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 1-27 are pending in the application. Claims 21-27 are newly added. No canceled claims presented.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 9, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication US2017/0049646A1 hereinafter referred to as Rigoni in view of US Patent Publication US2014/0366271A1 hereinafter referred to as Marshall.
Re-Claim 1
Rigoni discloses: a patient positioning system 10 fig.1 for supporting a patient 70 fig.1, the patient positioning system comprising: an inflatable device 20 fig.3 comprising: a top sheet of material 26 fig.3, and a bottom sheet of material 27 fig.3 connected to the top sheet, the bottom sheet and the top sheet defining a cavity 31 fig.13 configured to be inflated, at least a portion of the bottom sheet comprising air-permeable material 37, 38 fig.3 (see passages in 27); and a high-friction pad 40 [0090 “For example, a high-friction material (e.g., substance or surface treatment) may be applied to the bottom surface 44 of the pad 40 “] connected to the top sheet, the high-friction pad being configured to maintain the patient in a first position.
However does not discloses a chest strap extending across the inflatable device and the high friction pad.
Marshall discloses a patient positioning system 10 fig.1 comprising a chest strap 14 fig.1 extending across the support pad 12 fig.1.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the patient positioning system of Rigoni and the patient positioning system of Marshall utilizing chest straps with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at patient positioning system with chest straps for securing the occupant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of securing the occupant to a support surface as taught in Marshall [0044].
Re-Claim 2
Rigoni as modified by Marshall above discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the air-permeable material covers between 0.5% and 3% of a total surface area of the bottom sheet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the air-permeable material cover between 0.5% and 3% of a total surface area of the bottom sheet, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Based on a visual inspection of fig.3 it is clear that the percentage of air permeable material on the bottom sheet compared to the total surface of the bottom sheet is extremely low. For that reason having the air-permeable material cover between 0.5% and 3% of a total surface area of the bottom sheet would be a reasonable working range for the apparatus.
Re-Claim 7
Rigoni as modified by Marshall above discloses,
a hook and loop fastener material; wherein the high-friction pad is connected to the top sheet by the hook and loop fastener material [0091 “For example, the device 20 and pad 40 may include complementary connections, such as hook-and-loop connectors, buttons, snaps, or other connectors.”].
Re-Claim 9
Rigoni as modified by Marshall above discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the high-friction pad has a thickness in a range of between 0.125 inches and 1.0 inch. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the high-friction pad to have a thickness in a range of between 0.125 inches and 1.0 inch, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Figure 2 of Rigoni depicts the high friction pad being relatively thin. The claimed the high-friction pad having a thickness in a range of between 0.125 inches and 1.0 inch is also relatively thin. For that reason having a thickness in a range of between 0.125 inches and 1.0 inches would be a reasonable working range for the high friction pad.
Re-Claim 13
Rigoni as modified by Marshall above discloses a high friction coating 24 [0087 “ For example, the high-friction material 24 may be or include a coating applied to the inflatable body 30, such as a spray coating. In the embodiment of FIGS. 1-6, both the top and bottom sheets 26, 27 include the coating of the high friction material 24, with the coating on the top sheet 26 facing outward to form part of the top surface 21 of the device 20 and the coating on the bottom sheet 27 facing inwardly to form a surface of the cavity 31. This coating may be a polyurethane coating that is waterproof and/or breathable in one embodiment. This inward-facing high-friction coating 24 on the bottom sheet 27 can resist slipping of the top and bottom sheets 26, 27 with respect to each other. In another embodiment, only the top sheet 26 has the coating of the high-friction material 24.”] and the claimed invention except for the coating made from urethan or polyvinyl chloride. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select the material of the coating to be urethan or polyvinyl chloride, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It would have been obvious to utilize a coating in for the high friction material in the high frication pad. Additionally urethan and polyvinyl chloride materials are well known to be high friction materials and would be an obvious choice as a high friction coating material.
Re-Claim 15
Rigoni as modified by Marshall above discloses the claimed invention except for wherein: the air-permeable material covers between 0.5% and 3% of a total surface area of the bottom sheet; and the high-friction pad has a thickness in a range of between 0.125 inches and 1.0 inch. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the air-permeable material cover between 0.5% and 3% of a total surface area of the bottom sheet and to configure the high-friction pad to have a thickness in a range of between 0.125 inches and 1.0 inch, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Based on a visual inspection of fig.3 it is clear that the percentage of air permeable material on the bottom sheet compared to the total surface of the bottom sheet is extremely low. For that reason having the air-permeable material cover between 0.5% and 3% of a total surface area of the bottom sheet would be a reasonable working range for the apparatus. Additionally figure 2 of Rigoni depicts the high friction pad being relatively thin. The claimed the high-friction pad having a thickness in a range of between 0.125 inches and 1.0 inch is also relatively thin. For that reason having a thickness in a range of between 0.125 inches and 1.0 inches would be a reasonable working range for the high friction pad.
Re-Claim 17
Rigoni as modified by Marshall above discloses,
Marshall teaches a tiltable support surface T fig.1; wherein the patient positioning system further comprises an attachment system 14 fig.1 configured to maintain the inflatable device on the tiltable support surface.
Re-Claim 18
Rigoni as modified by Marshall above discloses,
Marshall teaches wherein: the tiltable support surface comprises a rail R fig.1 extending along a side of the patient positioning system; and the chest strap is coupled to the rail [0044].
Re-Claim 19
Rigoni as modified by Giap above discloses
wherein the bottom sheet comprises a passage 37 Rigoni configured to release air from the cavity, thereby decreasing a coefficient of friction between the bottom sheet and the tiltable support surface T fig.1 Marshall/ 12, 14, 16 fig.1 Rigoni.
Re-Claim 27
Rigoni discloses: a patient positioning system 10 fig.1 for supporting a patient 70 fig.1, the patient positioning system comprising: an inflatable device 20 fig.3 comprising: a top sheet of material 26 fig.3, and a bottom sheet of material 27 fig.3 connected to the top sheet, the bottom sheet and the top sheet defining a cavity 31 fig.13 configured to be inflated, at least a portion of the bottom sheet comprising air-permeable material 37, 38 fig.3 (see passages in 27); and a high-friction pad 40 [0090 “For example, a high-friction material (e.g., substance or surface treatment) may be applied to the bottom surface 44 of the pad 40 “] connected to the top sheet, the high-friction pad being configured to maintain the patient in a first position and a tiltable support surface 12, 14, 16 fig.1.
However does not discloses an attachment system 14 fig.1; a tiltable support surface T fig.1 comprises a rail R fig.1 extending along a side of the patient positioning system, wherein the attachment system is configured to maintain the inflatable device on the tiltable support surface; and a chest strap coupled to the rail [0044] and configured to extend across the inflatable device and the high friction pad.
Marshall discloses a patient positioning system 10 fig.1 comprising an attachment system 14 fig.1; a tiltable support surface T fig.1 comprises a rail R fig.1 extending along a side of the patient positioning system, wherein the attachment system is configured to maintain the inflatable device on the tiltable support surface; and a chest strap 14 fig.1 coupled to the rail [0044] and configured to extend across the support pad 12 fig.1 [0044].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the patient positioning system of Rigoni and the patient positioning system of Marshall utilizing chest straps with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at patient positioning system with chest straps for securing the occupant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of securing the occupant to a support surface as taught in Marshall [0044].
Claim(s) 8, 10-12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigoni in view of Marshall further US Patent Publication US2013/0152950A1 hereinafter referred to as Giap.
Re-Claim 8
Rigoni discloses the claimed apparatus however does not discloses wherein the high-friction pad comprises an arm wrap configured to secure an arm of the patient.
Giap teaches a high friction pad 10 fig.5 wherein the high-friction pad comprises an arm wrap 16 fig.5 configured to secure an arm of the patient.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the patient positioning system of Rigoni and the high friction pad with arm wraps of Giap and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at patient positioning system with arm wraps for securing the arms of the occupant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of securing the occupant’s arms and protecting the occupant from injury as taught in Giap [0013].
Re-Claim 10
Rigoni as modified by Giap above discloses,
wherein the high-friction pad is made of a foam 84 fig.6 [0088 “FIG. 6 shows the device 10 as optionally having a soft, foam pad 84 removably engaged to the top surface 24.”] Giap.
Re-Claim 11
Rigoni as modified by Giap above discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the foam is an open cell foam. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select the material of the foam to be an open cell foam, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Examiner notes open cell foam is commonly used as a padding material.
Re-Claim 12
Rigoni as modified by Giap above discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the foam is a gel impregnated polyether foam. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select the material of the foam to be a gel impregnated polyether foam, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Examiner notes a gel impregnated polyether foam is known to be used as a padding material.
Re-Claim 20
Rigoni as modified by Giap above discloses
Giap teaches further comprising a strap 29 fig.7 and an anchor 14 fig.7, the anchor being coupled to the high-friction pad, the strap [0089 “FIG. 7 shows a view of the bottom surface 26 of the device 10. Belt 29 has connector 33 attached at the respective ends and is coupled to handles 14.”] being removably coupled to the high-friction pad and extending through the anchor, the strap having a first end 33 fig.7 and a second end 33, wherein the first end comprises a male buckle and the second end comprises a female buckle, the male buckle and female buckle being configured to engage with one another to connect the strap about the anchor [0018 “Means are provided in form of buckles to secure the device to the surgical table to prevent patient from sliding.” 0089 “This belt 29 and connector 33 secure device 10 to the support surface, for example, an operating table or bed.”].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 14 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 3-6 and 16. The prior art of record does not disclose the claimed patient positioning system “wherein the air-permeable material has a first coefficient of friction; and the bottom sheet further comprises: an internal surface, an external surface, and a high-friction material disposed on at least a portion of the external surface, the high-friction material has a second coefficient of friction, the second coefficient of friction being between 5 and 10 times higher than the first coefficient of friction.” Additionally it is Examiner’s belief that modifying the low friction external surfaces Rigoni would teach away from the disclosure of Rigoni. For at least that reason these claims are considered allowable over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 14. The prior art of record does not disclose the claimed patient positioning system “wherein the high-friction pad comprises a line of perforations extending along a central portion of the high-friction pad, the perforations configured to facilitate tearing of a first section of the high-friction pad from a second section of the high-friction pad”. The prior art of record fails to discloses such a limitation. For at least that reason these claims are considered allowable over the prior art of record.
Claims 21-26 are allowed.
Regarding claims 21-25. The prior art of record does not disclose the claimed patient positioning system “wherein the air-permeable material has a first coefficient of friction; and the bottom sheet further comprises: an internal surface, an external surface, and a high-friction material disposed on at least a portion of the external surface, the high-friction material has a second coefficient of friction, the second coefficient of friction being between 5 and 10 times higher than the first coefficient of friction.” Additionally it is Examiner’s belief that modifying the low friction external surfaces Rigoni would teach away from the disclosure of Rigoni. For at least that reason these claims are considered allowable over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 26. The prior art of record does not disclose the claimed patient positioning system “wherein the high-friction pad comprises a line of perforations extending along a central portion of the high-friction pad, the perforations configured to facilitate tearing of a first section of the high-friction pad from a second section of the high-friction pad”. The prior art of record fails to discloses such a limitation. For at least that reason these claims are considered allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see notice of references cited).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFEOLU A ADEBOYEJO whose telephone number is (571)270-3072. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10AM-5PM EST.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/IFEOLU A ADEBOYEJO/Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights