DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Remarks filed 4/13/2026. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous objections to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the claimed “long smock” is a two-panel garment (front panel and rear panel) that terminates between the knees and feet and is worn as a jacket-like article; that the claimed “cape” is a structural feature adapted to drape over the shoulders and cooperate with the band placement; that the device is not intended to permanently restrain the patient; that the device prevents the user from falling over the edge of the bed; that the movement restriction is activated only when the body tends to exceed the limit of the so-called safety zone defined by the bed surface itself; the claimed invention is configured to prevent/impede the patient from falling from the bed without constituting a restraint device, but rather allowing the patient freedom of movement; that the patient’s movements are not restricted; that the claimed invention allows the patient to be moved) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, the examiner notes that Queen (US 2,927,581 A) teaches in Figures 1-5 the long smock (rectangular front panel 1, rectangular rear panel 2 and pairs of straps or tape strips 11) being a two-panel garment (rectangular front panel 1 and rectangular rear panel 2) that terminates between the knees and feet (as shown in Figure 1, the lower edge 6 of rectangular front panel 1 terminates above the user’s feet and below the user’s knees) and is worn as a jacket-like article (inasmuch as it is shown in Figure 1 to receive the user’s arms therethrough to be worn to cover the user’s upper body, in a manner similar to a jacket).
In response to Applicant’s argument that Queen does not teach the claimed two pairs of side bands … in mirroring position with respect to a longitudinal plane of symmetry, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed below, Queen teaches 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) 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).
In response to applicant's argument that Queen does not teach that the side bands are configured to be used to move the patient, the examiner reminds Applicant that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the present case, Queen teaches this feature inasmuch as the pairs of straps or tape strips 11 are capable of being pulled on to move a patient wearing the restraining jacket.
In response to applicant's argument that Queen does not teach that the long smock is configured to cover a whole body of the patient and configured to be wrapped under a mattress, the examiner reminds Applicant that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As detailed below, Queen teaches this feature inasmuch as queen teaches 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).
In response to applicant's argument that Queen and SCHOWALTER are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the references are in the field of the inventor’s endeavor (restraining bed coverings).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the Queen and SCHOWALTER references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, 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.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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).
In response to applicant's argument that the structural configuration of SCHOWALTER is incompatible with that of Queen, the examiner reminds Applicant that 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).
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
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 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 7/20/2026
Prosecution Insights