Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/485,431

PILLOW

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 12, 2019
Examiner
MCCLURE, MORGAN J
Art Unit
3673
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Oreous LLC
OA Round
8 (Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
9-10
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allow Rate
216 granted / 459 resolved
-4.9% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
488
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
59.0%
+19.0% vs TC avg
§102
17.7%
-22.3% vs TC avg
§112
18.5%
-21.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 459 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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 8/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments relate to the previously used Inagaki reference, which is no longer used in the current rejection in response to the amendments. Thus the arguments do not apply to the current rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US Patent 6928678) in view of Allman (US Patent Application Publication 20120272457) in view of Sama (US Patent Application Publication 20190330049) in view of Leifermann (US Patent Application Publication 20070245493). Regarding claim 25, Chang teaches a pillow including an envelope (Figure 1; 20) enclosing pillow stuffing (Figure 1; 30), wherein the pillow stuffing includes a plurality of foam bodies (Figure 1; 30, and Column 2; lines 4-7) which are moveable relative to one another to allow the pillow to be shaped by a user, so that the pillow stuffing has sufficient firmness to support the head and neck of the user, progressively, when sleeping (Column 1; lines 45-49), and a resilience that exceeds the resilience of feather down pillow stuffing to return the pillow to its original shape when the pillow stuffing is not supporting the head and neck of the user (Foam returns completely to its original shape, whereas feathers do not, thus they are more resilient than feathers). Chang does not teach the foam bodies are independent, elongate cylindrical and memory foam, with each of the plurality of elongate memory foam bodies having predetermined sizing including a length of between 10 to 12 cm and a diameter of about 1 cm; wherein more than half of the elongate cylindrical memory foam bodies are aligned to be parallel to the same longitudinal axis, arranged in one direction, and wherein the plurality of elongate memory foam bodies predetermined sizing provides air flow to maintain the pillow at relative cool temperatures during a sleep cycle. Allman teaches wherein each of the memory foam bodies is independent (Figure 44; 870 are each independent foam cylinders) of substantially cylindrical shape and elongated (Figure 44; 870 as shown) wherein more than half of the elongate cylindrical memory foam bodies are aligned to be parallel to the same longitudinal axis (Figure 44; as shown, all of the foam cylinders are aligned to be parallel to the same longitudinal axis). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Chang (directed to a cushion with resilient filling) and Allman (directed to a pillow with independent elongated cylindrical filling) and arrived at a cushion with independent elongated cylindrical filling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide “a geometry that can be used in a vertical position relative to an overall structure providing individual spring qualities to an otherwise unitary or monolithic structure that is both stable due to the thermoplastic foam 872 and exhibits excellent offset of compression set” (Allman Paragraph 194) and a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Chang and Allman do not teach the foam bodies are memory foam, with each of the plurality of elongate memory foam bodies having predetermined sizing including a length of between 10 to 12 cm and a diameter of about 1 cm, and wherein the plurality of elongate memory foam bodies predetermined sizing provides air flow to maintain the pillow at relative cool temperatures during a sleep cycle. Sama teaches each of the foam bodies has a length of between 10 cm to 12 cm and a diameter of about 1 cm (Paragraph 5) wherein the plurality of elongate memory foam bodies predetermined sizing provides air flow to maintain the pillow at relative cool temperatures during a sleep cycle (Figure 1; spacing is seen between the foam bodies, facilitating airflow). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Chang (directed to a cushion with resilient filling) and Allman (directed to a pillow with independent elongated cylindrical filling) and Sama (directed to a long and thing cushioning filling) arrived at a cushion with independent resilient long and thin filling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to “produce a filler that mostly eliminates separation” (Sama Paragraph 3) and because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Chang, Allman and Sama do not teach the foam bodies being memory foam. Leifermann teaches using memory foam (Paragraph 13) as a filler in a pillow. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Chang (directed to a cushion with resilient filling) and Allman (directed to a pillow with independent elongated cylindrical filling) and Sama (directed to a long and thing cushioning filling) and Leifermann (directed to a memory foam filling for a cushion) and arrived at a cushion with memory foam independent long and thin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Claims 26-29, 31-32, 34, 36, and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US Patent 6928678) in view of Allman (US Patent Application Publication 20120272457) in view of Sama (US Patent Application Publication 20190330049) in view of Leifermann (US Patent Application Publication 20070245493) in view of Chon (US Patent 20170231410). Regarding claim 26, Chang, as modified, does not teach the envelope includes an outer cover and an inner cover. Chon teaches the envelope includes an outer cover (Figure 3; 110) and an inner cover (Figure 3; 120). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Chang (directed to a cushion with resilient filling) and Allman (directed to a pillow with independent elongated cylindrical filling) and Sama (directed to a long and thing cushioning filling) and Leifermann (directed to a memory foam filling for a cushion) and Chon (directed to a pillow with a cover) and arrived at a covered cushion with memory foam independent long and thin filling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “allow for a user to add or remove an amount of internal filling to increase or decrease the size of the pillow, or adjust the shape thereof.” (Chon Paragraph 7) Regarding claim 27, Chang, as modified, does not teach the outer cover includes opposing first and second outer face panels and an outer side panel operatively located between the first and second outer face panels, the outer face panels and the outer side panel defining an enclosure. Chon teaches the outer cover including opposing first and second outer face panels and an outer side panel operatively located between the first and second outer face panels (Paragraph 23 and 34), the outer face panels and the outer side panel defining an enclosure (Figure 3; as shown, see also Figure 4a; 112 and 121). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Chang (directed to a cushion with resilient filling) and Allman (directed to a pillow with independent elongated cylindrical filling) and Sama (directed to a long and thing cushioning filling) and Leifermann (directed to a memory foam filling for a cushion) and Chon (directed to a pillow with a cover) and arrived at a covered cushion with memory foam independent long and thin filling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “allow for a user to add or remove an amount of internal filling to increase or decrease the size of the pillow, or adjust the shape thereof.” (Chon Paragraph 7) Regarding claim 28, Chang, as modified, does not teach the outer cover includes an outer fastener, the outer fastener adapted to provide access to the enclosure to provide the user with the ability to increase or to decrease the amount of pillow stuffing within the pillow; whereby the user can reshape the pillow. Chon teaches the outer cover includes an outer fastener (Figure 3; 117), the outer fastener adapted to provide access to the enclosure to provide the user with the ability to increase or to decrease the amount of pillow stuffing within the pillow; whereby the user can reshape the pillow (Paragraph 7). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Chang (directed to a cushion with resilient filling) and Allman (directed to a pillow with independent elongated cylindrical filling) and Sama (directed to a long and thing cushioning filling) and Leifermann (directed to a memory foam filling for a cushion) and Chon (directed to a pillow with a cover) and arrived at a covered cushion with memory foam independent long and thin filling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “allow for a user to add or remove an amount of internal filling to increase or decrease the size of the pillow, or adjust the shape thereof.” (Chon Paragraph 7) Regarding claim 29, Chang, as modified, does not teach the outer side panel is produced from a breathable material. Chon teaches the outer side panel is produced from a breathable material (Paragraph 31). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Chang (directed to a cushion with resilient filling) and Allman (directed to a pillow with independent elongated cylindrical filling) and Sama (directed to a long and thing cushioning filling) and Leifermann (directed to a memory foam filling for a cushion) and Chon (directed to a pillow with a cover) and arrived at a covered cushion with memory foam independent long and thin filling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “allow for a user to add or remove an amount of internal filling to increase or decrease the size of the pillow, or adjust the shape thereof.” (Chon Paragraph 7) Regarding claim 31, Chang, as modified, does not teach the inner cover includes opposing first and second inner face panels and an inner side panel operatively located between the first and second inner face panels, the inner face panels and the outer side panel defining a stuffing enclosure, the inner cover sized for location within the enclosure of the outer cover. Chon teaches the inner cover includes opposing first and second inner face panels and an inner side panel operatively (Figure 3; as shown, and Paragraphs 39 and 45) located between the first and second inner face panels, the inner face panels and the outer side panel defining a stuffing enclosure, the inner cover sized for location within the enclosure of the outer cover (Figure 3; 120). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Chang (directed to a cushion with resilient filling) and Allman (directed to a pillow with independent elongated cylindrical filling) and Sama (directed to a long and thing cushioning filling) and Leifermann (directed to a memory foam filling for a cushion) and Chon (directed to a pillow with a cover) and arrived at a covered cushion with memory foam independent long and thin filling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “allow for a user to add or remove an amount of internal filling to increase or decrease the size of the pillow, or adjust the shape thereof.” (Chon Paragraph 7) Regarding claim 32, Chang, as modified, does not teach the inner side panel is produced from a breathable material. Chon teaches the inner side panel is produced from a breathable material (Paragraph 44). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Chang (directed to a cushion with resilient filling) and Allman (directed to a pillow with independent elongated cylindrical filling) and Sama (directed to a long and thing cushioning filling) and Leifermann (directed to a memory foam filling for a cushion) and Chon (directed to a pillow with a cover) and arrived at a covered cushion with memory foam independent long and thin filling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “allow for a user to add or remove an amount of internal filling to increase or decrease the size of the pillow, or adjust the shape thereof.” (Chon Paragraph 7) Regarding claim 34, Chang teaches a pillow including an envelope (Figure 1; 20) enclosing pillow stuffing (Figure 1; 30), wherein the pillow stuffing includes a plurality of foam bodies (Figure 1; 30 and Column 2; lines 4-7), wherein the foam bodies are moveable relative to one another to allow the pillow to be shaped by a user, wherein the pillow stuffing has sufficient firmness to support the head and neck of a sleeping user, progressively, when sleeping (Column 1; lines 45-49), and a resilience that exceeds the resilience of feather down pillow stuffing to return the pillow to its original shape when the pillow stuffing is not supporting the head and neck of the sleeping user (Foam returns completely to its original shape, whereas feathers do not, thus they are more resilient than feathers). Chang does not teach the foam bodies are independent, elongated cylinders and memory foam, with each of the plurality of elongate memory foam bodies having predetermined sizing including a length of between 10 to 12 cm and a diameter of about 1 cm; wherein the plurality of elongate memory foam bodies predetermined sizing provides air flow to maintain the pillow at relative cool temperatures during a sleep cycle; wherein the envelope includes an outer cover and an inner cover with the outer cover including opposing first and second outer face panels and an outer side panel operatively located between the first and second outer face panels, the outer face panels and the outer side panel defining an enclosure; and wherein the outer cover includes an outer fastener, the outer fastener adapted to provide access to the enclosure for reshaping the pillow by increasing or to decreasing the amount of pillow stuffing therein, wherein more than half of the elongate cylindrical memory foam bodies are aligned to be parallel to the same longitudinal axis, arranged in one direction. Allman teaches wherein each of the memory foam bodies is independent (Figure 44; 870 are each independent foam cylinders) of substantially cylindrical shape and elongated (Figure 44; 870 as shown) wherein more than half of the elongate cylindrical memory foam bodies are aligned to be parallel to the same longitudinal axis (Figure 44; as shown, all of the foam cylinders are aligned to be parallel to the same longitudinal axis). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Chang (directed to a cushion with resilient filling) and Allman (directed to a pillow with independent elongated cylindrical filling) and arrived at a cushion with independent elongated cylindrical filling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide “a geometry that can be used in a vertical position relative to an overall structure providing individual spring qualities to an otherwise unitary or monolithic structure that is both stable due to the thermoplastic foam 872 and exhibits excellent offset of compression set” (Allman Paragraph 194) and a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Chang and Allman do not teach each of the plurality of elongate memory foam bodies having predetermined sizing including a length of between 10 to 12 cm and a diameter of about 1 cm; wherein the plurality of elongate memory foam bodies predetermined sizing provides air flow to maintain the pillow at relative cool temperatures during a sleep cycle; wherein the envelope includes an outer cover and an inner cover with the outer cover including opposing first and second outer face panels and an outer side panel operatively located between the first and second outer face panels, the outer face panels and the outer side panel defining an enclosure; and wherein the outer cover includes an outer fastener, the outer fastener adapted to provide access to the enclosure for reshaping the pillow by increasing or to decreasing the amount of pillow stuffing therein. Sama teaches each of the foam bodies has a length of between 10 cm to 12 cm and a diameter of about 1 cm (Paragraph 5) wherein the plurality of elongate memory foam bodies predetermined sizing provides air flow to maintain the pillow at relative cool temperatures during a sleep cycle (Figure 1; spacing is seen between the foam bodies, facilitating airflow). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Chang (directed to a cushion with resilient filling) and Allman (directed to a pillow with independent elongated cylindrical filling) and Sama (directed to a long and thing cushioning filling) arrived at a cushion with resilient independent long and thin filling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to “produce a filler that mostly eliminates separation” (Sama Paragraph 3) and because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Chang, Allman and Sama do not teach the foam bodies being memory foam, and wherein the envelope includes an outer cover and an inner cover with the outer cover including opposing first and second outer face panels and an outer side panel operatively located between the first and second outer face panels, the outer face panels and the outer side panel defining an enclosure; and wherein the outer cover includes an outer fastener, the outer fastener adapted to provide access to the enclosure for reshaping the pillow by increasing or to decreasing the amount of pillow stuffing therein. Leifermann teaches using memory foam (Paragraph 13) as a filler in a pillow and the envelope having an inner cover (Figure 2; 32). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Chang (directed to a cushion with resilient filling) and Allman (directed to a pillow with independent elongated cylindrical filling) and Sama (directed to a long and thing cushioning filling) and Leifermann (directed to a memory foam filling for a cushion) and arrived at a cushion with memory foam independent long and thin filling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Chang, Allman, Sama, and Liefermann do not teach wherein the envelope includes an outer cover and an inner cover with the outer cover including opposing first and second outer face panels and an outer side panel operatively located between the first and second outer face panels, the outer face panels and the outer side panel defining an enclosure; and wherein the outer cover includes an outer fastener, the outer fastener adapted to provide access to the enclosure for reshaping the pillow by increasing or to decreasing the amount of pillow stuffing therein. Chon teaches the envelope includes an outer cover (Figure 3; 110) and an inner cover (Figure 3; 120) with the outer cover including opposing first and second outer face panels and an outer side panel operatively located between the first and second outer face panels (Paragraph 23 and 34), the outer face panels and the outer side panel defining an enclosure (Figure 3; as shown, see also Figure 4a; 112 and 121); and wherein the outer cover includes an outer fastener (Figure 3; 117), the outer fastener adapted to provide access to the enclosure for reshaping the pillow by increasing or to decreasing the amount of pillow stuffing therein (Paragraph 7). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Chang (directed to a cushion with resilient filling) and Allman (directed to a pillow with independent elongated cylindrical filling) and Sama (directed to a long and thing cushioning filling) and Leifermann (directed to a memory foam filling for a cushion) and Chon (directed to a pillow with a cover) and arrived at a covered cushion with memory foam independent long and thin filling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “allow for a user to add or remove an amount of internal filling to increase or decrease the size of the pillow, or adjust the shape thereof.” (Chon Paragraph 7) Regarding claim 36, Chang, as modified, does not teach the outer side panel is produced from a breathable material. Chon teaches the outer side panel is produced from a breathable material (Paragraph 31). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Chang (directed to a cushion with resilient filling) and Allman (directed to a pillow with independent elongated cylindrical filling) and Sama (directed to a long and thing cushioning filling) and Leifermann (directed to a memory foam filling for a cushion) and Chon (directed to a pillow with a cover) and arrived at a covered cushion with memory foam independent long and thin filling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “allow for a user to add or remove an amount of internal filling to increase or decrease the size of the pillow, or adjust the shape thereof.” (Chon Paragraph 7) Regarding claim 38, Chang, as modified, does not teach the enclosure is a first enclosure and the inner cover includes opposing first and second inner face panels and an inner side panel operatively located between the first and second inner face panels, the inner face panels and the inner side panel defining a second enclosure with the second enclosure holding the pillow stuffing therein. Chon teaches the enclosure is a first enclosure and the inner cover includes opposing first and second inner face panels and an inner side panel operatively (Figure 3; as shown, and Paragraphs 39 and 45) located between the first and second inner face panels, the inner face panels and the inner side panel defining a second enclosure with the second enclosure holding the pillow stuffing therein (Figure 3; 130). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Chang (directed to a cushion with resilient filling) and Allman (directed to a pillow with independent elongated cylindrical filling) and Sama (directed to a long and thing cushioning filling) and Leifermann (directed to a memory foam filling for a cushion) and Chon (directed to a pillow with a cover) and arrived at a covered cushion with memory foam independent long and thin filling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “allow for a user to add or remove an amount of internal filling to increase or decrease the size of the pillow, or adjust the shape thereof.” (Chon Paragraph 7) Regarding claim 39, Chang, as modified, does not teach the inner side panel is produced from a breathable material. Chon teaches the inner side panel is produced from a breathable material (Paragraph 44). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Chang (directed to a cushion with resilient filling) and Allman (directed to a pillow with independent elongated cylindrical filling) and Sama (directed to a long and thing cushioning filling) and Leifermann (directed to a memory foam filling for a cushion) and Chon (directed to a pillow with a cover) and arrived at a covered cushion with memory foam independent long and thin filling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “allow for a user to add or remove an amount of internal filling to increase or decrease the size of the pillow, or adjust the shape thereof.” (Chon Paragraph 7) Claims 30, 33, 37 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US Patent 6928678) in view of Allman (US Patent Application Publication 20120272457) in view of Sama (US Patent Application Publication 20190330049) in view of Leifermann (US Patent Application Publication 20070245493) in view of Chon (US Patent 20170231410) in view of Sarkozi (US Patent 4956886). Regarding claim 30, Chang, as modified, does not teach the breathable material is an acrylic textile fiber. Sarkozi teaches forming a casing in a pillow from an acrylic textile fiber (Column 2; lines 20-22). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Chang (directed to a cushion with resilient filling) and Allman (directed to a pillow with independent elongated cylindrical filling) and Sama (directed to a long and thing cushioning filling) and Leifermann (directed to a memory foam filling for a cushion) and Chon (directed to a pillow with a cover) and Sarkozi (directed to an acrylic pillow case) and arrived at an acrylic covered cushion with memory foam independent long and thin filling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Regarding claim 33, Chang, as modified, does not teach the breathable material is an acrylic textile fiber. Sarkozi teaches forming a casing in a pillow from an acrylic textile fiber (Column 2; lines 20-22). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Chang (directed to a cushion with resilient filling) and Allman (directed to a pillow with independent elongated cylindrical filling) and Sama (directed to a long and thing cushioning filling) and Leifermann (directed to a memory foam filling for a cushion) and Chon (directed to a pillow with a cover) and Sarkozi (directed to an acrylic pillow case) and arrived at an acrylic covered cushion with memory foam independent long and thin filling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Regarding claim 37, Chang, as modified, does not teach the breathable material is an acrylic textile fiber. Sarkozi teaches forming a casing in a pillow from an acrylic textile fiber (Column 2; lines 20-22). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Chang (directed to a cushion with resilient filling) and Allman (directed to a pillow with independent elongated cylindrical filling) and Sama (directed to a long and thing cushioning filling) and Leifermann (directed to a memory foam filling for a cushion) and Chon (directed to a pillow with a cover) and Sarkozi (directed to an acrylic pillow case) and arrived at an acrylic covered cushion with memory foam independent long and thin filling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Regarding claim 40, Chang, as modified, does not teach the breathable material is an acrylic textile fiber. Sarkozi teaches forming a casing in a pillow from an acrylic textile fiber (Column 2; lines 20-22). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Chang (directed to a cushion with resilient filling) and Allman (directed to a pillow with independent elongated cylindrical filling) and Sama (directed to a long and thing cushioning filling) and Leifermann (directed to a memory foam filling for a cushion) and Chon (directed to a pillow with a cover) and Sarkozi (directed to an acrylic pillow case) and arrived at an acrylic covered cushion with memory foam independent long and thin filling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). 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 MORGAN J MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)270-0362. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesdays 12pm-10pm and Thursdays 12pm-10pm. 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 Mikowski can be reached at 5712728525. 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. /MORGAN J MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3673 /Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 12, 2019
Application Filed
Aug 27, 2020
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 28, 2021
Response Filed
Mar 18, 2021
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 22, 2021
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 07, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 22, 2021
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 26, 2022
Response Filed
Aug 05, 2022
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 08, 2023
Notice of Allowance
Mar 21, 2023
Interview Requested
Apr 04, 2023
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 04, 2023
Examiner Interview Summary
May 30, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 02, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 18, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 20, 2024
Response Filed
Jun 03, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 05, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 06, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 06, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 05, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12569386
MEDICAL TRANSFER BED
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12539241
PATIENT REPOSITIONING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12507817
INFECTION CONTROL FILTER LABEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12502321
BELT DRIVEN WIDTH EXPANSION OF A BED
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12491124
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT STATUS INDICATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

9-10
Expected OA Rounds
47%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+32.2%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 459 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month