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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamilton (US5621931).
Regarding claim 11, Hamilton teaches that it is known to include a non-slip coated, fabric layer (abstract) between a mattress and an underlying support (Fig. 1). It is noted that in the current claims the statement of how the attachment apparatus is “configured” appears to me a recitation of intended use, wherein the prior art device is as capable of being used as claimed as the device of the current claims. Further it is noted that the device of Hamilton has lateral portions that overhang the underlying support surface. Further, it is noted that the lateral sides of the invention of Hamilton are affixable on opposing sides of the underlying mattress support.
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, 3, 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Squitieri et al. (USPGPub 2014/0048082) in view of Hamilton (US5621931).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Squitieri teaches that formation of a pressure mitigation apparatus having inflatable geometrically shaped chambers formed by connections between an upper and lower layer as claimed wherein the device is configured to be laid upon a support surface (see background summary, abstract and Fig. 1). Squitieri fails to teach the use of an attachment apparatus present between the pressure mitigation apparatus and the support surface capable of limiting movement between the two. However, Hamilton teaches that it is known to include anti-slip attachment devices between mattresses and the frames that they rest upon for the purposes of preventing slippage of the mattress on the surface via a non-slip coating provided on the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
include the slip-resistant device of Hamilton between the inflatable device that functions as a direct contact cushioning device similar to a mattress between the patient and a bed frame of Squitieri in order to prevent slippage of the pad device of Squitieri. Further it is noted that the device of Hamilton would be considered “affixable” around opposable sides of the mattress given that it overhangs the mattress of as shown in Hamilton on all sides, including two opposing sides (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, a material “configured for direct contact with the human body” is any material capable thereof as is the material of Squitieri.
Regarding claim 7, the top layer, pliable core and bottom layer of the claim may all be the same and may be arbitrarily defined as such given that the claim provides no distinction between them other than how they are intended to be used wherein a single layer material of Hamilton may arbitrarily be sectioned as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, the “fabric” (abstract) of Hamilton necessarily comprises at least natural or synthetic fibers.
Claims 4, 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Squitieri et al. (USPGPub 2014/0048082) in view of Hamilton (US5621931) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5 and 7-8 above and further in view of Chetlapalli (USPGPub 2013/0253396).
Regarding claim 4 and 6 the teachings of Squitieri in view of Hamilton are as shown above. Hamilton is silent as to what type of anti-slip coating may be employed. However, Chetlapalli teaches that in the medical field it is known employ silicone as an anti-slip coating material [0089]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the silicone coating material of Chetlapalli for the anti-slipping coating material of Squitieri in view of Hamilton as a simple substitution of one anti-slip coating material for another in the medical or personal use field wherein the results of the substitution would have been predictable based on the teachings of both Hamilton and Chetlapalli that their material were both capable of preventing slippage between surfaces in the medical field.
Regarding claim 9, the silicone coating of Squitieri in view of Hamilton and Chetlapalli would not be expected to be porous or permeable to fluid and would be expected to be the equivalent of the silicone coatings cited in the current specification with further clarification.
Regarding claim 10, the device of Squitieri further comprises a layer that may be breathable [0022] and porous [0023], reasonably implying a permeability to fluids.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton (US5621931) as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claims 12-14, the teachings of Hamilton are as shown above. Hamilton fails to teach the dimensions of his rubber attachment apparatus. However, said apparatus do have relative dimensions which would be presumably on the order of long width of approximately 3 inches and a longitudinal length of perhaps 20 inches based on common dimensions associated with a common bed mattress and a guesstimate based on Fig. 1 of Hamilton. However, it cannot be certainly stated that the prior art relative dimensions read upon the claimed ranges. However further, the Court has long held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claims 15-16, it is further noted that Hamilton employ hook and loop (Velcro) (item 22) mechanisms as the attachment means for his invention and that it is “bonded” to the non-slip deck material. Hamilton fails to teach how the hook and loop system is bonded to the surface. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that adhesives are likely the most common way of bonding hook and loop portions to their respective substrates to be held. Hook and loop with adhesive attached can readily be purchased online and in home improvement stores and local supermarkets wherein the common manner of provision further includes an backing present on the portion to be adhered so as to prevent it from losing its adhesive quality prior to use. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bond the hook and loop material of Hamilton using an adhesive because doing so is common in many fields wherein hook and loop is employed including draperies, wall hangings, clothing and etc.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Squitieri et al. (USPGPub 2014/0048082) in view of Peck et al. (US4803744) and Hamilton (US5621931) and Chetlapalli (USPGPub 2013/0253396).
Regarding claim 17, Squitieri teaches that formation of a pressure mitigation apparatus having inflatable geometrically shaped chambers formed by connections between an upper and lower layer as claimed wherein the device is configured to be laid upon a support surface (see background summary, abstract and Fig. 1). Squitieri fails to teach the use of an antimicrobial coating as claimed. However, Peck teaches that it is known to provide portions of medical mattresses (that may also be inflatable) with coatings that have antimicrobial properties (col. 3, lines 1-25). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the antimicrobial coatings of Peck to the inflatable support device of Squitieri in order to prevent the presence of bacteria on the support device of Squitieri. Squitieri in view of Peck fails to teach the use of a silicone coating on the underside of the attachment apparatus although the use of an adhesive is described above. However, Hamilton teaches that it is known to prevent slippage of a patient support relative to an underlying frame it is known to include a non-slip coating therebetween. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the non-slip coating of Hamilton on the invention of Squitieri in view of Peck in order to prevent slippage between the patient support and frame as claimed. The teachings of Squitieri in view of Peck and Hamilton are as shown above. Squitieri in view of Peck and Hamilton fails to teach the exact composition of the noon-slip coating. However the teachings of Chetlapalli are applicable to the teachings of Squitieri in view of Peck and Hamilton in the same way that they are applicable to the teachings of Squitieri in view of Hamilton alone as described above.
Regarding claim 18, the device of Squitieri further comprises a layer that may be breathable [0022] and porous [0023], reasonably implying a permeability to fluids.
Regarding claim 19, the device of Squitieri may further comprise an impervious layer adjacent the breathable porous material that is capable of functioning as claimed [0103].
Response to Arguments
The applicants’ arguments are generally moot in view of new grounds of rejection wherein all grounds of rejection provide at least one newly cited prior art reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights