DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed 3/13/2025. Currently, claims 1-8 are pending in the application.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not structured as a single paragraph, as required. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract includes legal phraseology, which is not permitted. The term “comprising” should be removed from the abstract to avoid this error. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “fastening means” (see claims 4 and 5) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant’s disclosure teaches the following corresponding structure(s) as performing the claimed function: buckles.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(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(s) 1, 3-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Queen (US 2,927,581 A).
In regard to claim 1, Queen teaches in Figures 1-6, column 1, line 13 and column 3, lines 16-19
a bed (standard sized mattress 7, mattress support 9 and side frame members 14);
and a fall-prevention functional limitation device (“restraining jacket,” taught in column 1, line 13) configured to be wrapped around a patient (as shown in Figure 1), wherein said fall-prevention functional limitation device (“restraining jacket,” taught in column 1, line 13) comprises
a long smock (rectangular front panel 1, rectangular rear panel 2 and pairs of straps or tape strips 11) comprising a cape (rectangular front panel 1, rectangular rear panel 2) and two pairs of side bands (pairs of straps or tape strips 11; two pairs of straps or tape strips 11 are taught in Figure 3),
wherein said two pairs of side bands (pairs of straps or tape strips 11; two pairs of straps or tape strips 11 are taught in Figure 3) comprise an upper pair of bands (top pair of straps or tape strips 11) placed at (as shown in Figure 3) lateral ends (left and right edges) of the cape (rectangular front panel 1, rectangular rear panel 2 and pairs of straps or tape strips 11), and a lower pair of bands (bottom pair of straps or tape strips 11) placed in (as shown in Figure 3) a lower part (lower half) of the long smock (rectangular front panel 1, rectangular rear panel 2 and pairs of straps or tape strips 11), respectively;
wherein said two pairs of side bands (pairs of straps or tape strips 11; two pairs of straps or tape strips 11 are taught in Figure 3) comprise respective bands (straps or tape strips 11) in mirroring position with respect to a longitudinal plane of symmetry of (as shown in Figure 3, the straps or tape strips 11 are symmetrical about the center axis at line 5-5) the fall-prevention functional limitation device itself (“restraining jacket,” taught in column 1, line 13), and,
a hole (neck opening 16) that allows passage of a head of the patient (as shown in Figure 1; column 3, lines 16-19 teaches “in the case of the neck opening it preferably extends from spaced points along edge 3 (Fig. 3) into the panel 1, and the diameter is such as to permit the head of the person to pass through with but little clearance”);
wherein said two pairs of side bands (pairs of straps or tape strips 11; two pairs of straps or tape strips 11 are taught in Figure 3) are configured to be used to move the patient (pairs of straps or tape strips 11 are capable of being pulled on to move a patient wearing the restraining jacket).
In regard to claim 3, Queen teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Queen teaches in Figures 1 and 3 and columns 2-3, lines 69-1 that the lower pair of bands (bottom pair of straps or tape strips 11) are configured to be directly or indirectly constrained to a bed structure (mattress support 9, side frame members 14; columns 2-3, lines 69-1 teaches that “the straps of these pairs 11, 13, are adapted to be tied together around any suitable portions of the mattress support 9, such as side frame members 14 or the corresponding side rims of conventional spring assembly for the mattress support”) or wrapped at a back around lower limbs of the patient and a length of each lower band (bottom strap or tape strip 11) of said lower pair of bands (bottom pair of straps or tape strips 11) is such that a free end of said each lower band (bottom strap or tape strip 11) is directly or indirectly constrainable to (columns 2-3, lines 69-1 teaches that “the straps of these pairs 11, 13, are adapted to be tied together around any suitable portions of the mattress support 9, such as side frame members 14 or the corresponding side rims of conventional spring assembly for the mattress support”) the bed structure (mattress support 9, side frame members 14) on an opposite side (bottom portion of the bed, which is opposite the top portion of the bed) of the bed (standard sized mattress 7, mattress support 9 and side frame members 14) itself (Figure 1 teaches the bottom pair of straps or tape strips 11 being attached to the bottom portion of the bed).
In regard to claims 4 and 5, Queen teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Queen teaches in Figures 1 and 3 and columns 2-3, lines 69-1 that said two pairs of side bands (pairs of straps or tape strips 11; two pairs of straps or tape strips 11 are taught in Figure 3) are directly or indirectly secured to a bed structure (mattress support 9, side frame members 14) via simple binding (via tying; columns 2-3, lines 69-1 teaches that “the straps of these pairs 11, 13, are adapted to be tied together around any suitable portions of the mattress support 9, such as side frame members 14 or the corresponding side rims of conventional spring assembly for the mattress support”) or via fastening means; and wherein said fastening means comprises buckles (Applicant should note that the fastening means is not required by the claim(s)).
In regard to claim 6, Queen teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Queen teaches in column 1, line 13 and column 2, lines 18-21 that said fall-prevention functional limitation device (“restraining jacket,” taught in column 1, line 13) is made of fabric (column 2, lines 18-21 teaches “the jacket herein illustrated comprises an elongated, rectangular front panel 1 (Fig. 1 ), preferably of cloth of any suitable type” and “a relatively light weight cotton duck cloth has been found to be suitable”).
In regard to claim 8, Queen teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Queen teaches in Figures 1-5 and column 3, lines 30-32 that said long smock (rectangular front panel 1, rectangular rear panel 2 and pairs of straps or tape strips 11) further comprises a sheet (rectangular front panel 1, rectangular rear panel 2) of sturdy fabric (column 2, lines 18-22 teaches “the jacket herein illustrated comprises an elongated, rectangular front panel 1 (Fig. 1 ), preferably of cloth of any suitable type” and “a relatively light weight cotton duck cloth has been found to be suitable, the main consideration being that it cannot be torn by a person”) configured to cover a whole body of the patient at a front, from the head of the patient to feet of the patient and up a foot of the bed (Figure 1 teaches the rectangular front panel 1 being sized such that it is capable of covering a whole body of the patient at a front, from the head of the patient to feet of the patient and up a foot of the bed, depending on the size of the patient and the size of the bed), and configured to be wrapped under a mattress (rectangular front panel 1 is capable of being wrapped under the standard sized mattress 7); while a length (length of rectangular rear panel 2) of the sheet (rectangular front panel 1, rectangular rear panel 2) on an opposite side (rear side) is such as to be wrapped behind shoulder of the patient to cover a back of the patient at least up to under shoulder blades of the patient (column 3, lines 30-32 teaches “when the jacket is in this position, the lower edge 5 of panel 2 will be approximately at the waist line of the person and will extend across the back of the latter”).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Queen (US 2,927,581 A) in view of SCHOWALTER (US 2,449,675 A).
In regard to claim 2, Queen teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Queen does not teach that the upper pair of bands are configured to be wrapped at a front around a chest of the patient and a length of each upper band of said upper pair of bands is such that a free end of said each upper band is directly or indirectly constrained to a bed structure on an opposite side of the bed itself.
However, SCHOWALTER teaches in Figures 1 and 2 and columns 1-2, lines 54-3 an analogous device wherein the upper pair of bands (cross strap members 11 and 12) are configured to be wrapped at a front around a chest of the patient (as shown in Figure 2) and a length of each upper band (cross strap members 11 and 12) of said upper pair of bands (cross strap members 11 and 12) is such that a free end (tie cords 18 and 19) of said each upper band (cross strap members 11 and 12) is directly or indirectly constrained to a bed structure on an opposite side of the bed (crib) itself (as shown in Figure 2; columns 1-2, lines 54-3 teaches “the cross strap members 11and 12 may be pulled as tightly as desired and tied to the crib by means of tie cords 18 and 19 provided thereon”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the upper pair of bands of Queen to provide that the upper pair of bands are configured to be wrapped at a front around a chest of the patient and a length of each upper band of said upper pair of bands is such that a free end of said each upper band is directly or indirectly constrained to a bed structure on an opposite side of the bed itself as taught by SCHOWALTER because this element is known to “cause the central area portion to move with the child and keep him covered at all times,” as SCHOWALTER teaches in column 2, lines 54-56.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Queen (US 2,927,581 A).
In regard to claim 7, Queen teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Queen teaches in column 2, lines 18-21 that “the jacket herein illustrated comprises an elongated, rectangular front panel 1 (Fig. 1 ), preferably of cloth of any suitable type.”
Queen does not teach explicitly that said fall-prevention functional limitation device is made of lyocell.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to provide that said fall-prevention functional limitation device is made of lyocell, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended us as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wootan (US 4,742,821 A)
Thiele (US 4,679,267 A)
Serrao (US 4,524,768 A)
Hummel (US 3,872,524 A)
STERNAGEL (US 3,536,067 A)
CHINN (US 2,478,239 A)
HAMMERMAN (US 2,140,797 A)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA H FISHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6:00AM-4:00PM 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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at (571) 270-5237. 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.
/VICTORIA HICKS FISHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 1/20/2026