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 .
Claims 1-9 and 21-25 are hereby under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a non-conductive band disposed between adjacent conductive strips of the second plurality of conductive strips;”. It is unclear if “a non-conductive band” is different from a non-conductive band in line 6. The examiner recommends adding modifiers such as “first” or “second” to clarify if the two non-conductive bands are separate or the same. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted as different.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first and second knitted thermal fabric layers“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-8 and 21-25 are rejected based upon its dependencies on the rejected claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3416526B1 (Gavin et. al), cited by Applicant and hereto referred as Gavin, and in view of US20200040492A1 (Pilz et. al), hereto referred as Pilz.
As to claim 1, Gavin teaches a multi-layer pad assembly for use on a patient support (Gavin, Fig. 1), the multi-layer pad assembly comprising: a first fabric layer including: a first plurality of conductive strips extending in a first direction, the first plurality of conductive strips being in contact with a power source (Gavin, Fig. 2, conductive sheet 18; [0044], “A power source or energy source”); and
a second knitted fabric layer including: a second plurality of conductive strips extending in a second direction (Gavin, Fig. 1, conductive sheet 24), the second plurality of conductive strips being in contact with the power source (Gavin, Fig. 2, conductive sheet 24; [0044], “A power source or energy source”); and
a spacer disposed between the first knitted fabric layer and the second knitted fabric layer (Gavin, Fig. 1, insulator 22), wherein upon application of a force to the first knitted fabric layer, the first plurality of strips is configured to move into close proximity with the second plurality of strips and complete an electrical circuit, and wherein the spacer includes a plurality of apertures juxtapositioned proximate overlapping sections of the first plurality of conductive strips and the second plurality of conductive strips (Gavin, Fig. 1; Fig. 4; [0055]).
However, Gavin does not teach the detailed construction of the knitted fabric layer. Pilz teaches relevant art of conductive textile (Pilz, abstract), and teaches a knitted layer including conductive strips and non-conductive bands (Pilz, [0081], “first layer 10 having electroconductive regions and non-electroconductive regions or structures 12”). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gavin in view of Pilz to include a plurality of conductive strips and non-conductive band in the first and second fabric layer because Gavin already teaches a conductive fabric layer (Gavin, Fig. 1), and Pilz supplies a detailed construction of a conductive fabric layer with similar function.
Additionally, Gavin does not teach that the conductive strips are in first and second directions. Pilz teaches first and second directions of the conductive strips (Pilz, Fig. 7). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Gavin in view of Pilz to include first and second directions because it improves electric circulation, as suggested by Pilz (Pilz, [0032], “The first direction and the second direction can in particular be two orthogonal spatial directions and constitute a horizontal and a vertical direction of the (flat) shaped knitted fabric. This advantageously creates a shaped knitted fabric having a crisscrossing, matrix-like structure of the electroconductive structures of the first layer and the electroconductive structures of the third layer so that, with the aid of a corresponding individual electrical contact of the evaluation circuit, a sensor arrangement having spatial resolution, for example, can be obtained.”).
As to claim 2, Gavin-Pilz teaches the first direction is substantially orthogonal to the second direction (Pilz, Fig. 7).
As to claim 4, Gavin-Pilz teaches the spacer is configured to space the first knitted fabric layer from the second knitted fabric layer a distance to prohibit electrical communication between the first knitted fabric layer and the second knitted fabric layer (Gavin, [0037], “resilient electrical insulator (or insulating layer) 22 disposed between the sheets 18, 20”).
As to claim 5, Gavin-Pilz teaches the non-conductive band of the first knitted fabric layer includes a thickness that prohibits adjacent conductive strips of the first plurality of conductive strips from electrical communication (Gavin, [0037], “These conductive sheets (of different pressure sensors) may be separated by an insulating layer to prevent contact between them.”).
As to claim 23, Gavin does not teach the non-conductive band of the first knitted fabric layer include a thickness or a width that differs from a thickness or a width of the non-conductive band of the second knitted fabric layer; however, Pilz teaches the claimed limitation: (Pilz, [0045], “In a particularly advantageous format, the width of the electroconductive structures of the first layer and/or the width of the electroconductive structures of the third layer can be greater than the width of the adjacent non-conductive structures of the respective layer”). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Gavin in view of Pilz because doing so would improve the sensing abilities of the layers, as recognized by Pilz (Pilz, [0045], “This measure advantageously minimizes the width of the non-electroconductive structures of the first layer and/or the third layer, so that the sensorically active surface portion of the shaped knitted fabric can correspondingly be maximized.”)
As to claim 24, Gavin-Pilz teaches the first plurality of conductive strips and the second plurality of conductive strips are arranged in a perpendicular orientation (Pilz, Fig. 7).
As to claim 25, Gavin-Pilz teaches the second plurality of conductive strips are more concentrated proximate to known load concentrations of a patient (Pilz, [0042], “which are insulated from one another by narrow non-electroconductive regions or structures, which can likewise preferably be knitted in a linear or strip-shaped manner.”)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavin and Pilz as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US20180049400A1 (Hills, Lori), hereto referred as Hills.
Claim 2 is taught as above.
As to claim 3, Gavin-Pilz teaches the first knitted fabric layer, the second knitted fabric layer, and the spacer (Gavin, Fig. 2), but does not teach an impermeable cover layer encompassing the first knitted fabric layer, the second knitted fabric layer, and the spacer. Hills teaches a solution to a relevant problem of covering bed structures. Hills teaches an impermeable cover layer (Hills, [0012], “The top element of the pet bed cover may be of durable material which in some embodiments is waterproof.”). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gavin-Pilz in view of Hills because doing so would allow to increase the durability of the pad assembly.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavin and Pilz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20240398262A1 (Santagata et. al), hereto referred as Santagata.
Claim 1 is taught as above.
As to claim 6, Gavin-Pilz teaches a plurality of first and second conductive strips. However, Gavin-Pilz does not teach the detailed material component of the strips. Santagata teaches relevant art of sensor sheet (Santagata, abstract), and teaches that a plurality of conductive strips are comprised of at least one of silver, copper, and nickel (Santagata, [0028], “The first and second conductor tracks are preferably electrically conductive threads, wires, or cables. They are preferably flat or round in their cross-section. They are preferably silver-coated copper wires or other wires which have an optimum conductivity.”). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gavin-Pilz in view of Santagata to include a plurality of conductive strips are comprised of at least one of silver, copper, and nickel because silver, copper, nickel are known to be conductive and is a simple substitution.
Claims 7-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavin and Pilz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20200062408A1 (Bratianu-Badea et. al), hereto referred as Bratianu-Badea.
Claim 1 is taught as above.
As to claim 7, Gavin-Pilz teaches each of the first plurality of conductive strips and the second plurality of conductive strips is operably coupled with a controller and power source that monitors the two strips (Gavin, [0009], “controlled by the controller, and a power source”), but does not teach a relay connectable with a controller that monitors interactions of the first plurality of conductive strips with the second plurality of conductive strips. Bratianu-Badea teaches a relevant art of conductive sheets (Bratianu-Badea, Fig. 1). Bratianu-Badea teaches relay connectable with a controller (Bratianu-Badea, [0277], “The controllable switch can be implemented as an electronic switch (e.g., transistor, power diode, thyristor, silicon controlled rectifier, etc.) or a mechanical switch (e.g., relay).”). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gavin-Pilz in view of Bratianu-Badea to include a relay connectable with a controller that monitors interactions of the first plurality of conductive strips with the second plurality of conductive strips because Gavin-Pilz already teaches a controller and power source that monitors interactions of the two strips, and a relay switch is a known substitution for powering on a device with predictable results.
As to claim 8, Gavin-Pilz- Bratianu-Badea teaches a pressure map associated with areas of excessive pressure applied by a patient is developed by a processor (Gavin, [0057], “If pressure is redistributed to another area of the cushion 10 (and hence to another area of the patient's skin) by, for example, the natural movement of the patient in shifting their weight occasionally”).
As to claim 9, Gavin-Pilz- Bratianu-Badea teaches at least one of the first and second knitted thermal fabric layers comprise thermally insulative properties (Gavin, [0037], “nsulator (or insulating layer) 22”).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavin, Pilz and Bratianu-Badea as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 20170200536 A1 (Yabe et. al), hereto referred as Yabe.
Claim 7 is taught as above.
As to claim 21, Gavin-Pilz- Bratianu-Badea teaches the first plurality of conductive strips and the second plurality of conductive strips are in electrical communication with the relay. However, Gavin-Pilz- Bratianu-Badea does not teach that a wire harness disposed is within an impermeable cover layer. Yabe teaches a solution to a relevant art of covering conductive strips (Yabe, abstract). Yabe teaches a wire harness disposed is within an impermeable cover layer (Yabe, [0002], “such as a wire harness, and in order to waterproof such a portion, a heat-shrinkable tube or heat-shrinkable cap having a hot-melt adhesive (inner-layer adhesive) layer”). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gavin-Pilz- Bratianu-Badea in view of Yabe to include the first plurality of conductive strips and the second plurality of conductive strips are in electrical communication with the relay via a wire harness disposed is within an impermeable cover layer because doing so would allow additionally protection for such a portion, as recognized by Yabe.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavin and Pilz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20200375369 A1 (Negus et. al), hereto referred as Negus.
Claim 1 is taught as above.
As to claim 22, Gavin-Pilz does not teach that the first knitted fabric layer includes a thicker construction than the second knitted fabric layer. Negus teaches a relevant art of bed (Negus, abstract). Negus teaches the first knitted fabric layer includes a thicker construction than the second knitted fabric layer (Negus, [0034], “The first stretch fabric can have a thicker weight knit than the second and third stretch fabrics.”). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gavin-Pilz in view of Negus to include first knitted fabric layer includes a thicker construction than the second knitted fabric layer because it is obvious try for different combinations of thickness for the for the two fabric layers, and the two fabric layers not having identical thickness, and for the second one to be thicker in weight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELINA S JANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 6:00 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/ELINA SOHYUN JANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights