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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-20, 22-24 and 30, in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luckemeyer et al. (US 2015/0216315) in view of Khambete (US 2021/0186229), Landvik et al. (US 8,034,445), and Mai et al. (US 2015/0037555).
Regarding claim 1, Luckemeyer teaches a patient support system including a cover sheet with a number of layers (“a multilayer cover”) (Paragraph [0007]). The layers include a first-, second-, and third-layer configuration wherein each of the layers may be a composite or laminate of multiple materials (“a first cover layer” & “a second cover layer” & “a third cover layer”) (Paragraph [0024]). The cover sheet further includes a means for providing air flow through air pockets in the third layer allowing for assisting in moving fluid from the air pockets (“includes a vent and pneumatic fitting”) (Fig. 3, Paragraphs [0040]-[0041]).
Luckemeyer is silent with respect to the first layer being non-rectangular.
Khambete teaches a non-sewn mattress including a cover and an inner core (Paragraph [0008]). The cover is provided with top, bottom and side panels which are provided in order to sufficiently cover the inner core (Fig. 6; Paragraphs [0056]-[0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the first layer of the covers of Luckemeyer to include top, bottom and side panels in order to sufficiently cover a mattress the cover is applied to as taught by Khambete.
Luckemeyer is silent with respect to the first layer including a first material layer, a second material layer and a third material layer.
Landvik teaches mattresses and supports for mattresses (Col. 1, Lines 38-39). The mattresses further include covers which includes a base nylon fabric which is coated with a polyurethane film which provides waterproofness while being vapor-permeable (Col. 3, Lines 64-66).
Mai teaches a self-supporting adhesive which forms a strong bond between two substrates, such as between a fabric and a plastic film (Paragraphs [0005]; [0050]-[0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the first layer of Luckemeyer to be a base nylon fabric bonded with a polyurethane film in order to provide waterproofness while being vapor-permeable wherein the nylon fabric is bonded to the polyurethane film via the self-supporting adhesive in order to achieve a strong bond as taught by Landvik and Mai. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the resulting structure includes the nylon fabric, an adhesive and a polyurethane film being equivalent to a first material layer, a second material layer and a third material layer. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the covers of Luckemeyer would ultimately possess a “predetermined” minimum moisture vapor transport capacity, minimum chemical resistance, and minimum flame retardancy such that the claim does not require a specific value for these properties.
Regarding claim 2, Luckemeyer teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the first layer is formed from nylon fabric, an adhesive and a polyurethane film.
Regarding claim 3, Luckemeyer teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the first layer is formed from nylon fabric, an adhesive and a polyurethane film.
The limitation of “via a welding process” is a product-by-process limitation and must be examined to the extent that the method materially changes the final product. MPEP 2113: "[E]ven 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). In the instant case, the method does not appear to materially change the final product of claim 1 and is taught by the combination of Luckemeyer, Khambete, Landvik and Mai as discussed above.
Regarding claim 5, Luckemeyer teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Luckemeyer is silent with respect to a moisture vapor transferability of the multi-layer cover, following the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists' 193 testing method, includes a solution resistance of at least 7.5.
However, this property appears to be dependent on the materials for forming the multi-layer covers of claim 1 such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an identical structure must have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, the multilayer covers require the first cover layer, formed from the first, second and third material layers, the second cover layer and the third cover layer as defined in claim 1. Furthermore, the preferred materials for the first, second, and third material layers are nylon fibers, an adhesive and a polyurethane film, respectively (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraphs [0112]-[0132]).
Each of these materials are taught by the combination of Luckemeyer, Khambete, Landvik and Mai as discussed above. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the structure taught by the combination above and the claimed invention are identical and would have identical properties, including a moisture vapor transferability of the multi-layer cover, following the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists' 193 testing method, includes a solution resistance of at least 7.5.
Regarding claim 6, Luckemeyer teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Luckemeyer is silent with respect to a moisture vapor transferability of the multi-layer cover, following the Slovenian Institute for Standardization's CEN TR 16422 § 4.5.3 standard, Method B of Annex 2, includes: a buffering index of at least 0.25, a sweat transport at 25°F and 50% RH of at least 172 g/m2h, and a sweat uptake of at least 2.1 g.
However, this property appears to be dependent on the materials for forming the multi-layer covers of claim 1 such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an identical structure must have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, the multilayer covers require the first cover layer, formed from the first, second and third material layers, the second cover layer and the third cover layer as defined in claim 1. Furthermore, the preferred materials for the first, second, and third material layers are nylon fibers, an adhesive and a polyurethane film, respectively (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraphs [0112]-[0132]).
Each of these materials are taught by the combination of Luckemeyer, Khambete, Landvik and Mai as discussed above. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the structure taught by the combination above and the claimed invention are identical and would have identical properties, including a moisture vapor transferability of the multi-layer cover, following the Slovenian Institute for Standardization's CEN TR 16422 § 4.5.3 standard, Method B of Annex 2, includes: a buffering index of at least 0.25, a sweat transport at 25°F and 50% RH of at least 172 g/m2h, and a sweat uptake of at least 2.1 g.
Regarding claim 7, Luckemeyer teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Luckemeyer is silent with respect to the multi-layer cover includes a chemical resistance to remain leak-free for at least fourteen days during which the multi-layer cover is subjected to a solution containing 5,000 ppm of active chlorine without signs of wear.
However, this property appears to be dependent on the materials for forming the multi-layer covers of claim 1 such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an identical structure must have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, the multilayer covers require the first cover layer, formed from the first, second and third material layers, the second cover layer and the third cover layer as defined in claim 1. Furthermore, the preferred materials for the first, second, and third material layers are nylon fibers, an adhesive and a polyurethane film, respectively (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraphs [0112]-[0132]).
Each of these materials are taught by the combination of Luckemeyer, Khambete, Landvik and Mai as discussed above. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the structure taught by the combination above and the claimed invention are identical and would have identical properties, including a chemical resistance to remain leak-free for at least fourteen days during which the multi-layer cover is subjected to a solution containing 5,000 ppm of active chlorine without signs of wear.
Regarding claim 8, Luckemeyer teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Luckemeyer is silent with respect to the multi-layer cover includes a breathability of at least 300 g/m2/24 hours under an inverted cup test at 37 °C and 65% relative humidity.
However, this property appears to be dependent on the materials for forming the multi-layer covers of claim 1 such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an identical structure must have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, the multilayer covers require the first cover layer, formed from the first, second and third material layers, the second cover layer and the third cover layer as defined in claim 1. Furthermore, the preferred materials for the first, second, and third material layers are nylon fibers, an adhesive and a polyurethane film, respectively (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraphs [0112]-[0132]).
Each of these materials are taught by the combination of Luckemeyer, Khambete, Landvik and Mai as discussed above. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the structure taught by the combination above and the claimed invention are identical and would have identical properties, including a breathability of at least 300 g/m2/24 hours under an inverted cup test at 37 °C and 65% relative humidity.
Regarding claim 9, Luckemeyer teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Luckemeyer is silent with respect to the multi-layer cover includes a breaking strength warp of at least 500 N/5 cm under ISO 13934:2013 and/or a breaking strength weft of at least 350 N/5 cm under ISO 13934:2013.
However, this property appears to be dependent on the materials for forming the multi-layer covers of claim 1 such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an identical structure must have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, the multilayer covers require the first cover layer, formed from the first, second and third material layers, the second cover layer and the third cover layer as defined in claim 1. Furthermore, the preferred materials for the first, second, and third material layers are nylon fibers, an adhesive and a polyurethane film, respectively (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraphs [0112]-[0132]).
Each of these materials are taught by the combination of Luckemeyer, Khambete, Landvik and Mai as discussed above. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the structure taught by the combination above and the claimed invention are identical and would have identical properties, including a breaking strength warp of at least 500 N/5 cm under ISO 13934:2013 and/or a breaking strength weft of at least 350 N/5 cm under ISO 13934:2013.
Regarding claim 10, Luckemeyer teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Luckemeyer is silent with respect to the multi-layer cover includes a chemical resistance to survive at least fourteen days under a continuous pooling test using chlorine bleach without signs of wear.
However, this property appears to be dependent on the materials for forming the multi-layer covers of claim 1 such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an identical structure must have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, the multilayer covers require the first cover layer, formed from the first, second and third material layers, the second cover layer and the third cover layer as defined in claim 1. Furthermore, the preferred materials for the first, second, and third material layers are nylon fibers, an adhesive and a polyurethane film, respectively (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraphs [0112]-[0132]).
Each of these materials are taught by the combination of Luckemeyer, Khambete, Landvik and Mai as discussed above. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the structure taught by the combination above and the claimed invention are identical and would have identical properties, including a chemical resistance to survive at least fourteen days under a continuous pooling test using chlorine bleach without signs of wear.
Regarding claim 11, Luckemeyer teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Luckemeyer is silent with respect to the multi-layer cover includes a material stretch along a first axis between 21% and 38% under a pulling force of 18 N along the first axis, and/or a material stretch along a second axis between 19% and 36% under a pulling force of 18 N along the second axis.
However, this property appears to be dependent on the materials for forming the multi-layer covers of claim 1 such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an identical structure must have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, the multilayer covers require the first cover layer, formed from the first, second and third material layers, the second cover layer and the third cover layer as defined in claim 1. Furthermore, the preferred materials for the first, second, and third material layers are nylon fibers, an adhesive and a polyurethane film, respectively (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraphs [0112]-[0132]).
Each of these materials are taught by the combination of Luckemeyer, Khambete, Landvik and Mai as discussed above. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the structure taught by the combination above and the claimed invention are identical and would have identical properties, including a material stretch along a first axis between 21% and 38% under a pulling force of 18 N along the first axis, and/or a material stretch along a second axis between 19% and 36% under a pulling force of 18 N along the second axis.
Regarding claim 12, Luckemeyer teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Luckemeyer is silent with respect to the multi-layer cover includes a material stretch along a first axis between 22% and 45% under a pulling force of 36 N along the first axis, and/or a material stretch along a second axis between 27% and 49% under a pulling force of 36 N along the second axis.
However, this property appears to be dependent on the materials for forming the multi-layer covers of claim 1 such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an identical structure must have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, the multilayer covers require the first cover layer, formed from the first, second and third material layers, the second cover layer and the third cover layer as defined in claim 1. Furthermore, the preferred materials for the first, second, and third material layers are nylon fibers, an adhesive and a polyurethane film, respectively (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraphs [0112]-[0132]).
Each of these materials are taught by the combination of Luckemeyer, Khambete, Landvik and Mai as discussed above. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the structure taught by the combination above and the claimed invention are identical and would have identical properties, including a material stretch along a first axis between 22% and 45% under a pulling force of 36 N along the first axis, and/or a material stretch along a second axis between 27% and 49% under a pulling force of 36 N along the second axis.
Regarding claim 13, Luckemeyer teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Luckemeyer is silent with respect to the multi-layer cover includes a material longevity of at least three months without signs of wear in conditions of 70°C and 95% relative humidity.
However, this property appears to be dependent on the materials for forming the multi-layer covers of claim 1 such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an identical structure must have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, the multilayer covers require the first cover layer, formed from the first, second and third material layers, the second cover layer and the third cover layer as defined in claim 1. Furthermore, the preferred materials for the first, second, and third material layers are nylon fibers, an adhesive and a polyurethane film, respectively (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraphs [0112]-[0132]).
Each of these materials are taught by the combination of Luckemeyer, Khambete, Landvik and Mai as discussed above. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the structure taught by the combination above and the claimed invention are identical and would have identical properties, including a material longevity of at least three months without signs of wear in conditions of 70°C and 95% relative humidity.
Regarding claim 14, Luckemeyer teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the first layer includes a polyurethane film which is taught to be a preferred material for the third material layer (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraphs [0132]). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the polyurethane film taught by Landvik is a sufficient material having a static coefficient of friction between 0.18 and 0.35, and/or a kinetic coefficient of friction between 0.22 and 0.38.
Regarding claim 15, Luckemeyer teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the first layer is formed from a composite including a nylon fabric.
Regarding claim 16, Luckemeyer teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the first layer is formed from nylon fabric, an adhesive and a polyurethane film.
The limitation of “using cast coating” is a product-by-process limitation and must be examined to the extent that the method materially changes the final product. MPEP 2113: "[E]ven 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). In the instant case, the method does not appear to materially change the final product of claim 1 and is taught by the combination of Luckemeyer, Khambete, Landvik and Mai as discussed above.
Regarding claim 17, Luckemeyer teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the first layer is formed from nylon fabric, an adhesive and a polyurethane film.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luckemeyer et al. (US 2015/0216315) in view of Khambete (US 2021/0186229), Landvik et al. (US 8,034,445), and Mai et al. (US 2015/0037555) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pearce (US 2018/0078048).
Regarding claim 4, Luckemeyer teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the first layer includes a polyurethane film which is taught to be a preferred material for the third material layer (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraphs [0132]). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the polyurethane film taught by Landvik is a sufficient material having a melting point between 450°F and 550°F.
Luckemeyer and Landvik are silent with respect to the polyurethane film having a thickness from 80 to 100 microns.
Pearce teaches mattress protectors (Paragraph [0001]). The mattress protector includes a polymer material which is selected based on barrier properties, being sufficiently stretchable and relatively quiet (Paragraph [0028]). The material is preferably a polyurethane having a thickness of 0.002 inches or more (Paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the polyurethane film of Landvik to have a thickness of 0.002 inches or more (50 microns or more) such that polyurethanes are desired based on their barrier properties, being sufficiently stretchable and relatively quiet as taught by Pearce.
Claims 18 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luckemeyer et al. (US 2015/0216315) in view of Khambete (US 2021/0186229), Landvik et al. (US 8,034,445), and Mai et al. (US 2015/0037555).
Regarding claim 18, Luckemeyer teaches a patient support system including a cover sheet with a number of layers (“a support surface cover” & “an occupant section”) (Paragraph [0007]). The layers include a first-, second-, and third-layer configuration wherein each of the layers may be a composite or laminate of multiple materials (“a first cover layer” & “a second cover layer” & “a third cover layer”) (Paragraph [0024]). The cover sheet further includes a means for providing air flow through air pockets in the third layer allowing for assisting in moving fluid from the air pockets (“includes a vent and pneumatic fitting”) (Fig. 3, Paragraphs [0040]-[0041]).
Luckemeyer is silent with respect to the first layer being non-rectangular.
Khambete teaches a non-sewn mattress including a cover and an inner core (Paragraph [0008]). The cover is provided with top, bottom and side panels which are provided in order to sufficiently cover the inner core (Fig. 6; Paragraphs [0056]-[0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the first layer of the covers of Luckemeyer to include top, bottom and side panels in order to sufficiently cover a mattress the cover is applied to as taught by Khambete.
Luckemeyer is silent with respect to the first layer including a first material layer, a second material layer and a third material layer.
Landvik teaches mattresses and supports for mattresses (Col. 1, Lines 38-39). The mattresses further include covers which includes a base nylon fabric which is coated with a polyurethane film which provides waterproofness while being vapor-permeable (Col. 3, Lines 64-66).
Mai teaches a self-supporting adhesive which forms a strong bond between two substrates, such as between a fabric and a plastic film (Paragraphs [0005]; [0050]-[0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the first layer of Luckemeyer to be a base nylon fabric bonded with a polyurethane film in order to provide waterproofness while being vapor-permeable wherein the nylon fabric is bonded to the polyurethane film via the self-supporting adhesive in order to achieve a strong bond as taught by Landvik and Mai. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the resulting structure includes the nylon fabric, an adhesive and a polyurethane film being equivalent to a first material layer, a second material layer and a third material layer. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the covers of Luckemeyer would ultimately possess a “predetermined” minimum moisture vapor transport capacity, minimum chemical resistance, and minimum flame retardancy such that the claim does not require a specific value for these properties.
Regarding claim 22, Luckemeyer teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 18. As discussed above, the cover sheet further includes a means for providing air flow through air pockets in the third layer allowing for assisting in moving fluid from the air pockets (“air bladder”).
Regarding claims 23-24, Luckemeyer teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 18. Khambete further teaches the inclusion of a rail assembly in order to provide additional support if a person sits at the edge of a mattress and may be formed non-woven fibers (Paragraph [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further include a rail assembly which is formed from a non-woven fabric (“fourth cover layer” & “fluid permeable layer”) in order to provide additional support if a person sits at the edge of a mattress
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luckemeyer et al. (US 2015/0216315) in view of Khambete (US 2021/0186229), Landvik et al. (US 8,034,445), and Mai et al. (US 2015/0037555) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Pearce (US 2018/0078048).
Regarding claim 19, Luckemeyer teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 18.
Luckemeyer is silent with respect to the covers further including an attachment assembly coupled to the first cover layer at a bottom edge of the support surface cover, wherein the attachment assembly comprises a zipper portion, a zipperless slide portion, or a hook and loop portion.
Pearce teaches mattress protectors (Paragraph [0001]). The mattress protector includes a polymer material which is selected based on barrier properties, being sufficiently stretchable and relatively quiet (Paragraph [0028]). The protectors further include a zipper or a hook and loop material for fastening to a mattress (Paragraph [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the covers of Luckemeyer such that they further include a zipper for fastening to a mattress as taught by Pearce.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luckemeyer et al. (US 2015/0216315) in view of Khambete (US 2021/0186229), Landvik et al. (US 8,034,445), and Mai et al. (US 2015/0037555) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Murphy et al. (US 2021/0120967).
Regarding claim 20, Luckemeyer teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 18.
Luckemeyer is silent with respect to the covers further including a hem in the first cover layer at the bottom edge of the support surface cover, wherein the hem includes a polymer or polyurethane backing, and wherein the hem includes an outside portion of the first cover layer on a first side of the backing and an inner portion of the first cover layer on a second side of the backing.
Murphy teaches a mattress including a detachable and reversible mattress ticking assembly (Paragraph [0002]). The assembly includes an elastic hem which provides stability to the ticking assembly during use (Paragraph [0127]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the covers of Luckemeyer with an elastic hem in order to promote stability of the covers during use as taught by Murphy.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luckemeyer et al. (US 2015/0216315) in view of Khambete (US 2021/0186229), Landvik et al. (US 8,034,445) and Mai et al. (US 2015/0037555).
Regarding claim 30, Luckemeyer teaches a patient support system including a cover sheet with a number of layers (“support surface cover for a mattress”) (Paragraph [0007]). The layers include a first-, second-, and third-layer configuration wherein each of the layers may be a composite or laminate of multiple materials (“a top layer” & “a transport layer” & “a bottom layer”) (Paragraph [0024]). The cover sheet further includes a means for providing air flow through air pockets (“air bladder”) in the third layer allowing for assisting in moving fluid from the air pockets (“a plurality of vents and pneumatic fittings”) (Fig. 3, Paragraphs [0040]-[0041]).
Luckemeyer is silent with respect to the first layer having an occupant section and four side sections coupled to a periphery of the occupant section, wherein a perimeter of the top layer is non-rectangular.
Khambete teaches a non-sewn mattress including a cover and an inner core (Paragraph [0008]). The cover is provided with top, bottom and side panels which are provided in order to sufficiently cover the inner core (Fig. 6; Paragraphs [0056]-[0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the first layer of the covers of Luckemeyer to include top, bottom and side panels in order to sufficiently cover a mattress the cover is applied to as taught by Khambete. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the center section of Fig. 6 would be the occupant section and the panels would be the fours side sections.
Luckemeyer is silent with respect to the covers further including a bridge layer which includes a frame defining a rectangular opening at an intermediate area of the frame.
Khambete further teaches the inclusion of a rail assembly in order to provide additional support if a person sits at the edge of a mattress and may be formed non-woven fibers (Paragraph [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further include a rail assembly which is formed from a non-woven fabric (“bridge layer defining a rectangular opening at an intermediate area of the frame”) in order to provide additional support if a person sits at the edge of a mattress
Luckemeyer is silent with respect to the first layer including a first material layer, a second material layer and a third material layer.
Landvik teaches mattresses and supports for mattresses (Col. 1, Lines 38-39). The mattresses further include covers which includes a base nylon fabric which is coated with a polyurethane film which provides waterproofness while being vapor-permeable (Col. 3, Lines 64-66).
Mai teaches a self-supporting adhesive which forms a strong bond between two substrates, such as between a fabric and a plastic film (Paragraphs [0005]; [0050]-[0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the first layer of Luckemeyer to be a base nylon fabric bonded with a polyurethane film in order to provide waterproofness while being vapor-permeable wherein the nylon fabric is bonded to the polyurethane film via the self-supporting adhesive in order to achieve a strong bond as taught by Landvik and Mai. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the resulting structure includes the nylon fabric, an adhesive and a polyurethane film being equivalent to a fabric layer, a polymer composition layer and an adhesive between the two. Furthermore, the preferred material for the fabric layer is nylon and, as such, the nylon fabric is suitable to teach “a fabric layer having a melting point between 450°F and 550°F” (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraph [0050]).
Lastly, it is noted that each of the layers, being the first layer, the rail assembly, the second layer, and the third layer is provided in this order and are “coupled” together in a horizontal direction. As such, this structure ultimately teaches “the occupant section and the bottom layer are coupled along a first peripheral path, the bridge layer and the bottom layer are coupled along a second peripheral path, the bridge layer and the transport layer are coupled along a third peripheral path” such that the peripheral paths may all be the same direction, such as a horizontal direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783