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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Squitieri et al. (USPGPub 2016/0193090).
Regarding claim 1, Squitieri teaches providing top and bottom sheet layers [0031](Fig. 2A) that are joined at the edges in some manner to create a cavity between the sheets wherein adhesives may be applied to a first segment side of the device (Fig. 7B) wherein the device is intended for use with a pressure mitigation device or as a standalone product (abstract). Squitieri fails to teach that the strips are necessarily “cut”. However, the sheet materials of Squitieri are generally described as being made from polyurethane or polyurethane like materials. Further the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that sheets of plastic material are commonly provided in desired sizes by some form of cutting be it by blades of varying types or water cutting or lasers. This is performed at varying scales from home craft projects to panels for automobiles to packaging for various food articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cut the sheet materials of Squitieri as is known in the plastic sheet shaping industry in general as a combination of a plastic sheet material and a known plastic sheet materials shaping method known in the art wherein cutting sheets of plastic would have been expected to be a predictable solution providing a reasonable expectation of success to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, the teachings of Squitieri are as shown above. Squitieri fails to teach covering the adhesive prior to use. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that it is known in the field of adhesives to cover adhesives in some manner prior to use to maintain their adhesive quality until the time of use. This is performed in products such as Band-Aids as well as wall hangers, stickers, decals and etc. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cover the adhesive of Squitieri as is known to be done in the prior art in order to maintain the adhesive quality of the adhesives of Squitieri until the point of use.
Regarding claim 3, Squitieri teaches applying adhesive to one side as described above wherein further it is noted that the polyurethane and polyurethane-like materials described above would be capable of providing at least some natural tackiness in the same manner claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Squitieri does not explicitly teach permanently attaching the device to the pressure mitigation device. However, it is noted that the permanence of attachment relies upon a state of a device in the future which cannot reasonably be claimed. The claim language “permanently securing” therefore is interpreted as “securing in a manner that could be permanent and would not necessarily ever require removal”. In this regard, the adhesive of Squitieri could function in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Squitieri teaches providing top and bottom sheet layers [0031](Fig. 2A) that are joined at the edges in some manner to create a cavity between the sheets wherein adhesives may be applied to a first segment side of the device (Fig. 7B) wherein the device is intended for use with a pressure mitigation device or as a standalone product (abstract). Squitieri fails to teach applying an antibacterial coating to the surface of the device. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that the use of antibacterial coatings in the medical field, especially in patient care settings wherein a patient is possibly already in a compromised immune state such as in a hospital, is well known. These coatings are provided in the form of cleaning compositions and antibacterial solutions as well as more permanent coatings such as silver nanoparticle coatings or coatings having active drugs or polymer such as fluoropolymers having antibacterial qualities. 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 any antibacterial coating known in the art to any portion of the device of Squitieri in hope of the prevention of infectious disease.
Regarding claim 12, the teachings of Squitieri are as shown above. Squitieri fails to teach covering the adhesive prior to use. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that it is known in the field of adhesives to cover adhesives in some manner prior to use to maintain their adhesive quality until the time of use. This is performed in products such as Band-Aids as well as wall hangers, stickers, decals and etc. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cover the adhesive of Squitieri as is known to be done in the prior art in order to maintain the adhesive quality of the adhesives of Squitieri until the point of use.
Regarding claim 13, the teachings of Squitieri are as shown above. Squitieri further teaches wherein a layer described as an absorption layer (seemingly would be inherently pliable due to its absorbing quality and due to the materials and manner of it as described by Squitieri)(Fig. 3B) in present within the cavity. Squitieri is silent as to whether the cavity is built around the layer or if the layer is later inserted into the cavity. However, given a limited number of possibilities (i.e., either the cavity is built around the pliable material or the pliable material is inserted in the cavity), it would have been considered “obvious to try” for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attempt either process wherein both processes would provide predictable outcomes and a reasonable expectation of success largely based upon the simplicity of either method.
Regarding claim 14, the teachings of Squitieri are as shown above. Squitieri is silent as to what type of material is employed as the pliable absorption layer. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice that at least in hospital settings, absorption material well known to be employed include paper and cotton towels as well as sponges wherein these material comprise a plurality of the broad list of materials cited in the current claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cover the adhesive of Squitieri as is known to substitute the absorption materials known to be employed in the medical field in the invention of Squitieri as a simple substitution of one known absorption material for another wherein the substitution of one absorbing material for another would have been predictable and expected to have a reasonable expectation of success based upon the already known use of the stated materials as absorption materials used in patient/hospital settings.
Regarding claim 15, Squitieri further teaches wherein the second segment of his invention may comprise perforations (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 17-20, the teachings of Squitieri are as shown above. Squitieri fails to teach wherein his device has the dimensions claimed although it is noted that the device is intended for the exact same purpose related to human anatomy and would therefore at least logically be similar in size. 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).
Claim(s) 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Squitieri et al. (USPGPub 2016/0193090) as applied to claims 1-4, 11-15 and 17-20 above and further in view of Rostami et al. (USPGPub 2014/0107408).
Regarding claim 5, the teachings of Squitieri are as shown above. Squitieri fails to teach the use of magnets embedded in the device itself allowing it to be attached to corresponding objects and surfaces having a complimentary object capable of magnetic interaction. However, Rostami teaches that it is known to attach pad to particular locations using magnets held in a cavity associated with the pad [0040](Fig. 1) wherein the magnet is aligned with an underlying surface connected to a magnetically complimentary object. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the pad of Squitieri to a desired location using a magnet in the cavity of the pad of Squitieri and a corresponding magnetically complimentary object attached to an underlying surface as guided by Rostami as an application of a known attachment technique to improve a similar pad in the same way.
Regarding claim 6, reasonably the underlying concept of using opposing magnets or magnets with opposing magnetic surfaces would reasonably apply and be considered functional and expected to be successfully applied to surfaces in general or attachment between surfaces or devices having surfaces. The provision of a separate corresponding device would not reasonably provide any additional challenges to overcome for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 7-10, Squitieri teaches providing top and bottom sheet layers [0031](Fig. 2A) that are joined at the edges in some manner to create a cavity between the sheets wherein adhesives may be applied to a first segment side of the device (Fig. 7B) wherein the device is intended for use with a pressure mitigation device or as a standalone product (abstract). Squitieri fails to teach that the strips are necessarily “cut”. However, the sheet materials of Squitieri are generally described as being made from polyurethane or polyurethane like materials. Further the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that sheets of plastic material are commonly provided in desired sizes by some form of cutting be it by blades of varying types or water cutting or lasers. This is performed at varying scales from home craft projects to panels for automobiles to packaging for various food articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cut the sheet materials of Squitieri as is known in the plastic sheet shaping industry in general as a combination of a plastic sheet material and a known plastic sheet materials shaping method known in the art wherein cutting sheets of plastic would have been expected to be a predictable solution providing a reasonable expectation of success to those of ordinary skill in the art. Squitieri fails to teach the use of magnets embedded in the device itself allowing it to be attached to corresponding objects and surfaces having a complimentary object capable of magnetic interaction. However, Rostami teaches that it is known to attach pad to particular locations using magnets held in a cavity associated with the pad [0040](Fig. 1) wherein the magnet is aligned with an underlying surface connected to a magnetically complimentary object. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the pad of Squitieri to a desired location using a magnet in the cavity of the pad of Squitieri and a corresponding magnetically complimentary object attached to an underlying surface as guided by Rostami as an application of a known attachment technique to improve a similar pad in the same way. Further reasonably the underlying concept of using opposing magnets or magnets with opposing magnetic surfaces would reasonably apply and be considered functional and expected to be successfully applied to surfaces in general or attachment between surfaces or devices having surfaces. The provision of a separate corresponding device would not reasonably provide any additional challenges to overcome for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Squitieri et al. (USPGPub 2016/0193090) as applied to claims 1-4, 11-15 and 17-20 above and further in view of Skiba et al. (USPGPub 2007/0088392).
Regarding claim 16, the teachings of Squitieri are as shown above. Squitieri fails to teach wherein the core material employed is silicone or polypropylene. However, Skiba teaches that materials such as silicone rubber and polypropylene are known core insert material in support articles for the human body, in general and specifically as relates to multilayer articles that may also further comprise a core in some circumstances [0131-0135]. 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 rubber or polyethylene of Skiba for the pliable absorbent material of Squitieri as a simple substitution of one known support material provided in single or multilayer structures including those with cores (wherein it is noted that bed support materials also generally fall under the broad scope of padding in general) wherein the results would be predictable based on the similarity in use and design of the products of Squitieri and Skiba.
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