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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 15, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8919347 issued to Carlson in view of U.S. Publication No. 20060085894 issued to Yakopson.
Regarding claim 1,
Carlson discloses a cover for a support surface, (Carlson: FIG. 10 (600)) comprising: a ticking made of a ticking material configured to enclose a support layer of the support surface, (Carlson: col. 8 lines 6-8 “cover 600 replaces the bottom, fitted sheet for a mattress 601 and covers at least the top 618 of the mattress 601.” See also col. 8 lines 11-13 “The cover 600 can generally be constructed in the same way as the seat cushion covers 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 described above” see also col. 5 lines 22-25 “Style 480 Spandex… a three-bar tricot fabric…”) the ticking having an outer top surface configured to face a person lying on the support surface;(Carlson: FIGS. 10-11 (618, 625)) and a friction reducing overlay on at least a portion of the outer top surface for facilitating displacement of the person on the support surface, the friction reducing overlay being made of a low friction material formed onto the ticking material, (Carlson: col. 3 lines 44-55 “The low friction zone 112 can be created in a variety of ways. One way is to create zone 112 from a material having a slippery surface. One such material is a film made of polytetrafluroethylene (PTFE) or other similar material … In an exemplary embodiment, the film is cut into the shape of the low friction zone 112 and attached to the top 118 of the cover 100. In this way the slippery surface of the low friction zone 112 is exposed and can therefore form an interface with clothing or skin of the seated person 108.” See claims 15-16 as well)
Carlson does not appear to disclose the friction reducing overlay comprising a plurality of overlay elements that are spaced apart from each other to form an overlay pattern.
However, Yakopson discloses the friction reducing overlay comprising a plurality of overlay elements that are spaced apart from each other to form an overlay pattern. (Yakopson: FIG. 6 (40) see also [0035] “dots of low friction material attached to the inside surface of the knitted fabric”; see also claim 8 “wherein said low resistance zones comprises dots of low friction material adhered to the inside of said garment,” and [0032] “Other materials applicable for the purpose of this invention include, but are not limited to, low friction tapes, films and liquids, including PTFE suspensions, capable of creation of necessary patterns on specified low friction zones of the garment and made of PTFE, polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE), poly(vinylidene) fluoride, poly(vinyl) fluoride copolymer, fluorinated ethylene propylene and other copolymer and blends of fluoro-containing polymers, and silicone polymers and copolymers.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the low friction zone of Carlson such that the low friction material comprises a plurality of spaced-apart elements forming a pattern, as taught by Yakopson, in order to preserve the elasticity and breathability of the underlying cover fabric between the elements.
Regarding claim 2,
Carlson in view of Yakopson discloses the cover of claim 1, wherein the overlay pattern comprises the overlay elements distributed along a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns generally perpendicular to each other. (Carlson: col. 7 lines 15-19 “a series of round dots, approximately 1/16” in diameter, evenly spaced in a rectangular pattern at approximately 8 dots per linear square inch, approximately 64 dots per square inch.”)
Regarding claim 3,
Carlson in view of Yakopson discloses the cover of claim 2, wherein the rows extend in a generally lateral direction of the cover and the columns extend in a generally longitudinal direction of the cover. (Carlson: FIG. 9 (536, 537))
Regarding claim 6,
Carlson in view of Yakopson discloses the cover of claim 1.
Carlson in Yakopson, does not appear to disclose wherein, in a sample portion of the overlay pattern measuring one square inch, a coverage of the low friction material on the ticking is between 50% and 80%.
However, the coverage percentage of friction-modifying overlay elements on a cover is a result-effective variable that directly affects the performance of the cover. A higher coverage percentage increases the friction-modifying effect between the patient and the cover but may reduce fabric stretch, breathability, and comfort. A lower coverage percentage preserves the base fabric’s stretch and comfort properties but reduces the friction-modifying effect. Carlson’s entire disclosure is directed to managing friction through selective application of overlay material in patterns, confirming that coverage percentage is a known design parameter affecting the cover’s function.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSTA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the coverage percentage of Carlson’s overlay pattern to arrive at the claimed 50-80% range through routine experimentation, in order to achieve the desired balance between friction management, fabric stretch, breathability, and patient comfort. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 7,
Carlson in view of Yakopson disclose the cover of claim 1, wherein the friction reducing overlay extends along a generally rectangular area. (Carlson: FIG. 12 (712)) see also col. 8 lines 35-38 “In the illustrated embodiment, the low friction zone 712 has a substantially rectangular shape, promoting ease of manufacture.”)
Regarding claim 15,
Carlson in view of Yakopson discloses the cover of claim 1, wherein the friction reducing overlay is one of screen printed, thermal transfer printed, pad printed, digitally printed and hot stamped on the ticking. (Carlson: col. 7 lines 4-6 “friction appliment 438 is applied by screen printing Plastisol Ink onto side C, the shiny side, of the second ply 415”; see also col. 7 lines 19-21 “lightly screen printed to create an opaque deposit of ink …”)
Regarding claim 19,
Carlson in view of Yakopson discloses a support surface for a patient support apparatus, comprising: a support layer for supporting a person on the support surface; (Carlson: FIG. 10 (601)) and the cover of claim 1, wherein the ticking encloses the support layer. (Carlson: col. 6 lines 35-38 “cover 200 encloses the entire cushion 201…”)
Regarding claim 20,
Carlson in view of Yakopson discloses a method for manufacturing a cover for a support surface, the method comprising: providing a ticking having an outer top surface configured to face a person supported on the support surface, the ticking being made of a ticking material; (Carlson: FIG. 10 (600, 618) see col 5 lines 22-25) and forming a friction reducing overlay, made of a low friction material, on the outer top surface of the ticking in order to form an overlay pattern comprising a plurality of overlay elements (Carlson: col. 4 lines 4 lines 51-55; col. 7 lines 15-21)
Carlson does not appear to disclose that are spaced apart from each other.
However, Yakopson discloses the friction reducing overlay comprising a plurality of overlay elements that are spaced apart from each other to form an overlay pattern. (Yakopson: FIG. 6 (40) see also [0035] “dots of low friction material attached to the inside surface of the knitted fabric”; see also claim 8 “wherein said low resistance zones comprises dots of low friction material adhered to the inside of said garment,” and [0032] “Other materials applicable for the purpose of this invention include, but are not limited to, low friction tapes, films and liquids, including PTFE suspensions, capable of creation of necessary patterns on specified low friction zones of the garment and made of PTFE, polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE), poly(vinylidene) fluoride, poly(vinyl) fluoride copolymer, fluorinated ethylene propylene and other copolymer and blends of fluoro-containing polymers, and silicone polymers and copolymers.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the low friction zone of Carlson such that the low friction material comprises a plurality of spaced-apart elements forming a pattern, as taught by Yakopson, in order to preserve the elasticity and breathability of the underlying cover fabric between the elements.
Regarding claim 21,
Carlson in view of Yakopson discloses the method of claim 20, wherein forming the friction reducing overlay on the outer top surface of the ticking comprises one of screen printing, thermal transfer printing, pad printing, digitally printing or hot stamping the friction reducing overlay on the outer top surface of the ticking. (Carlson: col. 7 lines 4-6, 19-21)
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson and Yakospon in view of U.S. Publication No. 20140208492 issued to Foley.
Regarding claim 4,
Carlson in view of Yakospon discloses the cover of claim 2.
Carlson does not appear to disclose wherein the overlay pattern is formed such that opposed longitudinal ends of the overlay elements of two consecutive rows are aligned with each other.
However, in the same field of endeavor related to patterned arrangements of discrete segments applied to fabric substrates, Foley discloses wherein the overlay pattern is formed such that opposed longitudinal ends of the overlay elements of two consecutive rows are aligned with each other. (Foley: FIG. 5 see also [0040] “. In some other embodiments, the segmented pads 222 may be arranged in a staggered configuration relative to one another, such as illustrated in FIG. 5. It shall be appreciated that various different patterns of segmented pads 222 may be utilized.” The examiner notes that the opposed longitudinal ends of the overlay elements of the two consecutive rows are aligned with one another.)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSTA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange Carlson’s overlay elements in the staggered half-drop configuration expressly depicted in Foley FIG. 5. The staggered arrangement is one of the known predictable and interchangeable configurations for repeating discrete segments on flexible fabric substrates as Foley discloses. A PHOSTA would have recognized that selection among the finite set of known packing alternatives (aligned grid, staggered/half-drop hexagonal close-pack) was a routine design choice yielding predictable results. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Furthermore, the applicant’s specification does not establish that the row-alignment configuration produces unexpected results relative to other known arrangements. While [0086] states that this configuration “allows a certain continuity in exposure to low friction material… which may also facilitate the sliding of the patient,” this language is permissive rather than critical, and the applicant does not provide comparative data isolating this feature’s contribution to the reported 30% friction reduction. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); Thus claim 4 is obvious for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 5,
Carlson in view of Yakospon discloses the cover of claim 2.
Carlson in view of Yakospon does not appear to disclose wherein the overlay pattern is formed such that the overlay elements of two consecutive columns overlap each other in a lateral direction of the cover.
However, in the same field of endeavor related to patterned arrangements of discrete segments applied to fabric substrates, Foley discloses wherein the overlay pattern is formed such that the overlay elements of two consecutive columns overlap each other in a lateral direction of the cover. (Foley: FIG. 5 see also [0040] “. In some other embodiments, the segmented pads 222 may be arranged in a staggered configuration relative to one another, such as illustrated in FIG. 5. It shall be appreciated that various different patterns of segmented pads 222 may be utilized.” The examiner notes that the opposed longitudinal ends of the overlay elements of the two consecutive rows are aligned with one another.)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSTA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange Carlson’s overlay elements in the staggered half-drop configuration expressly depicted in Foley FIG. 5. The staggered arrangement is one of the known predictable and interchangeable configurations for repeating discrete segments on flexible fabric substrates as Foley discloses. A PHOSTA would have recognized that selection among the finite set of known packing alternatives (aligned grid, staggered/half-drop hexagonal close-pack) was a routine design choice yielding predictable results. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Furthermore, the applicant’s specification does not establish that the row-alignment configuration produces unexpected results relative to other known arrangements. While [0086] states that this configuration “allows a certain continuity in exposure to low friction material… which may also facilitate the sliding of the patient,” this language is permissive rather than critical, and the applicant does not provide comparative data isolating this feature’s contribution to the reported 30% friction reduction. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); Thus claim 5 is obvious for the reasons stated above.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson and Yakospan in view of U.S. Publication No. 20060272071 issued to Mickle.
Regarding claim 8,
Carlson in view of Yakospon discloses the cover of claim 1.
Carlson does not appear to disclose wherein each of the overlay elements has a quadrilateral shape.
Carlson in view of Yakospon does not appear to disclose wherein each of the overlay elements has a quadrilateral shape.
However, Mickle discloses wherein each of the overlay elements has a quadrilateral shape. (Mickle: FIG. 2B see also [0026])
It would have been obvious for a PHOSTA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Carlson’s overlay elements in a quadrilateral shape, as taught by Mickle since Mickle teaches the quadrilateral shape as known alternatives to a circular or oval shape in [0026]. A PHOSTA would have recognized the selection of quadrilateral shapes among the known shape alternatives (circular, oval, square, rectangular, oval) as a routine design choice yielding predictable results. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claim 9,
Carlson in view of Yakospon, in view of Mickle discloses the cover of claim 8, wherein each of the overlay elements is generally diamond shaped. (Mickle: FIG. 2B (110) appears to be shaped like a diamond i.e. a square rotated 45 degrees)
Regarding claim 10,
Carlson in view of Yakospon, in view of Mickle discloses the cover of claim 8, wherein: each of the overlay elements has first and second longitudinal ends and first and second lateral ends; and the first and second longitudinal ends and the first and second lateral ends are rounded. (The examiner notes that the combination of Carlson and Mickle teach claim 10 since Carlson teaches rounded circles and Mickle teaches quadrilaterals, thus combining the two would yield a quadrilateral with rounded corners.)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson and Yakospon further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5116411 issued to O’Neill.
Regarding claim 13,
Carlson in view of Yakospon discloses the cover of claim 1.
Carlson in view of Yakospon does not appear to disclose wherein the low friction material comprises an ink or plastic that is dried by oxidation and polymerisation.
However, O’Neill discloses wherein the low friction material comprises an ink or plastic that is dried by oxidation and polymerisation. (O’Neill: col. 4 “The class of oleoresinous (hard resin and drying oil alkyds) systems used to produce quick set, heat set, and oxidation drying inks are the most common. Other oxidative systems based on epoxy, vinyl esters and unsaturated polyesters and polyurethane resins may be used. These require the use of drier to accelerate the oxidation. Alkyd vehicles are preferred. In addition, acrylate systems using radiation or thermal cures can be employed.” And col . 5 “Conventional waxes may be added to the ink to produce good surface slip for inline handling and scratch resistance and rub resistance to meet end use requirements. The major types of waxes used are polyethylene and polytetrafluoroethylene. These may be used alone or in combination.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the printed low friction overlay elements of the combination from an ink that is dried by oxidation and polymerization as taught by O’Neill 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 use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331 In addition, the limitation “that is dried by oxidation and polymerisation” Is a product by process and has no patentable weight on an apparatus claim.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson and Yakospon in view of U.S. Publication No. 20050172414 issued to Lewis.
Regarding claim 14,
Carlson in view of Yakospon discloses the cover of claim 1.
Carlson in view of Yakospon does not appear to disclose wherein the low friction material comprises urethane.
However, Lewis discloses wherein the low friction material comprises urethane. (Lewis: [0028] “The reduced friction layer can be formed in many ways, as discussed above. Thus, it could be a sheet of suitably treated polyurethane material stuck to the facing surface of either the base portion 11a or the pressure relieving portion 11b or it could be sprayed or otherwise deposited onto that surface.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSTA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Carlson’s overlay elements from polyurethane as taught by Lewis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to provide the benefit of reducing friction and shear forces that contribute to pressure ulcers.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Yakospon further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20160326674 issued to Goijarts.
Regarding claim 16,
Carlson in view of Yakospon discloses the cover of claim 1.
Carlson in Yakospon does not appear to disclose wherein the friction reducing overlay comprises at least one control line interconnecting multiple ones of the overlay elements in order to control elasticity of the cover along the at least one control line.
However, Goijarts discloses wherein the friction reducing overlay comprises at least one control line interconnecting multiple ones of the overlay elements in order to control elasticity of the cover along the at least one control line. (Goijarts: FIGS. 19, 21, 22 and [0034] showing “a raised structure pattern of interconnected circular elements, which can also be oval of shape” and [0035] “interconnected octagonal and square elements” as well as [0087] “The raised areas can be rims with a certain dimension consisting of at least 1 row of stitches, and are preferably in most embodiments continuously interconnected to each other for creating continuous gliding lines on the surface for the skin of the person lying on the knitted fabric.” And [0041] “Another method to limit and control the elasticity is the application of printed silicone and or polyurethane lines and grid patterns on the top and or bottom surface of the described fabrics, or as an intermediate gluing layer. This grid like pattern can also have an extra function as pressure and shear forces distributing materials.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOISTA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the printed overlay of the combination with one or more printed control lines interconnecting the overlay elements, as taught by Goijarts, in order to limit and control the elasticity of the cover in a selected direction while retaining the low-friction skin interface and the open area between elements.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson and Yakospon in view of European Publication No. 1684615 issued to Bain.
Regarding claim 17,
Carlson in view of Yakospon discloses the cover of claim 1.
Carlson in view of Yakospon does not appear to disclose wherein at least a portion of the friction reducing overlay is configured to change colors based on at least one physical parameter to indicate a condition related to the person.
However, Bain discloses wherein the cover is a transparent cover for a mattress with an inter-layer or under-layer having a dye that is activated by a body fluid to provide a visual indication of presence of the body fluid. (Bain: [0015])
It would have been obvious for a PHOSTA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carlson’s friction-reducing cover to include a color-change indicator as taught by Bain. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide caregivers with a visible indication of patient events (such as incontinence, perspiration, wound leakage) without requiring physical inspection or removal of the cover.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Yakopson further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20080083721 issued to Kaiserman.
Regarding claim 18,
Carlson in view of Yakopson discloses the cover of claim 1.
Carlson in view of Yakopson does not appear to disclose wherein the friction reducing overlay comprises a heatable overlay subsystem that is selectively heatable.
However, Kaiserman discloses wherein the friction reducing overlay comprises a heatable overlay subsystem that is selectively heatable. (Kaiserman: FIG. 9 see claim 1 “a conductive layer formed from at least one conductive ink composition comprising a plastisol component and a conductive component” and [0109] “In one embodiment, circuit 70 is directly printed on the mattress pad ticking and a moisture barrier film is laminated on the exposed side of the circuit 70. And [0011] ”The composite heating elements yet allow for selectively heating one or more heating zones, provides uniform and consistent heating of one or more heating zones”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the printed overlay of Carlson in view of Yakospon with a selectively heatable printed heating subsystem as taught by Kaiserman in order to provide therapeutic warming and thermal comfort to a person supported on the cover and to permit heating of selected regions of the cover so as to conserve power.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 11,
The prior art fails to disclose the subject matter of “each of the overlay elements defines an opening through which the ticking material of the cover is exposed” in combination with the rest of the structure of claim 1.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent on claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C ORTIZ whose telephone number is (303)297-4378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-3:30 pm.
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, Justin C. Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. 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.
/ADAM C ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
