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 08/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant states that Samrek's integral molding concerns the pillow body/foam core, whereas Claim 1 requires integral mold-forming of the pillowcase.
Examiner maintains that Samrek’s discloses pillow components (which could include different components of the pillow) that are made using injection molding techniques (Col 4 line 24-27) and are integrally molded (Col 7 line 39-42). Greenwalt discloses mold-pressing pillowcase (Figure 5, pillow-500), comprising a pillowcase top layer ( Figure 5, 510) a pillowcase bottom layer and a pillowcase peripheral wall (Figure 5, 520, 530). Therefore, combining two references the limitation re: integral mold forming the pillow case with a pillowcase top layer- a pillowcase bottom layer; and a pillowcase peripheral wall is met.
Further, Applicant states that the Samrek's integral molding is directed to polyurethane/urethane foam, whereas Claim 1 requires polyester fabric.
However, in Samrek it’s discloses that the upper and lower body are integrally molded where polyurethane foam is preferred (Col 7 line 39-42); however Samrek didn’t preclude that polyester fabric can’t be used. In the related endeavor of pillow making CN’284 discloses that upper and lower surfaces and the side surfaces are integrally molded with polyester fabric (Example -2, example-4, page-4,5 translated). Combining Greenwalt with Samrek as discussed above the molding operation where mold-pressing a polyester-fabric pillowcase into an integrated form is met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Greenawalt (US 20050150051 ) in view of Samrek (US 5926880) in view of CN 110638284 translated version attached hereinafter CN’284.
Regarding Claim 1 Greenwalt discloses ….mold-pressing pillowcase (Figure 5, pillow-500), comprising a pillowcase top layer ( Figure 5, 510) a pillowcase bottom layer and a pillowcase peripheral wall (Figure 5, 520, 530), wherein the pillowcase peripheral wall is arranged between the pillowcase top layer and the pillowcase bottom layer (Figure 5, [0031]), and the pillowcase bottom layer is provided with a window position for carrying a pillow inner (Figure 5, [0031], 540). Greenawalt didn’t disclose the pillowcase top layer, the pillowcase bottom layer and the pillowcase peripheral wall are integrally mold-formed by polyester fabric. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Samrek discloses pillow components (which could include different components of the pillow) that are made using injection molding techniques (Col 4 line 24-27) which could be polyurethane ( Col 7 line 39-42).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Greenwalt’s teaching with that of Samrek’s teaching of integrally molding of the pillow case for the purpose of better shape retention of the pillow.
However, the above combination didn’t explicitly teach that pillow components are made of polyester fabric. In the related endeavor of pillow making CN’284 discloses that upper and lower surfaces and the side surfaces are integrally molded with polyester fabric (Example -2, example-4, page-4,5 translated).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Greenwalt’s teaching with that of Samrek’s teaching of integrally molding of the pillow and further combined with CN’282 teaching of polyester fabric for the purpose of shaping it as aunified structure for enhanced comfort and durability.
Regarding Claim 2 Greenawalt discloses, wherein: the window position is a linear slotting arranged on the pillowcase bottom layer (Figure 5, opening-540, [0033]).
Regarding Claim 4 Greenwalt discloses, wherein: the pillowcase top layer is provided with a …concave-convex coordination structure which is coordinated with the pillow inner (Figure 5-6, inner i.e. the center section -540 with a concave-convex structure) . Further, "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim as physiological profiling is deemed to be the intended use of the pillow case.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (3) as unpatentable over Greenawalt (20050150051 ) in view of Samrek (US 5926880) in view of CN 110638284 translated version attached hereinafter CN’284 as applied in Claim 1 further in view of CHEN (US 20130232697).
Regarding Claim 3 Greenawalt/Samrek disclose integrated mold-pressing pillowcase as discussed in Claim 1 but did not disclose that, the pillowcase top layer and the pillowcase bottom layer have heat-curing positioning corner ends. In the related filed of endeavor pertaining to the art, CHEN discloses pillowcase bottom layer have heat-curing/thermal pressing positioning corner ends (Figure -12, [0008], [0055]).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Greenwalt’s teaching with that of CHEN’s for the purpose of creating sharp ends that holds its form and do not sag over time.
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 DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights