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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12508182 in view of the references below.
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, 5-6, 8, 11-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 111607358 issued to Spahn in view of U.S. patent No. 5787523 issued to Lindberg.
Regarding claim 1,
Spahn discloses an assembly (Spahn: Abstract “A patient turning sheet…”; FIG. 1 (10)) comprising: a sheet assembly for positioning a patient, (Spahn: Title, “Patient Positioning and Turning Sheet”) the sheet assembly comprising: a base sheet comprising: a first end, a second end, a top surface, and a bottom surface opposite the top surface, (Spahn: FIG. 1 (10, 10b, 10c, 11) see also claim 1“a flexibile bottom sheet … having a top surface adapted to support a person”; the patient-contact surface and the opposite surface facing the pad,) and a pad coupled to the base sheet and positioned between the first end and the second end; (Spahn: FIG. 2 (25) which lies within the perimeter, between the head and foot ends, see also col. 4 “the foam pad 25 is sewn into the top sheet 20 with a portion 22 of the top sheet folded around the … pad and stitching 21”)
Spahn does not appear to disclose and a bed support coupled to the base sheet, a support sheet and a support pad positioned between the support sheet and the base sheet.
However, Lindberg discloses and a bed support (Lindberg: FIG. 20 ) coupled to the base sheet, (Lindberg: col. 4 lines 54-67, the drawsheet i.e. equivalent of Spahn’s entire assembly) a support sheet (Lindberg: FIG. 20 (21, 5a underside)) a support pad positioned between the support sheet and the base sheet. (Lindberg: FIG. 20 (19) is between drawsheet (equivalent of Spahn’s base sheet) and moisture barrier (21, 5a underside))
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patient turning sheet of EHOB by incorporating beneath the base sheet a moisture layer as well as a pressure relieving pad as taught by Lindberg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to provide EHOB’s device with a moisture protection barrier as well as additional comfort for a patient.
Regarding claim 5,
Spahn in view of Lindberg discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the pad is coupled to the top surface. (Spahn: FIG. 1 (25) is coupled to (20))
Regarding claim 6,
Spahn in view of Lindberg discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the pad is coupled to the bottom surface such that the pad is positioned between the base sheet and the support pad. (Spahn: FIG. 1 (25) is coupled to the underside of (20), under an alternative interpretation, (20) may be interpreted as the base sheet.)
Regarding claim 8,
Spahn in view of Lindberg discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein: at least a portion of the top surface is at least one of: (I) formed of a material having a higher coefficient of friction than the bottom surface or (ii) coated with a material having a higher coefficient of friction than the bottom surface. (Spahn: col. 3 lines 60 – col. 4 line 10)
Regarding claim 11,
Spahn in view of Lindberg discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the bed support further comprises a support strap configured to secure the bed support to a bed such that the bed support does not move with the sheet assembly when the sheet assembly is operated. (Lindberg: FIG. 18 (10))
Regarding claim 12,
Spahn in view of Lindberg discloses the assembly of claim 1 wherein: the base sheet has a width extending in a first direction and a length extending in a second direction that is substantially perpendicular to the first direction; (Spahn: FIG. 1 sheets (20, 11) have a width and length extending in a first and second direction) the pad has a width extending in the first direction and a length extending in the second direction; (Spahn: FIG. 1 pad (25) has a width and length extending in a first and second direction) and the support pad has a width extending in the first direction and a length extending in the second direction. (Lindberg: FIG. 1 the pad has a width and length that extends in a first and second direction)
Regarding claim 13,
Spahn in view of Lindberg discloses the assembly of claim 12, wherein: the length of the base sheet is greater than the width of the base sheet; the length of the pad is greater than the width of the pad; (Spahn: FIG. 1) and the width of the support pad is greater than the length of the support pad. (Lindberg: FIG. 1)
Regarding claim 14,
Spahn in view of Lindberg discloses the assembly of claim 13, wherein the width of the base sheet is less than the width of the support pad; the length of the base sheet is greater than the length of the support pad; (Spahn has a base-sheet measurement of about 35.5 inches (90cm) < Lindberg’s support pad (120 cm or 47 inches; Spahn’s base-sheet length is about 56 inches or 142 cm > Lindberg’s support pad length which is 90 to 115 cm or (35-45 inches) ) the width of the pad is less than the width of the base sheet; and the length of the pad is less than the length of the base sheet. (Spahn: FIG. 1 (25) is less than the width and length of the base sheet)
Regarding claim 15,
Spahn discloses an assembly comprising: a sheet assembly for positioning a patient; (Spahn: FIG. 1 (10))
Spahn does not appear to disclose and a bed support coupled to the sheet assembly, the bed support comprising: a support sheet, a support pad coupled to the support sheet, and a support strap coupled to the support pad.
However, Lindberg discloses and a bed support coupled to the sheet assembly, the bed support comprising: a support sheet, (Lindberg: FIG. 20 (5a underside)) a support pad coupled to the support sheet, (Lindberg: FIG. 20 (19)) and a support strap coupled to the support pad. (Lindberg: FIG. 18 (10) is indirectly coupled to the support pad)
Regarding claim 16,
Spahn in view of Lindberg discloses the assembly of claim 15, wherein the sheet assembly comprises: a base sheet, the base sheet including: a top surface, and a bottom surface opposite the top surface, (Spahn: FIG. 1 (11, 20)) wherein the bottom surface is coupled to the support pad; and a pad coupled to the top surface. (Spahn: col. 3 lines 60-66 teaches a wedge being placed on the top sheet)
Regarding claim 18,
Spahn in view of Lindberg discloses the assembly of claim 16, wherein the support sheet covers at least a portion of a bed; (Lindberg: FIG. 1 the support sheet covers at least a portion of a bed)and the support strap configured to secure the bed support to a bed such that the bed support does not move with the sheet assembly when the sheet assembly is operated. (Lindberg: FIG. 18 (10))
Claim(s) 2-4, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 111607358 issued to Spahn in view of U.S. patent No. 5787523 issued to Lindberg further in view of European Publication No. 3705100 issued to Ferri.
Regarding claim 2,
Spahn in view of Lindberg discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the base sheet further comprises: a first handle interface positioned on the first end, the first handle interface defining a first opening configured to receive a hand of an operator, (Spahn: FIG. 1 (10b, 14))
Spahn in view of Lindberg does not appear to disclose and a second handle interface positioned on the second end, the second handle interface defining an opening configured to receive the hand.
However, Ferri discloses and a second handle interface positioned on the second end, the second handle interface defining an opening configured to receive the hand. (Ferri: FIG. 1 (12))
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the base sheet of Spahn in view of Lindberg with a handle interface at the second end as taught by Ferri, in order to allow the caregiver to grasp the sheet securely at each end and reposition the patient with reduced effort and risk and allow for more versatility of being able to grasp the sheet at the head end.
Regarding claim 3,
Spahn in view of Lindberg discloses the assembly of claim 1.
Spahn in view of Lindberg does not appear to disclose wherein the sheet assembly further comprises a handle interface positioned on the base sheet, the handle interface comprising: a pocket sheet coupled to at least one of the top surface or the bottom surface, the pocket sheet and the base sheet cooperatively defining (I) a pocket cavity between the pocket sheet and the base sheet and (ii) a first opening configured to allow access into the pocket cavity, the first opening configured to receive a hand of an operator sheet assembly.
However, Ferri discloses wherein the sheet assembly further comprises a handle interface positioned on the base sheet, the handle interface comprising: a pocket sheet coupled to at least one of the top surface or the bottom surface, (Ferri: FIG. 1 (3) strips are sewn on top of the sheet) the pocket sheet and the base sheet cooperatively defining (I) a pocket cavity between the pocket sheet and the base sheet (Ferri: FIG. 1 (12) defines a pocket) and (ii) a first opening configured to allow access into the pocket cavity, the first opening configured to receive a hand of an operator sheet assembly. (Ferri: FIG. 1 (12) can receive the hands of a caregiver)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spahn in view of Lindberg by swapping out the straps of Spahn and adding a pocket sheet defining a pocket cavity as taught by Ferri, in order to provide the operator with a secure, enclosed hand-receiving grip on the patient sheet.
Regarding claim 4,
Spahn in view of Lindberg in view of Ferri discloses wherein the sheet assembly of claim 2 further comprises the first handle interface positioned on the base sheet, the handle interface comprising: a pocket sheet coupled to at least one of the top surface or the bottom surface, (Ferri: FIG. 1 (3) strips are sewn on top of the sheet) the pocket sheet and the base sheet cooperatively defining (I) a pocket cavity between the pocket sheet and the base sheet (Ferri: FIG. 1 (12) defines a pocket) and (ii) a first opening configured to allow access into the pocket cavity, the first opening configured to receive a hand of an operator sheet assembly. (Ferri: FIG. 1 (12) can receive the hands of a caregiver) the second handle interface positioned on the base sheet, the handle interface comprising: a pocket sheet coupled to at least one of the top surface or the bottom surface, (Ferri: FIG. 1 (3) strips are sewn on top of the sheet) the pocket sheet and the base sheet cooperatively defining (I) a pocket cavity between the pocket sheet and the base sheet (Ferri: FIG. 1 (12) defines a pocket) and (ii) a first opening configured to allow access into the pocket cavity, the first opening configured to receive a hand of an operator sheet assembly. (Ferri: FIG. 1 (12) can receive the hands of a caregiver)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spahn in view of Lindberg by swapping out the straps of Spahn and adding a pocket sheet defining a pocket cavity as taught by Ferri, in order to provide the operator with a secure, enclosed hand-receiving grip on the patient sheet.
Regarding claim 19,
Spahn in view of Lindberg discloses the assembly of claim 16.
Spahn in view of Lindberg does not appear to disclose wherein the sheet assembly further comprises a handle interface positioned on the base sheet, the handle interface comprising: a pocket sheet coupled to at least one of the top surface or the bottom surface, the pocket sheet and the base sheet cooperatively defining (I) a pocket cavity between the pocket sheet and the base sheet and (ii) a first opening configured to allow access into the pocket cavity, the first opening configured to receive a hand of an operator sheet assembly.
However, Ferri discloses wherein the sheet assembly further comprises a handle interface positioned on the base sheet, the handle interface comprising: a pocket sheet coupled to at least one of the top surface or the bottom surface, (Ferri: FIG. 1 (3) strips are sewn on top of the sheet) the pocket sheet and the base sheet cooperatively defining (I) a pocket cavity between the pocket sheet and the base sheet (Ferri: FIG. 1 (12) defines a pocket) and (ii) a first opening configured to allow access into the pocket cavity, the first opening configured to receive a hand of an operator sheet assembly. (Ferri: FIG. 1 (12) can receive the hands of a caregiver)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spahn in view of Lindberg by swapping out the straps of Spahn and adding a pocket sheet defining a pocket cavity as taught by Ferri, in order to provide the operator with a secure, enclosed hand-receiving grip on the patient sheet.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 111607358 issued to Spahn in view of U.S. patent No. 5787523 issued to Lindberg further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8850634 issued to Ponsi.
Regarding claim 9,
Spahn in view of Lindberg discloses the assembly of claim 8, wherein: the pad is coupled to the top surface, (Spahn: col. 3 lines 60-66 teaches a wedge being placed on the top sheet, examiner notes that in an alternative interpretation of Spahn (see claim 16) the pad can be construed as a wedge being placed on the base sheet (11, 20))
Spahn in view of Lindberg does not appear to disclose and the pad is at least one of (I) formed of a same material as the top surface or (ii) coated with a same material as the top surface.
However, Ponsi discloses and the pad is at least one of (I) formed of a same material as the top surface or (ii) coated with a same material as the top surface. (Ponsi: col. 13 lines 9-19)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Spahn’s foam positioning wedge with a high-friction surface as the same material as the top surface of the base sheet taught by Ponsi, such that the pad has a coefficient of friction higher than the bottom surface of the base sheet in order to resist slippage of the wedge and maintain the patient in the desired position as well as simplify the manufacturing process of the wedge/pad.
Regarding claim 10,
Spahn in view of Lindberg discloses the assembly of claim 8, the pad is coupled to the top surface (Spahn: under an alternate interpretation (Spahn: col. 3 lines 60-66 teaches a wedge being placed on the top sheet)
Spahn does not appear to disclose the pad is at least one of (I) formed of a material having a higher coefficient of friction than the bottom surface or (ii) coated with a material having a higher coefficient of friction than the bottom surface.
However, Ponsi discloses the pad is at least one of (I) formed of a material having a higher coefficient of friction than the bottom surface or (ii) coated with a material having a higher coefficient of friction than the bottom surface. (Ponsi: col. 13 lines 9-20)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Spahn’s foam positioning wedge with a high-friction foam surface as taught by Ponsi, such that the pad has a coefficient of friction higher than the bottom surface of the base sheet in order to resist slippage of the wedge and maintain the patient in the desired position.
Regarding claim 20,
Spahn in view of Lindberg discloses the assembly of claim 16, wherein: at least a portion of the top surface is at least one of: (I) formed of a material having a higher coefficient of friction than the bottom surface or (ii) coated with a material having a higher coefficient of friction than the bottom surface. (Spahn: col. 3 lines 60 – col. 4 line 10)
Spahn does not appear to disclose the pad is at least one of (I) formed of a material having a higher coefficient of friction than the bottom surface or (ii) coated with a material having a higher coefficient of friction than the bottom surface.
However, Ponsi discloses the pad is at least one of (I) formed of a material having a higher coefficient of friction than the bottom surface or (ii) coated with a material having a higher coefficient of friction than the bottom surface. (Ponsi: col. 13 lines 9-20)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Spahn’s foam positioning wedge with a high-friction foam surface as taught by Ponsi, such that the pad has a coefficient of friction higher than the bottom surface of the base sheet in order to resist slippage of the wedge and maintain the patient in the desired position.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 111607358 issued to Spahn in view of U.S. patent No. 5787523 issued to Lindberg further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10765580 issued to Augustine.
Regarding claim 7,
Spahn in view of Lindberg discloses the assembly of claim 1.
Spahn in view of Lindberg does not appear to disclose wherein at least a portion of the pad is formed of memory foam.
However Augustine discloses wherein at least a portion of the pad is formed of memory foam. (Augustine: FIG. 36 (102) see also col. 30 lines 32-44)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pad of Spahn in view of Lindberg by making it out of memory foam as taught by Augustine so that it would provide “optimal padding” of the human body and “prevent pressure” from being applied to a region of a patient’s body. (Augustine: col. 30 lines 32-44)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 111607358 issued to Spahn in view of U.S. patent No. 5787523 issued to Lindberg further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7739758 issued to Weedling.
Regarding claim 17,
Spahn in view of Lindberg discloses the assembly of claim 16.
Spahn in view of Lindberg does not appear to disclose wherein the pad comprises an air cushion.
However, Weedling discloses wherein the pad comprises an air cushion. (Weedling: FIG. 6 (62, 64) see col. 5 lines 49-62)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a air cushion above the base sheet of Spahn as taught by Weedling in order to control the firmness and pressure of the cushion to be positioned below a patient.
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