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) 1-3,7,13, 15-16, 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 20130340772 issued to Carlson
Regarding claim 1,
Carlson discloses a cover for a support surface, (Carlson: [0034] “The managed friction material surface of the present invention is often configured to oppose a user's anatomy such that it provides a frictional interface with another surface such as a bed mattress. In one example, the managed friction material surface is configured such that a low friction zone opposes an area of sensitive skin. The low friction zone protects the area of sensitive skin from rubbing and abrasion against the bed mattress.”) comprising: a ticking made of a ticking material configured to enclose a support layer of the support surface, (Carlson: FIG. 3 (100) see also [0038] “As further illustrated in FIGS. 3 and 4, the smooth surface 101 is configured to contact a user's anatomy 600 either with or without intervening layers.”) the ticking having an outer top surface configured to face a person lying on the support surface; (Carlson: FIG. 3 (101)) 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, (Carlson: FIG. 3 (112) see also [0036] “Bonded areas of the surface 111 generally form high friction zones 113, wherein unbonded areas form low friction zones 112. “) the friction reducing overlay being made of a low friction material formed onto the ticking material, (Carlson: [0036] “The managed friction material surface 111 comprises an adhesive ply 116 used to selectively bond a plurality of plies of material, generally at least a first ply 114 and a second ply 115, the plurality of plies comprising materials capable of forming a low friction interface 117.”) the friction reducing overlay comprising a plurality of overlay elements that are spaced apart from each other to form an overlay pattern. (Carlson: FIG. 10 (135) see also [0067] “In this embodiment the adhesive ply 116 comprises multiple adhesive dots 135. Adhesive dots 135 can be small circularly shaped areas of adhesive as shown in FIG. 10. The adhesive also dots may comprise various shapes. Small circular shapes are chosen here for their relative ease of manufacture, however the shape of dots is not limited. Adhesive dots are applied to the first ply 114 and/or to the second ply 115.” See also [0068] in its entirety)
Regarding claim 2,
Carlson discloses the overlay pattern comprising overlay elements distributed along a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns generally perpendicular to each other. (Carlson: FIG. 10 shows a pattern of adhesive dots (135) arranged in a array across the cover surface, and FIG. 11 shows bonding areas 137 “approximately 0.25” in diameter” arranged in a grid configuration which as columns and rows.)
Regarding claim 3,
Carlson 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: FIGS. 10-11 (135) extend in a longitudinal and lateral direction of the cover)
Regarding claim 7,
Carlson discloses the cover of claim 1, wherein the friction reducing overlay extends along a generally rectangular area. (Carlson: FIG. 10 shows a generally rectangular area)
Regarding claim 13,
Carlson discloses the cover of claim 1, wherein the low friction material comprises an ink or plastic (Carlson: [0036] “The managed friction material surface 111 comprises an adhesive ply 116 used to selectively bond a plurality of plies of material, generally at least a first ply 114 and a second ply 115, the plurality of plies comprising materials capable of forming a low friction interface 117.” See also [0048]) that is dried by oxidation and polymerisation. (The examiner notes that this limitation is a product by process, i.e. under MPEP 2113, “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production,,” and product by process claims are evaluated based on structural characteristics of the product itself.)
Regarding claim 15,
Carlson 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: [0048] “The adhesive or bonding agent of adhesive ply 116 may alternatively be applied to a desired area of each or a single ply 114, 115 with a spray nozzle and mask, by screen printing, or by brushing.”)
Regarding claim 16,
Carlson discloses the cover of claim 1, 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. (Carlson discloses a rectangular pattern of discrete overlay elements in FIGS. 10-11 which are lined up as a row or column along an axis i.e. a control line thereby geometrically interconnecting the overlay elements along the axis. The presence of these elements along an axis modifies the mechanical properties of the cover along the axis.)
Regarding claim 19,
Carlson discloses a support surface for a patient support apparatus, comprising: a support layer for supporting a person on the support surface; and the cover of claim 1, wherein the ticking encloses the support layer. (Carlson: Abstract see also [0038] which talks about the intended use on a mattress i.e. support surface)
Regarding claim 20,
Carlson discloses a method for manufacturing a cover for a support surface, (Carlson: [0034] “The managed friction material surface of the present invention is often configured to oppose a user's anatomy such that it provides a frictional interface with another surface such as a bed mattress. In one example, the managed friction material surface is configured such that a low friction zone opposes an area of sensitive skin. The low friction zone protects the area of sensitive skin from rubbing and abrasion against the bed mattress.”) 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. 3 (100) see also [0038] “As further illustrated in FIGS. 3 and 4, the smooth surface 101 is configured to contact a user's anatomy 600 either with or without intervening layers.”) and forming a friction reducing overlay, made of a low friction material, on the outer top surface of the ticking (Carlson: FIG. 3 (112) see also [0036] “Bonded areas of the surface 111 generally form high friction zones 113, wherein unbonded areas form low friction zones 112. “) in order to form an overlay pattern comprising a plurality of overlay elements that are spaced apart from each other. (Carlson: FIG. 10 (135) see also [0067] “In this embodiment the adhesive ply 116 comprises multiple adhesive dots 135. Adhesive dots 135 can be small circularly shaped areas of adhesive as shown in FIG. 10. The adhesive also dots may comprise various shapes. Small circular shapes are chosen here for their relative ease of manufacture, however the shape of dots is not limited. Adhesive dots are applied to the first ply 114 and/or to the second ply 115.” See also [0068] in its entirety)
Regarding claim 21,
Carlson 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: [0048-0049] talks about screen printing)
Regarding claim 22,
Carlson discloses a cover for a support surface, (Carlson: [0034] “The managed friction material surface of the present invention is often configured to oppose a user's anatomy such that it provides a frictional interface with another surface such as a bed mattress. In one example, the managed friction material surface is configured such that a low friction zone opposes an area of sensitive skin. The low friction zone protects the area of sensitive skin from rubbing and abrasion against the bed mattress.”) comprising: a ticking made of a ticking material configured to enclose a support layer of the support surface, (Carlson: FIG. 3 (100) see also [0038] “As further illustrated in FIGS. 3 and 4, the smooth surface 101 is configured to contact a user's anatomy 600 either with or without intervening layers.”) the ticking having an outer top surface configured to face a person lying on the support surface; (Carlson: FIG. 3 (101)) and a friction reducing overlay on at least a portion of the ticking, the friction reducing overlay being made of a low friction material formed onto the ticking material, (Carlson: FIG. 3 (112) see also [0036] “Bonded areas of the surface 111 generally form high friction zones 113, wherein unbonded areas form low friction zones 112. “) the friction reducing overlay comprising a plurality of overlay elements that are spaced apart from each other to form an overlay pattern. (Carlson: FIG. 10 (135) see also [0067] “In this embodiment the adhesive ply 116 comprises multiple adhesive dots 135. Adhesive dots 135 can be small circularly shaped areas of adhesive as shown in FIG. 10. The adhesive also dots may comprise various shapes. Small circular shapes are chosen here for their relative ease of manufacture, however the shape of dots is not limited. Adhesive dots are applied to the first ply 114 and/or to the second ply 115.” See also [0068] in its entirety)
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) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of U.S. Publication No. 20140208492 issued to Foley.
Regarding claim 4,
Carlson 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 discloses the cover of claim 2.
Carlson 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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson.
Regarding claim 6,
Carlson discloses the cover of claim 1.
Carlson 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)
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of U.S. Publication No. 20060272071 issued to Mickle.
Regarding claim 8,
Carlson discloses the cover of claim 1.
Carlson does not appear to disclose wherein each of the overlay elements has a quadrilateral shape.
Carlson 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. Carlson’s own disclosure that “the shape of dots is not limited ([0073]) provides an invitation to try alternative shapes, and 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 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 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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of U.S. Publication No. 20050172414 issued to Lewis.
Regarding claim 14,
Carlson discloses the cover of claim 1.
Carlson 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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of European Publication No. 1684615 issued to Bain.
Regarding claim 17,
Carlson discloses the cover of claim 1.
Carlson 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 U.S. Publication No. 20240065916 issued to Augustine.
Regarding claim 18,
Carlson discloses the cover of claim 1.
Carlson does not appear to disclose wherein the friction reducing overlay comprises a heatable overlay subsystem that is selectively heatable.
However, Augustine discloses wherein the friction reducing overlay comprises a heatable overlay subsystem that is selectively heatable. (Augustine: [0045] “In some embodiments, the heated underbody support includes a heater assembly and a layer of compressible material. The heater assembly may include a heating element including a sheet of conductive fabric having a top surface, a bottom surface, a first edge, an opposing second edge, a length, and a width.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSTA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a heatable subsystem into Carlson’s patient support cover as taught by Augustine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to provide a heatable subsystem with a friction modifying support overlay which provides a therapeutic warming to patient in which one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as a predictable result.
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
Prosecution Insights