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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 6,728,978 to Nordin.
Claim 14, Nordin discloses a method of positioning a person on a pad comprising rolling the person to a first lateral decubitus position; placing the absorbent repositioning pad adjacent the person in the first lateral decubitus position, and rolling the person to a second lateral decubitus position above the absorbent repositioning pad as expressly recited by Nordin "When said pulling sheet is pulled sideways of the bed, using assisting personnel, usually also assisted by pushing personnel, the patient will roll sideways without being moved any noticeable distance in the transversal direction of the bed. In this way it is possible to turn the patient to any desired position, without exposing the patient to any noticeable discomfort, usually between a position with the patient lying on one side to lying on the back or to a position lying on the opposite patient side, or whichever other desired position. "(col. 1 lines 39-48), "When a patient is to be turned a pulling sheet is placed under the patient in a position between the patient and bed protection device. The patient is thereafter turned (rotated) as the pulling sheet is pulled transversally to the bed, whereby the patient is rolled while the pulling sheet slides on the upper sliding material layer of the bed protection device" (col. 2 lines 21-27), "The wings are used as a pulling attachment means/pulling sheet when turning the patient" (col. 3 lines 40-42) (claim 1) wherein the pad is capable of being reused after being machined washed, as explicitly recited by Nordin “an important feature is that the entire bed product is made of an inert material, is re-usable, is machine washable, and capable of being drip dried or dried in a tumble dryer” [Abstract](col. 5 lines 27-31). With regard to the Applicant's recitations "an upper layer including a liquid permeable material; a lower layer having relatively lower friction surface than the upper layer; a first intermediate layer between the upper and lower layers and including an absorbent material; and a second intermediate layer between the first intermediate layer, the lower layer and including a liquid impermeable material, and wherein the first intermediate layer has an absorption capacity within a range of 50 cc/m2 to 20,000 cc/m2", determination of patentability is based on the process itself. The patentability of a method does not depend on the structural limitations of the apparatus as stated above. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method of positioning a person as claimed, then the method of positioning a person as claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9-12, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 6,728,978 to Nordin in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0184366 to Carbonari et al.
Claims 1 and 23-24, Nordin discloses pad comprising an upper layer 3 including a liquid permeable material; a lower layer 6 having relatively lower friction surface than the upper layer; a first intermediate layer 2 between the upper and lower layers and including an absorbent material 1, and as explicitly recited by Nordin “the absorbing product is a highly soaking, inert fibrous material” [Abstract]; and a second intermediate layer 5 between the first intermediate layer and the lower layer and including a liquid impermeable material, wherein the pad is capable of being reused after being machined washed, and as explicitly recited by Nordin “an important feature is that the entire bed product is made of an inert material, is re-usable, is machine washable, and capable of being drip dried or dried in a tumble dryer” [Abstract](col. 5 lines 27-31), but is silent to an absorption capacity and an absorption weight within a range of 40g to 3500g, a range of 50 cc/m² to 20,000 cc/m², or 50 cc/m² to 5000 cc/m². Carbonari discloses an absorbent pad having a range of absorbent weight and capacity from 260-800g or 350-1000 g/m² [0005]-[0006];[0048]-[0049]. Selecting a range of values for absorption capacity and weight is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the range of absorbent weight and capacity in Carbonari with the absorbent material of Nordin with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have enhanced the high absorbent capacity to the absorbent material of Nordin.
Claim 3, Nordin discloses the pad, but is silent to the lower layer including woven extruded fabric. Selecting from a plethora of known materials is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a woven extruded fabric for the lower layer of Nordin with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative material for the lower layer.
Claim 9, Nordin discloses the pad wherein the upper layer, lower layer, and first and second intermediate layers include washable materials such that the reusable absorbent repositioning pad is washable and reusable [Abstract](col. 5 lines 27-31). Claim 10, Nordin discloses the pad further comprising an edge strip 10 that extends about at least a portion of a perimeter of the reusable absorbent repositioning pad (col. 5 lines 8-16)(fig. 4).
Claim 11, Nordin discloses the pad wherein the edge binding extends above the upper layer and below the lower layer and is secured to the upper and lower layers (col. 5 lines 8-16)(fig. 4).
Claim 12, Nordin discloses the pad, but is silent to the edge strip and the upper layer include the same material. Selecting from a plethora of known materials is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention select the same material for the edge strip in Nordin with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative material to form the edge strip of Nordin.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 6,728,978 to Nordin in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0184366 to Carbonari et al., and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0270881 to Fowler et al.
Claim 2, Nordin discloses the pad, wherein the lower layer includes an outer surface that is not brushed, but is silent to a brushed outer surface. Fowler discloses pad having an upper layer including a brushed outer surface 46 [0056]. Selecting from a plethora of known materials is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the brushed material disclosed in Fowler with the upper surface of Nordin.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 6,728,978 to Nordin in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0184366 to Carbonari et al., and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,300,054 to Feist et al.
Claim 5, Nordin discloses the pad, but is silent to the pad having an average time of acquisition of less than 120 seconds. Feist et al. discloses an absorbent layer having a high speed of absorption (col. 3 lines 39-68). Selecting a range of times for the average time of acquisition is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the times of acquisition in Feist with the pad of Nordin with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a structure that is capable of quickly storing the absorbed liquids in the pad of Nordin.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 6,728,978 to Nordin in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0184366 to Carbonari et al., and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6,494,871 to Lariviere et al.
Claim 8, Nordin discloses the pad, but is silent to a portion of the upper layer being hydrophilic. Lariviere discloses an upper layer of a pad having hydrophilic portions (col. 4 lines 20-55). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the hydrophobic fibers disclosed in Lariviere with the upper surface of Nordin with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed fluid to pass through the upper layer of Nordin readily.
Claim(s) 17, 19, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 6,728,978 to Nordin in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0186013 to Ponsi.
Claims 17 and 21, Nordin discloses a method of repositioning a person, but is silent to pulling the pad together with the person above a wedge. Ponsi discloses a method of repositioning a person by pulling the absorbent repositioning pad together with the person above at least one wedge [0062]-[0066]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the pulling the pad together with the person above a wedge disclosed in Ponsi with the method of Nordin with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a method to place the patient in an angled resting position on the pad of Nordin.
Claim 19, Regarding to the Applicant's recitation wherein the wedge includes a base surface and a ramp surface, the ramp surface being relatively a lower friction surface than the base surface", determination of patentability is based on the process itself. The patentability of a method does not depend on the structural limitations of the apparatus as stated above. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method of positioning a person as claimed, then the method of positioning a person as claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. Claim 22, Nordin discloses the method further comprising after wetting of the absorbent repositioning pad by the person, laundering the absorbent repositioning pad(col. 5 lines 27-31).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 6,728,978 to Nordin in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0184366 to Carbonari et al., and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0207096 to Love et al.
Claim 25, Nordin discloses the pad, but is silent to the liquid impermeable material of the second intermediate layer being comprised of a plurality of pores dimensioned to permit water vapor and gases to pass therethrough and to prohibit liquid droplets to pass therethrough. Love discloses a pad including a liquid impermeable layer having a plurality of perforations [0031]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the plurality of perforations in Ponsi with the pad of Nordin with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided air circulation within the pad of Nordin to prevent heat and vapor moisture build up.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As stated above, Nordin discloses a having an absorbing material 1, and as explicitly recited by Nordin “the absorbing product is a highly soaking, inert fibrous material” [Abstract] pad capable of being reused after being machined washed, as explicitly recited by Nordin “an important feature is that the entire bed product is made of an inert material, is re-usable, is machine washable, and capable of being drip dried or dried in a tumble dryer” [Abstract](col. 5 lines 27-31). Carbonari discloses an absorbent pad having a range of absorbent weight and capacity from 260-800g or 350-1000 g/m² [0005]-[0006];[0048]-[0049]. Once more, merely selecting a range of values for absorption capacity and weight is considered an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art would not have found it novel or inventive to merely select an absorbent material with the range of absorbent weight and capacity as disclosed by Carbonari with the absorbent material of Nordin with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have enhanced the high absorbent capacity to the absorbent material of Nordin.
Contrary to the Applicant's alleged assertion that the Applicant's invention produces unexpected and superior results. The evidence relied upon does not compare any unexpected or superior results with the closest prior art. The opinions expressed in the articles, such as the one provided by Ex. A, P Takunda Chazovachii et al., Giving superabsorbent polymers a second life as pressure-sensitive adhesives, 12, Nature Communications, 1 (2021) and Ex. B Hideaki Ichiura et al., Recycling disposable diaper waste pulp after dehydrating the superabsorbent polymer through oxidation using ozone, 276, Journal of Cleaner Production, pp. 3-4 of the enclosed (2020)., does not rise to the level of a declaration because it does not provide factual evidence establishing a nexus to patentability. To be given substantial weight in the determination of obviousness or nonobviousness, evidence of secondary considerations must be relevant to the subject matter as claimed. It is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence. However, the Applicant's have not presented any independent experimental or empirical data showing that the Applicant's methods perform unexpectedly better than the highly absorbent pad of Nordin in view the range of absorbent weight capacity explicitly disclosed in Carbonari. Due to the absence of tests comparing Applicant's methods with those of the combination of Nordin in view of Carbonari, the Examiner has concluded that Applicant's assertions of unexpected results constitute mere argument and establish no factual evidence. Therefore, the arguments of counsel and the statements from a variety of expert opinion cannot take the place of evidence in the record. The factual evidence is preferable to opinion testimony, and does not sufficiently weigh on the ultimate legal conclusion at issue nor is it considered evidence in the case. Although the articles have some probative value, they have little weight when considered in light of all the evidence of record in the application. The submission of objective beliefs, statements, or opinions of patentability does not mandate a conclusion of patentability. Without any comparative data being evaluated in the evidence, the Applicant's evidence of secondary considerations fails to establish a factual and legally sufficient connection between the objective evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed invention. The evidence relied upon in the form of statements and opinions do not establish that the differences in results of comparative data are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. The evidence relied up are mere conclusions and are not entitled to the weight of conclusions with no accompanying factual evidence either in the specification or in a declaration. In order to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, the Applicant's need to compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range of absorbent weight and capacity from 260-800g or 350-1000 g/m² to show the criticality of the absorbent weight and capacity. The Applicant's evidence does not compare the claimed subject matter with the highly absorbent pad of Nordin in view of the range of absorbent weight capacity explicitly disclosed in Carbonari and is not effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accolades and favorable testimonials or opinions of experts do not factually and legally provide a sufficient connection between the secondary evidence of enhancing the absorbent weight capacity of the highly absorbent pad of Nordin in view of the range of absorbent weight capacity explicitly disclosed in Carbonari. Therefore, the opinions of experts do not rise to the level of declarations because they do not provide factual evidence establishing a nexus to patentability since the Accolades and favorable opinions are not relevant to the subject matter as claimed. Furthermore, the Applicant's evidence fails to compare the claimed subject matter with the highly absorbent pad of Nordin in view the range of absorbent weight capacity explicitly disclosed in Carbonari and is not effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. The secondary evidence does not rise to the level of declarations because they are merely statements of the expert’s opinion and not factual evidence. The arguments of counsel or the statements of an expert' s opinion cannot take the place of evidence in the record in claiming unexpected results. To be given substantial weight in the determination of obviousness or nonobviousness, evidence of secondary considerations must be relevant to the subject matter as claimed, and that there is a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence of secondary considerations. The term “nexus” designates a factually and legally sufficient connection between the objective evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 8,161,583 to Palen discloses a changing support pad.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,787,523 to Lindberg discloses an absorbent support pad.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDRICK C CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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 on (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.
/FREDRICK C CONLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights