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
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/1/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the interview held 8/21/2026, The examiner acknowledges the discussion during the interview regarding potential amendments to claim 1. Upon further consideration the amended claim language against the prior art of record the examiner has determined that Ponsi in fact teaches the base engagement member and recessed-edge patch limitations added to claim 1 by the amendment.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “the combination of Alivizatos and Ponsi does not disclose, teach, or suggest at least ‘a base wall configured to confront the support surface of the bed, the base wall comprising a base engagement member configured to resist movement of the wedge, the base engagement member covering only a first portion of the base wall such that edges of the base engagement member covering only a first portion of the base wall such that edges of the base engagement member are spaced from edges of the base wall such that second portion of the base wall is exposed, the base engagement member configured as a patch,’ as recited in claim 1” This argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 incorporates the limitations of claim 7, which were previously rejected in the Non-final office action over Alivzatos in view of Ponsi.
Regarding new claim 21 Claim 21 is rejected over Alivzatos in view of Ponsi (See below)
Regarding the double patenting rejection: Applicant argues that the double patenting rejection is moot in view of the amendments to claim 1. This argument is not persuasive. The amendments to claim 1 add limitations that are also present in the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12390383 and applicant has not filed a terminal disclaimer.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12390383 to Fowler. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of Fowler appear to anticipate claims 1-6, 8-21 of the current application.
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, 5-6, 8-9, 11-16, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5182828 issued to Alivizatos in view of U.S. Publication No. 20120186012 issued to Ponsi.
Regarding claim 1,
Alivizatos discloses a wedge for use with a bed having a frame and a support surface supported by the frame, (Alivizatos: Abstract “A machine washable wedge shaped support structure …” see FIG. 5) the wedge comprising: a wedge body formed at least partially of a compressible material, (Alivizatos: FIG. 6 (12, 22, 24,36,38) filled with (40) polystyrene beads) the wedge body comprising: a base wall configured to confront the support surface of the bed, (Alivizatos: FIG. 6 (24)) a ramp surface joined to the base wall to form an apex, the ramp surface configured to confront a patient supported by the bed, (Alivizatos: FIG. 6 (22)) a back wall extending between the base wall and the ramp surface, (Alivizatos: FIG. 6 (12)) a first side wall extending between the base wall, the ramp surface, and the back wall, and a second side wall extending between the base wall, the ramp surface, and the back wall, the second side wall opposite the first side wall; (Alivizatos: FIG. 6 (36, 38)) and a support coupled to the wedge body and extending from the apex, the support configured to be positioned in a upper thigh area of the patient such that a bottom surface of the support confronts the support surface and a top surface of the support confronts the patient. (Alivizatos: FIG.4 (52, 54) the pad is for “for placing under a patient” (col. 4 lines 5-12) the device is capable of being used in this manner.)
Alivizatos does not appear to disclose the base wall comprising a base engagement member configured to resist movement of the wedge, the base engagement member covering only a first porion of the base wall such that edges of the base engagement member are spaced from edges of the base wall such that a second portion of the base wall is exposed, the base engagement member configured as a patch.
However, Ponsi discloses wherein the base wall comprises a base engagement member configured to resist movement of the wedge (Ponsi: [0056] discusses high-friction material 57 positioned on the base wall 51 as the base engagement member since it “resists sliding of the wedge 50 along the supporting surface 16 of the bed 12 once in position under the patient.” Ponsi: [0063] further describes this resistance in operation: “the high friction surface 57 of the wedge 50 resists movement of the wedge 50” during the caregiver’s pull.) the base engagement member covering only a first portion of the base wall such that edges of the base engagement member are spaced from edges of the base wall such that a second portion of the base wall is exposed, the base engagement member configured as a patch. (Ponsi: [0040] “As illustrated in FIGS. 2-3, the first piece 26 is larger than the second piece 27, so that the first piece 26 forms the entire bottom surface 22 of the sheet 20, and the second piece 27 forms at least a majority portion of the top surface 21, with the edges of the second piece 27 being recessed from the edges 23 of the sheet 20.” See also [0056] which teaches the wedge using the same material as the sheet “the high-friction material 57 and the low-friction material 58 of the same wedge 50 may be the same as the high-friction material 24 and the low-friction material 25 of the sheet 20.” And partially impalements the recessed-edge patch construction on the wedge base wall itself, where “the low-friction material 58 is wrapped partially around the apex 55, such that the low friction material 58 forms a portion of the base wall” i.e. recessing the base engagement member 57 from at least the apex-side edge of the base wall and leaving that portion exposed. The base engagement member is recessed from the base wall edges and therefore it is configured as a patch.)
It would have been obvious for a PHOISTA before the effective ffiling date of the claimed invention to modify Alivizatos by incorporating a base engagement member configured as a recessed-edge patch at the bottom wedge as taught by Ponsi in order to prevent wedge migration during positioning of a patient (Ponsi: [0056], [0063]), while the exposed perimeter of the base wall allows “the low-friction material 58” to be “wrapped partially around the apex, such that the low-friction material 58 forms a portion of the base wall,” which “eases insertion of the wedge under the sheet 20 and the patient” (Ponsi: [0056])
Regarding claim 2,
Alivizatos in view of Ponsidiscloses the wedge of claim 1.
Alivizatos does not appear to disclose wherein: the support further comprises a first directional stitching material on the top surface; and the ramp surface comprises a second directional stitching material.
However, Ponsi discloses wherein: the support further comprises a first directional stitching material on the top surface; (Ponsi: [0041] “the high friction material 24 is a warp knit tricot material that may be brushed, napped, and/or sanded to raise its pile, which can enhance comfort, and may be made of polyester and/or another suitable material.” see FIG. 1 (24)) and the ramp surface comprises a second directional stitching material. (Ponsi: [0056] “The high-friction material 57 and the low-friction material 58 may be any material described above with respect to the sheet 20, and in one embodiment, the high-friction material 57 and the low-friction material 58 of the wedge 50 may be the same as the high-friction material 24 and the low-friction material 25 of the sheet 20” )
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alivizatos by incorporating a directional stitching on the ramp wedge as taught by Ponsi in order to prevent wedge migration during positioning of a patient furthermore it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to include directional stitching on the support surface in order to prevent unwanted movement of a patient on the support and increase comfort.
Regarding claim 3,
Alivizatos in view of Ponsi discloses the wedge of claim 1.
Alivizatos does not appear to disclose wherein: the base wall comprises a first directional glide material; and the ramp surface comprises a second directional glide material.
However, Ponsi discloses wherein: the base wall comprises a first directional glide material; and the ramp surface comprises a second directional glide material. (Ponsi: [0056] “the wedge 50 has a high-friction or gripping material 57 positioned on the base wall 51 and a low-friction or sliding material 58 positioned on the ramp surface 52” and [0042] discusses that these high/low coefficient of frictions may be with respect to a directional pull force.)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alivizatos by incorporating a glide material at the bottom of the wedge as taught by Ponsi in order to prevent wedge migration during positioning of a patient on a ramp surface.
Regarding claim 5,
Alivizatos in view of Ponsi discloses the wedge of claim 3, wherein: the wedge is configured to contact an opposing surface; and the ramp surface is configured to resist movement of the opposing surface in a direction extending parallel to at least one of the apex or the back wall, the movement with respect to: (i) the ramp surface or (ii) the top surface. (Ponsi: [0042] discloses using directional textile materials to provide direction friction along perpendicular axes: the coefficient of friction “may vary by the direction of the pull force,” and contemplates measurement along two perpendicular axes i.e. “the coefficient of friction of the low friction material 25 based on a pull force normal to the side edges 23 (i.e. proximate the handles 28) and the coefficient of friction of the high friction material 24 based on a pull force normal to the top and bottom edges 23 (i.e. parallel to the side edges 23).” [0056] teaches the wedge uses the same materials as the sheet, so the perpendicular-axis friction property carries over to the ramp surface)
Regarding claim 6,
Alivizatos in view of Ponsi discloses the wedge of claim 1.
Alivizatos does not appear to disclose wherein the base engagement member configured to resist movement of the wedge with respect to the bed in a first direction extending from the back wall towards the apex.
However, Ponsi discloses wherein the base wall comprises a base engagement member configured to resist movement of the wedge with respect to the bed in a first direction extending from the back wall towards the apex. (Ponsi: [0056] discusses high-friction material 57 positioned on the base wall 51 as the base engagement member since it “resists sliding of the wedge 50 along the supporting surface 16 of the bed 12 once in position under the patient.” Ponsi: [0063] further describes this resistance in operation: “the high friction surface 57 of the wedge 50 resists movement of the wedge 50” during the caregiver’s pull. Thus Ponsi’s wedge resists movement from backwall to the apex)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alivizatos by incorporating a base engagement member at the bottom of the wedge as taught by Ponsi in order to prevent wedge migration during positioning of a patient.
Regarding claim 8,
Alivizatos in view of Ponsi discloses the wedge of claim 1, wherein: the apex is a first apex; the ramp surface is joined to the back wall to form a second apex; (Alivizatos: FIG. 2 shows a first and second apex)
Alivizatos does not appear to disclose the base wall comprises a base engagement member configured to resist movement of the wedge; and the base engagement member is located closer to the first apex in a first direction than to the second apex in a second direction, each of the first direction and the second direction being along the ramp surface.
However, Ponsi discloses the base wall comprises a base engagement member configured to resist movement of the wedge; (Ponsi: FIG. 5 (57)) and the base engagement member is located closer to the first apex in a first direction than to the second apex in a second direction, each of the first direction and the second direction being along the ramp surface. (Ponsi: FIG. 5, (57) is closer to (55) than it is to apex between 58 and 53)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alivizatos by incorporating a base engagement member at the bottom of the wedge as taught by Ponsi in order to prevent wedge migration during positioning of a patient.
Regarding claim 9,
Alivizatos in view of Ponsi discloses the wedge of claim 1.
Alivizatos does not appear to disclose wherein: the base wall and the ramp surface meet at an acute angle to form the apex; the back wall is positioned opposite the apex; and the back wall is perpendicular to the ramp surface.
However, Ponsi discloses the base wall and the ramp surface meet at an acute angle to form the apex; the back wall is positioned opposite the apex; and the back wall is perpendicular to the ramp surface. (Ponsi: [0055] “In one embodiment, the angle between the base wall 51 and the ramp surface 52 may be up to 45.degree., or between 15.degree. and 35.degree. “)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alivizato’s wedge structure by making the angles fall between 15-45 degrees as taught by Ponsi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification since it is known that 30 degree ramp to base wall angle is “clinically recommended”. (Ponsi: [0055])
Regarding claim 11,
Alivizatos in view of Ponsidiscloses the wedge of claim 1, wherein the base wall comprises: a plurality of base wall edges; a base wall first portion contiguous with each of the base wall edges, (Alivizatos: FIG. 2 has a plurality of base wall edges and a first portion)
Alivizatos does not appear to disclose the base wall first portion having a first coefficient of friction; and a base wall second portion surrounded by the base wall first portion, the base wall second portion having a second coefficient of friction, the second coefficient of friction greater than the first coefficient of friction, the base wall second portion being the base engagement member
However, Ponsi discloses a base wall second portion … the base wall second portion having a second coefficient of friction, the second coefficient of friction greater than the first coefficient of friction the base wall second portion being the base engagement member (Ponsi: [0056] discusses high-friction material 57 positioned on the base wall 51 as the base engagement member since it “resists sliding of the wedge 50 along the supporting surface 16 of the bed 12 once in position under the patient.” Ponsi: [0063] further describes this resistance in operation: “the high friction surface 57 of the wedge 50 resists movement of the wedge 50” during the caregiver’s pull.)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alivizatos by incorporating a base engagement member at the bottom of the wedge as taught by Ponsi in order to prevent wedge migration during positioning of a patient.
Alivizatos in view of Ponsi does not appear to disclose a base wall second portion surrounded by the base wall first portion, the base wall second portion having a second coefficient of friction, the second coefficient of friction greater than the first coefficient of friction.
However, Ponsi discusses in [0040] “As illustrated in FIGS. 2-3, the first piece 26 is larger than the second piece 27, so that the first piece 26 forms the entire bottom surface 22 of the sheet 20, and the second piece 27 forms at least a majority portion of the top surface 21, with the edges of the second piece 27 being recessed from the edges 23 of the sheet 20”.
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Ponsi’s recessed from the edge teaching from the sheets to Ponsi’s high friction surface on the base wedge in order to allow for ease of “the low-friction material 58” to be “wrapped partially around the apex, such that the low-friction material 58 forms a portion of the base wall” and save on manufacturing costs by using less material of the high-friction material.
Regarding claim 12,
Alivizatos in view of Ponsi discloses the wedge of claim 1, wherein the ramp surface comprises: a plurality of ramp surface edges; a ramp surface first portion contiguous with each of the ramp surface edges, (Alivizatos: FIG. 2)
Alivizatos does not appear to disclose the ramp surface first portion having a first coefficient of friction; and a ramp surface second portion surrounded by the ramp surface first portion, the ramp surface second portion having a second coefficient of friction, the second coefficient of friction greater than the first coefficient of friction.
However, Ponsi discloses the ramp surface first portion having a first coefficient of friction; and a ramp surface second portion … the ramp surface second portion having a second coefficient of friction, the second coefficient of friction greater than the first coefficient of friction. (Ponsi: [0042] discusses the COF differential being 5-10X while [0056] discusses the wedge using the same directional materials as the sheet.)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alivizatos by incorporating a base engagement member at the bottom of the wedge as taught by Ponsi in order to prevent wedge migration during positioning of a patient.
Alivizatos in view of Ponsi does not appear to disclose a base wall second portion surrounded by the base wall first portion, the base wall second portion having a second coefficient of friction, the second coefficient of friction greater than the first coefficient of friction.
However, Ponsi discusses in [0040] “As illustrated in FIGS. 2-3, the first piece 26 is larger than the second piece 27, so that the first piece 26 forms the entire bottom surface 22 of the sheet 20, and the second piece 27 forms at least a majority portion of the top surface 21, with the edges of the second piece 27 being recessed from the edges 23 of the sheet 20”.
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Ponsi’s recessed from the edge teaching from the sheets to Ponsi’s high friction surface on the ramp surface wedge in order to allow to allow for the central portion of the wedge to provide a higher-COF region which would result in resistance to a patient sliding down the wedge ([0063]) while the exposed lower-COF perimeter facilitates a patient sliding up the ramp during initial positioning ([0056])
Regarding claim 13,
Alivizatos in view of Ponsi discloses the wedge of claim 1, wherein: the ramp surface is separated from the back wall by a ramp angle; the back wall is separated from the base wall by a back angle; and the base wall is separated from the ramp surface by an apex angle, the apex angle less than the ramp angle and the back angle. (Alivizatos: FIG. 2)
Regarding claim 14,
Alivizatos in view of Ponsi discloses the wedge of claim 1, wherein: the first side wall is equal in size and shape to the second side wall; the first side wall is disposed along a first plane; and the second side wall is disposed along a second plane that is parallel to the first plane. (Alivizatos: FIG. 6 (36, 38) are parallel to one another and equal in size and shape disposed on first and second planes.)
Regarding claim 15,
Alivizatos in view of Ponsi discloses the wedge of claim 1, wherein the base wall, the ramp surface, the back wall, the first side wall, and the second side wall are each planar. (Alivizatos: FIG. 6 all of the walls are planar)
Regarding claim 16,
Alivizatos in view of Ponsi discloses the wedge of claim 1.
Alivizatos does not appear to disclose wherein the ramp surface comprises a ramp engagement member, the ramp engagement member covering only a first portion of the ramp surface such that edges of the ramp engagement member are spaced from edges of the ramp surface and a second portion of the ramp surface is exposed.
However, Ponsi discloses wherein the ramp surface comprises a ramp engagement member, the ramp engagement member covering only a first portion of the ramp surface such that edges of the ramp engagement member are spaced from edges of the ramp surface and a second portion of the ramp surface is exposed. (Ponsi: [0056] discloses the ramp surface 52 having a directional material (58) which functions as the ramp engagement member)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alivizatos by incorporating a ramp engagement member as taught by Ponsi in order to prevent the patient from sliding down a ramp surface of the wedge when they are positioned on top of the surface.
Alivizatos in view of Ponsi does not appear to disclose wherein the ramp surface comprises a ramp engagement member, the ramp engagement member covering only a first portion of the ramp surface such that edges of the ramp engagement member are spaced from edges of the ramp surface and a second portion of the ramp surface is exposed.
However, Ponsi discusses in [0040] “As illustrated in FIGS. 2-3, the first piece 26 is larger than the second piece 27, so that the first piece 26 forms the entire bottom surface 22 of the sheet 20, and the second piece 27 forms at least a majority portion of the top surface 21, with the edges of the second piece 27 being recessed from the edges 23 of the sheet 20”.
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Ponsi’s recessed from the edge teaching from the sheets to Ponsi’s high friction surface on the ramp surface wedge in order to allow to allow for the central portion of the wedge to provide a higher-COF region which would result in resistance to a patient sliding down the wedge ([0063]) while the exposed lower-COF perimeter facilitates a patient sliding up the ramp during initial positioning ([0056])
Regarding claim 20,
Alivizatos in view of Ponsi discloses the wedge of claim 1, wherein: the support comprises: a first lateral edge adjacent to the apex, and a second lateral edge opposite the first lateral edge; the apex is separated from the back wall by a wedge length; and the first lateral edge is separated from the second lateral edge by a support length, the support length greater than the wedge length. (Alivizatos: FIG. 4 see also col. 3 lines 63-64 “The extension panels 52, 54 extend away from the front edge portion 26 a substantial distance”)
Regarding claim 21,
Alivizatos in view of Ponsi discloses the wedge of claim 1, wherein: the apex is a first apex; the ramp surface is joined to the back wall to form a second apex; (Alivizatos: FIG. 2 shows a first and second apex) the base engagement member is located closer to the first apex in a first direction than to the second apex in a second direction, (Ponsi: FIG. 5 (57) is closer to (55) than it is to apex between (58) and (53)) and the base engagement member is offset from the first apex. (Ponsi: [0056] the wrapped material (58) offsets the base engagement member 57 from the first apex i.e. the low friction wrap occupies the apex-adjacent strip of the base wall, so the base engagement member is offset from the apex by the width of the wrap.)
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) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5182828 issued to Alivizatos and Ponsi in view of U.S. Publication No. 20060075562 issued to DiGirolamo.
Regarding claim 10,
Alivizatos in view of Ponsi discloses the wedge of claim 1.
Alivizatos does not appear to disclose wherein the support is divided into a plurality of chambers, each of the chambers formed by stitched boundaries.
However, DiGirolamo discloses wherein the support is divided into a plurality of chambers, each of the chambers formed by stitched boundaries. (DiGirolamo: FIG. 2 (21, 23, 25) see also [0010] “Baffles 18 and 20 extend for the full width laterally of the pillow and are located so as to define three chambers, 21, 23, 25 of equal size along the length of the pillow 10.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stabilizing pad/support of Alivizatos to incorporate the multi-chamber stitched-baffle construction in place of the fabric panel construction taught by DiGirolamo since adding “two internal baffle members and two outer layers provides good comfort with good support while at the same time being practical to manufacture” ([0017]) while also “prevents migration … during use.” (DiGirolamo: [0014])
Regarding claim 19,
Alivizatos in view of Ponsi discloses the wedge of claim 1.
Alivizatos does not appear to disclose wherein the support is divided into a plurality of chambers, the chambers comprising: a first chamber having a first length and a first width; a second chamber having a second length and a second width, the second length equal to the first length, the second width equal to the first width; and a third chamber having a third length and a third width, the third length equal to the first length, the third width equal to the first width.
However, DiGirolamo discloses wherein the support is divided into a plurality of chambers, the chambers comprising: a first chamber having a first length and a first width; a second chamber having a second length and a second width, the second length equal to the first length, the second width equal to the first width; and a third chamber having a third length and a third width, the third length equal to the first length, the third width equal to the first width. (DiGirolamo: FIG. 2 (21, 23, 25) see also [0010] “Baffles 18 and 20 extend for the full width laterally of the pillow and are located so as to define three chambers, 21, 23, 25 of equal size along the length of the pillow 10.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stabilizing pad/support of Alivizatos to incorporate the multi-chamber stitched-baffle construction in place of the fabric panel construction taught by DiGirolamo since adding “two internal baffle members and two outer layers provides good comfort with good support while at the same time being practical to manufacture” ([0017]) while also “prevents migration … during use.” (DiGirolamo: [0014])
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5182828 issued to Alivizatos in view of U.S. Publication No. 20120186012 issued to Ponsi further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20110277234 issued to Jasani.
Regarding claim 4,
Alivizatos in view of Ponsi discloses the wedge of claim 3, wherein: the first directional glide material is configured to resist movement of the wedge with respect to the support surface in a first direction from the apex towards the back wall; the wedge is configured to contact an opposing surface; (Ponsi: [0056] discusses base-wall glide material (high-friction warp-knit tricot (57) is configured to “resist sliding of the wedge 50 along the supporting surface 16 of the bed 12.”) and the second directional glide material is configured to resist movement of the opposing surface with respect to the ramp surface in a second direction from the back wall towards the apex. (Ponsi: [0063] “During this pulling motion, the low friction materials 25, 58 on the sheet 20 and the wedges 50 provide ease of motion, the high friction surface 57 of the wedge 50 resists movement of the wedge 50, and the high friction surface 24 of the sheet 20 resists movement of the pad 40 and/or the patient 70 with respect to the sheet 20.”)
Alivizatos in view of Ponsi does not appear to expressly disclose the specific directional friction.
However, Jasani discloses how to implement such a feature in [0012]-[0013] and discusses the predictable result in [0016] i.e. locks the patient in place.
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alivizatos in view of Ponsi’s base-wall and ramp-surface directional glide materials with the lock-and-glide nap-material technique as taught by Jasani, with lock directions selected to satisfy Ponsi’s workflow requirements as discussed in [0063] on Ponsi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Jasani’s nap material to both wedge surfaces of Alivizatos in view of Ponsi in order to prevent the patient from sliding off the wedge while simultaneously preventing movement of the wedge relative to the patient.
Regarding claim 17,
Alivizatos in view of Ponsi discloses the wedge of claim 16.
Alivizatos does not appear to disclose wherein the ramp engagement member is configured to engage a contacting surface and resist movement of the contacting surface with respect to the ramp surface in a first direction such that a first pull force necessary to create sliding movement of the contacting surface with respect to the ramp surface in the first direction is greater than a second pull force necessary to create sliding movement of the contacting surface with respect to the ramp surface in a second direction.
However, Jasani discloses how to implement such a feature in [0012]-[0013] and discusses the predictable result in [0016] i.e. locks the patient in place.
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alivizatos in view of Ponsi’s ramp-surface directional glide materials with the lock-and-glide nap-material technique as taught by Jasani, with lock directions selected to satisfy Ponsi’s workflow requirements as discussed in [0063] on Ponsi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Jasani’s nap material to both wedge surfaces of Alivizatos in view of Ponsi in order to prevent the patient from sliding off the wedge while simultaneously facilitating sliding a patient up the wedge.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5182828 issued to Alivizatos in view of U.S. Publication No. 20120186012 issued to Ponsi further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5476105 issued to Toth.
Regarding claim 18,
Alivizatos in view of Ponsi discloses the wedge of claim 1, wherein: the support includes: a first lateral edge adjacent to the apex, a second lateral edge opposite the first lateral edge, a third lateral edge, and a fourth lateral edge opposite the third lateral edge; the first side wall is separated from the second side wall by a wedge width; and the third lateral edge is separated from the fourth lateral edge by a support width, (Alivizatos: FIGS. 2 and 4)
Alivizatos does not appear to disclose the support width less than the wedge width.
However, Toth discloses the support width less than the wedge width. (Toth: FIG. 3 (32) is clearly smaller than (20) in the drawings)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the support of Alivizatos in view of Ponsi to be narrower than the wedge, as taught by Toth, in order to concentrate support at the upper thigh region while permitting the wider wedge to provide lateral stability which would achieve the predictable result of a thigh-focused support. Furthermore, the federal circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Examiner notes that the applicant’s specification identifies no such criticality or unexpected result tied to the specific dimensional relationship.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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