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
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)(1) 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). 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; 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 [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 pad of Nordin with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a very high absorbent capacity to the pad 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
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 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. PRINCIPLES OF LAW "Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when 'the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.'" KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007). "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." Id. at 1740. In response to applicant's argument that incorporating Carbonari’s pliable, adhesive, disposable structure into the pad of Nordin, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
As stated above, Nordin discloses a multilayered pad comprising a first intermediate layer 2 between upper and lower layers and including an absorbent material wherein the pad is capable of being reused after being machined washed [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]. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to merely combine the range of absorbent weight and capacity in Carbonari with the pad of Nordin which would have yielding predictable results that provide a very high absorbent capacity to the pad of Nordin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 1,334,901 to Higdon discloses a pad for turning a patient.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,329,655 to Garner discloses a pad for turning a patient.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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