the device to better conform to the anatomical contours of the patient’s body and thereby provide a better fit and more effective sterile barrier.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldrige, Jr. et al (US 5036866) in view of Taub (US 5059271) and Austria et al (US 2011/0052858) and further in view of Kovyarenko (US 20180116892).
With respect to claim 3, Eldrige in view of Taub and further in view of Austria discloses the mat substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Eldrige also discloses that the mat is configured to be placed on a patient 10 that is undergoing surgery adjacent to a surgical field 12. Eldrige does not, however, explicitly disclose that the first lateral portion and the second lateral portion are configured to cover a respective portion of the chest of the patient.
Kovyarenko, however, teaches a mat 18 that has a top surface (upper surface 115) configured to receive surgical instruments (shown in fig 3C) and an opposite bottom surface (lower surface 120; fig 3A) configured to contact a patient (fig 4) wherein the top surface (115) includes a first lateral portion and a second lateral portion (left and right sides shown in fig 4) configured to cover a respective portion of the chest of the patient (as shown in fig 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have configured the first and second lateral portions of the mat of Eldrige in view of Taub and further in view of Austria to cover a respective portion of the chest of the patient like the first and second lateral portions of the mat of Kovyarenko in order to maintain surgical tools and instruments in a location near the face/head of a patient to provide easy access to the tools/instruments for procedures involving these regions.
Claims 7-9, 12, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldrige, Jr. et al (US 5036866) in view of Austria et al (US 2011/0052858) and further in view of Taub (US 5059271).
With respect to claim 7, Eldrige discloses a cervicothoracic mat (drape 16 shown in figs 1-3; configured to be placed on a patient 10 that is undergoing surgery adjacent to a surgical field 12; drape 16 is configured as a rectangular mat as shown in fig 2 and is interpreted as being capable of being placed over a patient’s chest and near the neck), comprising: a top surface (top layer 18) including a receiving portion configured to receive surgical instruments (central non-magnetizable portion 42 configured to retain instruments 15 – see col 5 lines 20-24; fig 1); an opposite bottom surface (bottom layer 20) configured to contact a patient (bottom layer 20 of the drape 16 defines a bottom surface 25 which rests directly on the patient 10 – col 4 lines 21-23); a first lateral portion of the top surface extending from the receiving portion generally orthogonal from the receiving portion (identified in annotated fig 2); a second lateral portion of the top surface extending from the receiving portion and generally orthogonal from the receiving portion (identified in annotated fig 2); a first peripheral portion arranged along the perimeter of cervicothoracic mat (perimeter defined by edges 26) proximate to at least a first sub-portion of the receiving portion (edges 26 are proximate the short edges of portion 42 as shown in fig 2), the first peripheral portion including a recessed sub-portion (non-bent portion of drape 16 that is adjacent to the non-planar portion 32 along edges 26 in fig 1), wherein the first peripheral portion includes a ridge (non-planar portion 32 in fig 1) wherein the recessed sub-portion extends from and is recessed from a portion of the ridge (as shown in fig 1 and in detail in fig 6, the flat, non-bent portion of drape 16 extends from the non-planar portion 32 and is recessed from the uppermost edge portion of the non-planar portion 32) wherein the ridge is maintained in a non-planar configuration (as shown in fig 1, the peripheral portions 32 along edges 26 can be maintained in a bent or non-planar configuration; col 4 lines 43-45) and is configured to prevent surgical instruments from falling off of the patient (col 5 lines 56-60); and a second peripheral portion arranged along the perimeter of the cervicothoracic mat (perimeter defined by edges 28) and proximate to at least a second sub-portion of the receiving portion (edges 28 are proximate the long edges of portion 42 as shown in fig 2).
ANNOTATED FIG 2 of Eldrige:
PNG
media_image1.png
405
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Eldrige does not, however, disclose the second peripheral portion being maintained in a non-planar configuration and configured to prevent surgical instruments from falling off of the patient, the second peripheral portion including a ridge maintained in a non-planar configuration and configured to prevent surgical instruments from falling off the patient and a recessed sub-portion extending from and being recessed from a portion of the ridge.
Austria, however, teaches a mat configured as a stability-enhanced "drape" that is placed upon the patient to hold and retain surgical instruments (para [0002]) which includes first and second peripheral portions, each arranged along the perimeter of the mat, and being maintained in a non-planar configuration and configured to prevent surgical instruments from falling off of the patient (figs 1 and 8 – all 4 edges forming the perimeter of the mat are maintained in a bent or non-planar configuration to retain surgical implements interiorly at the center of the mat) the second peripheral portion including a ridge maintained in a non-planar configuration and configured to prevent surgical instruments from falling off the patient (figs 1 and 8 – all 4 edges forming the perimeter of the mat are maintained in a bent or non-planar configuration to retain surgical implements interiorly at the center of the mat) and a recessed sub-portion extending from and being recessed from a portion of the ridge (flat portion of the mat that is configured to extend towards the head of the patient during use and which is recessed with respect to inflated portions of the device which defined the ridge). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the mat of Eldrige so that the second peripheral portion being maintained in a non-planar configuration and configured to prevent surgical instruments from falling off of the patient, the second peripheral portion including a ridge maintained in a non-planar configuration and configured to prevent surgical instruments from falling off the patient and a recessed sub-portion extending from and being recessed from a portion of the ridge, like the second peripheral portion on the mat of Austria, in order to provide physical barriers along all four sides of the mat to further assist in retaining surgical tools and instruments in place on the mat and preventing the tools/instruments from falling or being dropped during a procedure.
Eldrige also discloses that the cervicothoracic mat is comprised of rubber or synthetic thermoplastic (col 4 lines 7-8) but does not explicitly disclose that the rubber is silicon.
Taub, however, teaches a method of using a sheet of silicone rubber as a supporting surface for surgical instruments so that they will not slide off the sheet material when it is inclined, agitated or otherwise disturbed (abstract; col 1 lines 15-21). The sheet material is placed on top of a surgical drape that is covering a patient (col 2 lines 47-54; fig 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have use a silicone rubber as taught by Taub as the rubber material for the mat of Eldrige in order to further assist in preventing surgical instruments from sliding off the mat.
Eldrige also does not disclose that the ridge extends along the whole perimeter of the cervicothoracic mat.
Austria, however, further teaches that the first peripheral portion and the second peripheral portion are a ridge that extends around the whole perimeter of the top surface of the cervicothoracic mat (as shown in fig 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have further modified the mat of Eldrige in view of Austria and further in view of Taub so that the ridge extends around the whole perimeter of the top surface of the cervicothoracic mat, like the mat in figure 8 of Austria, in order to provide physical barriers along all four sides of the mat to further assist in retaining surgical tools and instruments in place on the mat and preventing the tools/instruments from falling or being dropped during a procedure.
With respect to claim 8, Eldrige in view of Austria and further in view of Taub discloses the mat substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 7) and Eldrige also discloses that the second peripheral portion (28) has a greater length relative to the first peripheral portion (26) (as shown in fig 2).
With respect to claim 9, Eldrige in view of Austria and further in view of Taub discloses the mat substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 7) and Eldrige also discloses that at least the receiving portion includes a plurality of fingerlike projections extending therefrom (filaments 46; fig 3).
With respect to claim 12, Eldrige in view of Austria and further in view of Taub discloses the mat substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 7) and Eldrige also discloses that at least a sub-portion of the first peripheral portion is recessed relative to the first lateral portion and the second lateral portion (portion 42 is recessed in the region located interiorly of lip 44 as shown in fig 3; lip 44 is disposed along the short sides of portion 42 as shown in fig 2 thereby defining a recessed region at the center of portion 42 between the first/second lateral portions).
With respect to claim 16, Eldrige in view of Austria and further in view of Taub discloses the mat substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 7) and Austria further teaches an embodiment of the mat wherein the second peripheral portion includes angled sub-portions connecting the first lateral portion and the second lateral portion (identified in annotated fig 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the second peripheral portion of the mat of Eldrige to include angled sub-portions connecting the first lateral portion and the second lateral portion, like the second peripheral portion of the mat in figure 6 of Austria, in order to permit the mat to be arranged in a kidney shape to permit placement in an emesis style of medical tray if desired (Austria para [0050]; fig 12).
ANNOTATED FIG 6 of Austria:
PNG
media_image2.png
515
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 17, Eldrige in view of Austria and further in view of Taub discloses the mat substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 7) and Austria further teaches an embodiment of the mat wherein at least a sub-portion of the second peripheral portion is generally parallel to at least a sub-portion of the first peripheral portion (identified in 2nd annotated fig 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the second peripheral portion of the mat of Eldrige so that at least a sub-portion of the second peripheral portion is generally parallel to at least a sub-portion of the first peripheral portion, like the second peripheral portion of the mat in figure 6 of Austria, in order to permit the mat to be arranged in a kidney shape to permit placement in an emesis style of medical tray if desired (Austria para [0050]; fig 12).
2nd ANNOTATED FIG 6 of Austria:
PNG
media_image3.png
504
700
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 20, Eldrige in view of Austria and further in view of Taub discloses the mat substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 7). Taub also teaches a method of using a sheet of silicone rubber as a supporting surface for surgical instruments so that they will not slide off the sheet material when it is inclined, agitated or otherwise disturbed (abstract; col 1 lines 15-21). The sheet material is placed on top of a surgical drape that is covering a patient (col 2 lines 47-54; fig 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used a silicone rubber as taught by Taub for the mat (including the ridge which is part of the mat) of Eldrige in order to further assist in preventing surgical instruments from sliding off the mat.
Additionally, Austria further teaches that the ridge that extends around the whole perimeter of the top surface of the cervicothoracic mat (as shown in fig 8) extends from the top surface in a direction away from the bottom surface (each inflated section extends upwards from the top surface away from the bottom surface as illustrated in fig 4). Austria does not, however, explicitly disclose that the ridge has a height in a range of 2 inches to ¼ inch. However, since the structure which defines the ridge in Austria is inflatable, it is inherent that it can be inflated or deflated as desired to customize the height to best meet the needs of a given patient and/or surgical situation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have formed the ridge having a height that is, specifically, in the range of 2 inches to ¼ inch since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldrige, Jr. et al (US 5036866) in view of Austria et al (US 2011/0052858) and Taub (US 5059271) and further in view of Floyd et al (US 2021/0259795).
With respect to claim 10, Eldrige in view of Austria and further in view of Taub discloses the mat substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 7) but does not disclose that at least the receiving portion includes a plurality of cross-hatched projections extending therefrom.
Floyd, however, teaches use of textured surfaces such as grooves, ridges, cross-hatch patterns or a pebbled texture, such as a pattern of generally circular raised bumps, on the outer surfaces of medical devices to increase friction between the surface and other surfaces/objects that are in contact with it (see para [0065]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the receiving portion of the mat of Eldrige in view of Austria and further in view of Taub to include a plurality of cross-hatched projections extending therefrom, like the cross-hatch texture taught by Floyd, in order to increase friction between tools/instruments and the receiving portion to thereby assist in retaining the tools/instruments in place on the mat.
Claim(s) 11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldrige, Jr. et al (US 5036866) in view of Austria et al (US 2011/0052858) and Taub (US 5059271) and further in view of Augustine (US 2011/0162659).
With respect to claim 11, Eldrige in view of Austria and further in view of Taub discloses the mat substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 7) but does not disclose that the first peripheral portion is configured to receive a chin of the patient and the recessed sub-portion is configured to conform to the chin of the patient and to cover at least a portion of the chin of the patient.
Augustine, however, teaches a patient covering device which includes a peripheral portion (outside edge of bib 24 shown in fig 2) which is configured to receive a chin of the patient and includes a recessed sub-portion (a flat, non-bent portion which is recessed with respect to inflated portions) that is configured to conform to the chin and to cover at least a portion of the chin of the patient (the outside edge of bib 24 includes an indent 44 which permits the device to be drawn up to the chin and conforms to the chin of a patient – para [0045]; fig 2; the device is interpreted as covering at least part of the area beneath the chin when it is drawn up to the chin). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the peripheral portion of the mat of Eldrige so that it is configured to receive a chin of the patient and the recessed sub-portion is configured to conform to the chin of the patient and to cover at least a portion of the chin of the patient, like the device of Augustine, in order to allow the device to better conform to the anatomical contours of the patient’s body and thereby provide a better fit and more effective sterile barrier.
With respect to claim 14, Eldrige in view of Austria and further in view of Taub discloses the mat substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 7) and Eldrige also discloses that the first peripheral portion forms a non-planar ridge (as shown in fig 1, the peripheral portions 32 along edges 26 can be maintained in a bent or non-planar configuration; col 4 lines 43-45).
Eldrige does not, however, disclose a chin curve sub-portion arranged to receive the chin of the patient.
Augustine, however, teaches a patient covering device which includes a portion which is configured to receive a chin of the patient (the outside edge of bib 24 includes an indent 44 which permits the device to be drawn up to the chin of a patient – para [0045]; fig 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the ridge of the mat of Eldrige in view of Austria and further in view of Taub so that it is configured to receive a chin of the patient, like the peripheral portion of the device of Augustine, in order to allow the device to better conform to the anatomical contours of the patient’s body and thereby provide a better fit and more effective sterile barrier.
With respect to claim 15, Eldrige in view of Austria and Taub and further in view of Augustine discloses the mat substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 14) and Austria further teaches an embodiment of the mat wherein the second peripheral portion having a ridge includes angled sub-portions connecting the first lateral portion and the second lateral portion (identified in annotated fig 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the chin curve sub-portion of the mat of Eldrige in view of Austria and Taub and further in view of Augustine to include angled sub-portions connecting the chin curve sub-portion to the first lateral portion and the second lateral portion, like the second peripheral portion of the mat in figure 6 of Austria, in order to permit the mat to be arranged in a kidney shape to permit placement in an emesis style of medical tray if desired (Austria para [0050]; fig 12).
ANNOTATED FIG 6 of Austria:
PNG
media_image2.png
515
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 13, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldrige, Jr. et al (US 5036866) in view of Austria et al (US 2011/0052858) and Taub (US 5059271) and further in view of Kovyarenko (US 20180116892).
With respect to claim 13, Eldrige in view of Austria and further in view of Taub discloses the mat substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 7) but does not explicitly disclose that the first lateral portion and the second lateral portion are configured to extend toward a respective elbow of the patient.
Kovyarenko, however, teaches a mat 18 that has a top surface (upper surface 115) configured to receive surgical instruments (shown in fig 3C) and an opposite bottom surface (lower surface 120; fig 3A) configured to contact a patient (fig 4) wherein the top surface (115) includes a first lateral portion and a second lateral portion (left and right sides shown in fig 4) configured to cover a respective portion of the chest of the patient (as shown in fig 4) wherein each of the first/second lateral portions (left/right sides) are configured to extend toward a respective elbow of the patient (as shown in fig 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have configured the first and second lateral portions of the mat of Eldrige in view of Austria and further in view of Taub to extend toward a respective elbow of the patient like the first and second lateral portions of the mat of Kovyarenko in order to maintain surgical tools and instruments in a central location on the body, near the face/head of a patient, to provide easy access to the tools/instruments for procedures involving these regions.
With respect to claim 18, Eldrige in view of Austria and further in view of Taub discloses the mat substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 7) but does not explicitly disclose that the second peripheral portion includes a portion of the top surface configured to extend a length of the chest of the patient.
Kovyarenko, however, teaches a mat 18 that has a top surface (upper surface 115) configured to receive surgical instruments (shown in fig 3C); an opposite bottom surface (lower surface 120; fig 3A) configured to contact a patient (fig 4) and first and second peripheral portions that are each arranged along the perimeter of the mat (left/right edges and top/bottom edges which form the perimeter as shown in fig 3A) wherein the second peripheral portion (top/bottom edges) includes a portion of the top surface configured to extend a length of the chest of the patient (as shown in fig 4, the top and bottom edges of the mat 18 define the part of surface 115 that extends across the length of the patient’s chest). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have configured the second peripheral portion of the mat of Eldrige in view of Austria and further in view of Taub to include a portion of the top surface configured to extend a length of the chest of the patient, like the second peripheral portion of the mat of Kovyarenko, in order to maintain surgical tools and instruments in a central location on the body, near the face/head of a patient, to provide easy access to the tools/instruments for procedures involving these regions.
With respect to claim 19, Eldrige in view of Austria and further in view of Taub discloses the mat substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 7) but does not explicitly disclose that the second peripheral portion is a projection of the top surface of cervicothoracic mat configured to extend toward a midline of the thoracic region of the patient.
Kovyarenko, however, teaches a mat 18 that has a top surface (upper surface 115) configured to receive surgical instruments (shown in fig 3C); an opposite bottom surface (lower surface 120; fig 3A) configured to contact a patient (fig 4) and first and second peripheral portions that are each arranged along the perimeter of the mat (left/right edges and top/bottom edges which form the perimeter as shown in fig 3A) wherein the second peripheral portion (top/bottom edges) is a projection of the top surface of the cervicothoracic mat configured to extend toward a midline of the thoracic region of the patient (as shown in fig 4, the top and bottom edges of the mat 18 define the part of surface 115 that extends across the patient’s chest which includes parts of the surface 115 which extend towards the center of the chest). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have configured the second peripheral portion of the mat of Eldrige in view of Austria to be a projection of the top surface of the cervicothoracic mat configured to extend toward a midline of the thoracic region of the patient, like the second peripheral portion of the mat of Kovyarenko, in order to maintain surgical tools and instruments in a central location on the body, near the face/head of a patient, to provide easy access to the tools/instruments for procedures involving these regions.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 10/14/25 have been fully considered as follows:
Regarding the objections to the specification, Applicant’s amendments to the abstract have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objections which, accordingly, have been withdrawn.
Regarding the objections to the claims, Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objections which, accordingly, have been withdrawn. New objections have been given, however, as necessitated by the amendments to the claims (see above).
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-16 have been considered but are rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN CARREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-7234. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at 571-270-5237. 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.
/CAITLIN A CARREIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786