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 .
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) 1, 2, and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaha (US Patent 4384380) in view of Agarwall (US Patent 8171581).
Regarding claim 1, Glaha teaches a bedding system for a mattress, but not including the mattress, the bedding system comprising: a fitted sheet (Figure 4; 12) adapted to cover a mattress's top, sides, including a head side and a foot side of the mattress, wherein said fitted sheet includes an elastomeric panel (Figure 4; at 13, and Figures 5 and 6, 27) disposed in a portion of the fitted sheet adapted to cover the foot side of the mattress; and a top sheet (Figure 4; 11) connected to said fitted sheet at least partially along a seam between said elastomeric panel and a remainder of said fitted sheet (Figure 6; 31), wherein said bedding system includes only one elastomeric panel, which is disposed in said fitted sheet and attached to said top sheet (Figure 4; as shown). Glaha does not teach the fitted sheet covering a portion of a bottom of the mattress. Agarwall teaches the fitted sheet adapted to cover a portion of a bottom of the mattress (Column 2; lines 20-28). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Glaha (directed to a fitted sheet) and Agarwall (directed to a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress) and arrived at a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to maintain the sheet in its fitted position” as taught in Agarwall (Column 2; lines 27-28).
Regarding claim 2, Glaha teaches the connection between said fitted sheet and said top sheet extends to sides of said fitted sheet as seen when said fitted sheet is on the mattress (Figure 4; 13, as shown), wherein said top sheet forms mitered corners near the foot-side of the mattress (Figure 4; 11, at 14).
Regarding claim 6, Glaha teaches a bedding system, comprising: a fitted sheet (Figure 4; 12) comprising a flat panel (Figure 4; main portion of 12, forming the center rectangle), said flat panel connected to a head side panel (Figure 12; panel between the two 19s), a left side panel (Figure 4; panel between left 19 and 16), a right side panel (Figure 4; 12, panel between the right 16 and 19) and a foot side panel(Figure 4; 12, panel between the two 16s), wherein only the foot under panel includes an elongatable panel (Figure 4; 13, and Figure 5; 27), and a top sheet (Figure 4; 11) comprising a flat panel defined by a top edge, a right edge, a left edge and a bottom edge (Figure 4; edges, as shown on 11), said top sheet attached to said fitted sheet in proximity to said elongatable panel (Figure 6; 31). Glaha does not teach a head under panel generally extends from said head side panel, a left under panel generally extends from said left side panel, a right under panel generally extends from said right side panel and a foot under panel extends from said foot side panel, said under panels adapted to at least partially cover the bottom side of a mattress. Agarwall teaches a head under panel generally extends from said head side panel, a left under panel generally extends from said left side panel, a right under panel generally extends from said right side panel and a foot under panel extends from said foot side panel, said under panels adapted to at least partially cover the bottom side of a mattress (Column 2; lines 20-28). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Glaha (directed to a fitted sheet) and Agarwall (directed to a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress) and arrived at a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to maintain the sheet in its fitted position” as taught in Agarwall (Column 2; lines 27-28).
Regarding claim 7, Glaha teaches said bottom edge of said top sheet is attached to said foot panel of said fitted sheet (Figure 4; 13, and Figure 6; 31), forming a foot edge at the intersection of the foot side and top side of the mattress.
Regarding claim 8, Glaha teaches said bottom edge of said top sheet connects to said foot panel of said fitted sheet adjacent to said elongatable panel (Figure 4; 13, and Figure 6; 31).
Regarding claim 9, Glaha teaches said bottom edge of said top sheet is at least partially attached to said left side panel of said fitted sheet thereby forming a left side mitered corner (Figure 4; 16, left and Column 2; lines 55-64) and said bottom edge of said top sheet is at least partially attached to said left right panel of said fitted sheet, thereby forming a right side mitered corner (Figure 4; 16, right and Column 2; lines 55-64).
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaha (US Patent 4384380) in view of Agarwall (US Patent 8171581) in view of Milber (US Patent 6098219).
Regarding claim 3, Glaha, as modified, does not teach said top sheet further comprises a fastener adapted to couple a bed covering to said top sheet, wherein said fastener is disposed on said top sheet near the foot-side of the mattress. Milber teaches said top sheet further comprises a fastener (Figure 2; 28 on 16) adapted to couple a bed covering (Figure 2; 18) to said top sheet, wherein said fastener is disposed on said top sheet near the foot-side of the mattress (Figure 3; 30). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Glaha (directed to a fitted and top sheet) and Agarwall (directed to a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress) and Milber (directed to a fitted sheet, top sheet, and bed covering attached) and arrived at a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress with an attached top sheet and bed covering. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “for facilitating bed making.” (Milber Abstract)
Regarding claim 4, Glaha, as modified, does not teach said bed covering, wherein said bed covering has a second fastener on a top surface of said bed covering and is adapted to connect to a second bed covering. Milber teaches said bed covering (Figure 2; 18), wherein said bed covering has a second fastener (Figure 2; 28 on 18) on a top surface of said bed covering and is adapted to connect to a second bed covering (Figure 2; 14). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Glaha (directed to a fitted and top sheet) and Agarwall (directed to a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress) and Milber (directed to a fitted sheet, top sheet, and bed covering attached) and arrived at a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress with an attached top sheet and bed covering. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “for facilitating bed making.” (Milber Abstract)
Regarding claim 10, Glaha does not teach said top sheet further comprises a fastener, said fastener disposed on said flat panel adjacent to said foot edge. Milber teaches said top sheet further comprises a fastener, said fastener disposed on said flat panel adjacent to said foot edge (Figure 3; 30). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Glaha (directed to a fitted and top sheet) and Agarwall (directed to a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress) and Milber (directed to a fitted sheet, top sheet, and bed covering attached) and arrived at a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress with an attached top sheet and bed covering. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “for facilitating bed making.” (Milber Abstract)
Regarding claim 11, Glaha does not teach further comprising a blanket, said blanket having fastener disposed adjacent to a foot edge of said blanket, said blanket fastener adapted to connect to said fastener disposed on said flat panel of said top sheet. Milber teaches a blanket (Figure 2; 18), said blanket having fastener disposed adjacent to a foot edge of said blanket (Figure 2; 29 on 18, see also Figure 3; 30)), said blanket fastener adapted to connect to said fastener disposed on said flat panel of said top sheet (Figure 2; 29 connects with 28 on top sheet equivalent 16). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Glaha (directed to a fitted and top sheet) and Agarwall (directed to a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress) and Milber (directed to a fitted sheet, top sheet, and bed covering attached) and arrived at a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress with an attached top sheet and bed covering. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “for facilitating bed making.” (Milber Abstract)
Regarding claim 12, Glaha does not teach further comprising a coverlet, said coverlet having a fastener disposed adjacent to a foot edge of said coverlet, said blanket further comprising a fastener adapted to connect to said fastener disposed on said coverlet. Milber teaches a coverlet (Figure 2; 14), said coverlet having a fastener (Figure 2; 29 on 14) disposed adjacent to a foot edge (Figure 3; 30) of said coverlet, said blanket further comprising a fastener (Figure 2; 28 on 18 connects with 29 on 14) adapted to connect to said fastener disposed on said coverlet. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Glaha (directed to a fitted and top sheet) and Agarwall (directed to a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress) and Milber (directed to a fitted sheet, top sheet, and bed covering attached) and arrived at a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress with an attached top sheet and bed covering. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “for facilitating bed making.” (Milber Abstract)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaha (US Patent 4384380) in view of Agarwall (US Patent 8171581) in view of Campasano (US Patent Application Publication 20120060283).
Regarding claim 5, said top sheet includes an alignment indicator disposed proximate a top middle of said top sheet. Campasano teaches said top sheet includes an alignment indicator disposed proximate a top middle of said top sheet (Figure 5; 34). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Glaha (directed to a fitted and top sheet) and Agarwall (directed to a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress) and Camapsano (directed to a top sheet alignment indicator) and arrived at a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress with an attached top sheet with an alignment indicator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to “designate a location of a part of the user when the user sleeps on the bed” (Campasano Abstract).
Claim(s) 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaha (US Patent 4384380) in view of Agarwall (US Patent 8171581) in view of Seago (US Patent Application Publication 20080078029).
Regarding claim 13, Glaha a bedding system, comprising: a fitted sheet (Figure 4; 12) having an elongatable underpanel (Figure 4; 13, and Figure 6; 27), wherein the elongatable panel is limited to a foot side of the mattress (Figure 4; 13, as shown); and a top sheet (Figure 4; 11)comprising a flat panel defined by a top edge, a right edge, a left edge and a bottom edge, said top sheet attached to said fitted sheet at least partially along the a connection between a top edge of the elongatable panel (Figure 6; 31), wherein the elongatable panel is not visible when the fitted sheet and top sheet are fitted onto the mattress (Figure 1; shows how top sheet 12 covers where the panel 13 is when on the mattress), wherein said bedding system includes only one elongatable panel, which is disposed in said fitted sheet (Figure 4; 13, as shown). Glaha does not teach the fitted sheet adapted to at least partially cover a bottom side of a mattress, and the elongatable panel being an underpanel. Agarwall teaches the fitted sheet adapted to at least partially cover a bottom side of a mattress (Column 2; lines 20-28). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Glaha (directed to a fitted sheet) and Agarwall (directed to a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress) and arrived at a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to maintain the sheet in its fitted position” as taught in Agarwall (Column 2; lines 27-28). Glaha and Agarwall do not teach the elongatable panel being an underpanel. Seago teaches the elongatable panel being an underpanel (Figure 3; 17). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Glaha (directed to a fitted sheet with an elongatable panel) and Agarwall (directed to a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress) and Seago (directed to an elongatable underpanel) and arrived at a fitted sheet with an elongatable underpanel extending underneath the mattress. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “permit the formation of well-defined closed corners” (Seago Paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 20, Glaha does not teach the elongatable underpanel lies against the mattress including at least partially against the underside of the mattress. Seago teaches the elongatable underpanel lies against the mattress including at least partially against the underside of the mattress (Figure 3; 17 lies directly against the mattress underside). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Glaha (directed to a fitted sheet with an elongatable panel) and Agarwall (directed to a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress) and Seago (directed to an elongatable underpanel) and arrived at a fitted sheet with an elongatable underpanel extending underneath the mattress. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “permit the formation of well-defined closed corners” (Seago Paragraph 9).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaha (US Patent 4384380) in view of Agarwall (US Patent 8171581) in view of Seago (US Patent Application Publication 20080078029) in view of Milber (US Patent 6098219).
Regarding claim 16, Glaha does not teach said top sheet further comprises fastenings, said fastenings disposed on said flat panel adjacent to said foot edge. Milber teaches said top sheet further comprises fastenings, said fastenings disposed on said flat panel adjacent to said foot edge (Figure 3; 30). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Glaha (directed to a fitted and top sheet) and Agarwall (directed to a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress) and Seago (directed to an elongatable underpanel) and Milber (directed to a fitted sheet, top sheet, and bed covering attached) and arrived at a fitted sheet with an elongatable underpanel extending underneath the mattress with an attached top sheet and bed covering. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “for facilitating bed making.” (Milber Abstract)
Regarding claim 17, Glaha does not teach said blanket having fastenings disposed adjacent to a foot edge of said blanket, said blanket fastenings adapted to connect to said fastenings disposed on said flat panel of said top sheet. Milber teaches a blanket (Figure 2; 18), said blanket having fastenings disposed adjacent to a foot edge of said blanket (Figure 2; 29 on 18, see also Figure 3; 30)), said blanket fastenings adapted to connect to said fastenings disposed on said flat panel of said top sheet (Figure 2; 29 connects with 28 on top sheet equivalent 16). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Glaha (directed to a fitted and top sheet) and Agarwall (directed to a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress) and Seago (directed to an elongatable underpanel) and Milber (directed to a fitted sheet, top sheet, and bed covering attached) and arrived at a fitted sheet with an elongatable underpanel extending underneath the mattress with an attached top sheet and bed covering. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “for facilitating bed making.” (Milber Abstract)
Regarding claim 18, Glaha does not teach a coverlet, said coverlet having fastenings disposed adjacent to a foot edge of said coverlet, said blanket further comprising fastenings adapted to connect to said fastenings disposed on said coverlet. Milber teaches a coverlet (Figure 2; 14), said coverlet having fastenings (Figure 2; 29 on 14) disposed adjacent to a foot edge (Figure 3; 30) of said coverlet, said blanket further comprising fastenings (Figure 2; 28 on 18 connects with 29 on 14) adapted to connect to said fastenings disposed on said coverlet. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Glaha (directed to a fitted and top sheet) and Agarwall (directed to a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress) and Seago (directed to an elongatable underpanel) and Milber (directed to a fitted sheet, top sheet, and bed covering attached) and arrived at a fitted sheet with an elongatable underpanel extending underneath the mattress with an attached top sheet and bed covering. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “for facilitating bed making.” (Milber Abstract)
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaha (US Patent 4384380) in view of Agarwall (US Patent 8171581) in view of Vitale (US Patent 10856678).
Regarding claim 19, Glaha does not teach the elastomeric panel lies directly against the mattress. Vitale teaches the elastomeric panel lies directly against the mattress (Figure 1; elastomeric panel at 16). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Glaha (directed to a fitted sheet with an elastomeric panel) and Agarwall (directed to a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress) and Vitale (directed to an elastomeric panel incorporated directly into the foot panel) and arrived at a fitted sheet extending underneath the mattress with an incorporated elastomeric panel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to draw the corners of the lateral side portions together (Column 2; lines 40-45).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/6/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Glaha does not disclose the claimed elastomeric panel, but rather discloses a strip. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nothing in the claim adds a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In the instant case,13 and 27 in Glaha meet the claimed limitation of “elastomeric panel” as the claim does not structurally define the panel.
The Applicant also argues that the invention solves a different problem in a different way. In response to applicant's argument that the invention solves a different problem in a different way, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
With respect to the argument regarding Agarwall, it is noted that the rejection does not use Agarwall to disclose the claimed elastomeric panel, as this is taught by Glaha as noted above.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Applicant further argues that the claimed elastomeric panel performs functions not taught or suggested by the prior art. As noted above, Glaha disclose an elastomeric panel …adapted to cover the foot side of the mattress. With respect to claim 19, the rejection does not use Glaha for the teaching of the panel “lies directly against the mattress”, but rather Vitale teaches this limitation as noted above. Applicant argues that the panel interacts structurally with the top sheet is not found in the prior art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and this feature is taught as noted in the rejection above. With respect to claims 6 and 13, the claim does not recite “localized elasticity” and the art teaches the limitations as noted above. With respect to claim 13, as noted above, Figure 1; shows how top sheet 12 covers where the panel 13 is when on the mattress and therefore the underpanel is not visible.
With respect to Argument IV, the claimed limitations are taught as noted above. Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
With respect to argument V, the Examiner maintains the position from the interview Nov. 10, 2025 and notes that the claim does not recite any structural limitations excluding the disclosed strip from reading on the claimed panel.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICOLE A COY whose telephone number is (571)272-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-3:30pm.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672