DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination
In view of the appeal brief filed on July 15th, 2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below. The previous 103 Rejections of the Final Office Action mailed April 23rd, 2025 are withdrawn.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barry (U.S. Pat. No. 8056161) in view of itself and Eberl (U.S. Pat. No. 4825487).
Regarding claim 1, Barry discloses (FIGS. 5-7, and 10) a functional feeding cushion (as illustrated in FIGS. 6, 7, and 10), comprising: a cushion body (corresponding to 9, as illustrated in FIG. 5) formed of an inner cover (9) and a cushion material charged inside the inner cover (as illustrated in FIG. 5 and conveyed in FIG. 10), the cushion body having a predetermined length, a predetermined width, and a predetermined thickness (as illustrated in FIG. 5); an outer cover (correspondent to 2; FIG. 5) covering the front surface of the cushion body and having a cover body (2; FIGS. 5 and 10); a fixation band (6; FIGS. 6 and 7) vertically disposed at the center of a front surface of the cover body and having an upper end and lower end {coupled} to the cover body (as illustrated in FIGS. 6 and 7); and a strap (13; FIGS. 6 and 7) horizontally passing under the fixation band (as illustrated in FIGS. 6 and 7) of the outer cover and configured to sequentially cover and wrap the infant's body at both sides (As illustrated between FIGS. 5-7 and 10).
However, while Barry does attach one end with detachable coupling means (as illustrated through 7A and clarified in claim 11 that notes “a first end attached to the base sheet and a second end that is loose”, Barry does not explicitly disclose wherein both ends are loose (detachably coupled).
Regardless, Barry discloses the claimed invention except for both ends being detachably coupled (loose). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have duplicated the detachable coupling means to the first/second end of the fixation band (6; FIG. 7), since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Where the results would have been predictable as Barry already contemplates at least one end with a detachable fastening means. Where there is no criticality availed to both ends being detachably coupled. And furthermore, wherein the duplication of the detachable coupling means to either end would allow the fixation band of Barry to be taken off and cleaned separately from the larger mass of the entire sheet, thereby simplifying cleaning.
However, Barry still does not explicitly disclose a hip receiving portion sunken from a front surface of the cushion body, the hip receiving portion configured to receive a hip of an infant; an upper body receiving portion sunken from the front surface of the cushion body, the upper body receiving portion configured to receive an upper body of the infant, the upper body receiving portion having a predetermined width and a predetermined depth, wherein the predetermined depth decreases gradually towards an upper end of the upper body receiving portion, and the predetermined width decreases gradually towards the upper end of the upper body receiving portion while forming a left-right symmetrical trapezoidal shape.
Regardless, Eberl teaches (FIGS. 3-6) a functional feeding cushion (as illustrated in FIG. 3-6) comprising: a cushion body (10/12/19; FIG. 6) formed of an inner cover (claim 18: ‘separating sheet…connecting means connecting said separate sheet to said outer cover’) and a cushion material charged inside the inner cover (claim 1: ‘non-cellular gel-like filling’), the cushion body having a predetermined length, a predetermined width, and a predetermined thickness (As portrayed in FIGS. 3-6); a hip receiving portion (along 11, FIG. 3 and 6) sunken from a front surface of the cushion body, the hip receiving portion configured to receive a hip of an infant (as conveyed through FIG. 3 and 6); an upper body receiving portion (correspondent 12, FIG. 3 and 6) sunken from the front surface of the cushion body (as illustrated in FIGS. 4 and 6, the upper body receiving portion configured to receive an upper body of the infant (As illustrated in FIG. 3, 4, and 6 receiving at least the head and shoulders, and clarified in claim 2), the upper body receiving portion having a predetermined width and a predetermined depth (As illustrated in FIGS. 3 and 6), wherein the predetermined depth decreases gradually towards an upper end of the upper body receiving portion (particularly the depth decreasing relative to the top surface of the walls/guard of FIGS. 6 clearly illustrating a decrease in depth), and the predetermined width decreases gradually towards the upper end of the upper body receiving portion (as illustrated between the transition of 11 to 12/13 in FIG. 3) while forming a left-right symmetrical trapezoidal shape (as illustrated between the transition of 11 to 12/13 in FIG. 3); an outer cover (claim 1: ‘outer cover’) covering the front surface of the cushion body and having a cover body ([5:63-66]);
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the inclination and the depressed hip and upper body receiving portions as well as the gradually decreasing width trapezoidal shape of Eberl (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-6) into the body/assembly of Barry (as illustrated between FIGS. 5-7 and 10). Where the results would have been predictable as Eberl and Barry are both concerned with infant bedding assemblies. Where advantageously, the gradual sloped tub shape of Eberl would avail that “thereby the head is prevented from coming into contact with the wall of the incubator in case of possible displacement of the new-born due to great accelerative forces, such as occur during braking, negotiating curves, or if the ambulance or the hospital car is involved in an accident” [2:19-27].
Regarding claim 2, Barry in view of itself and Eberl discloses (Barry: FIGS. 7 and 10) the functional feeding cushion of claim 1, wherein the strap includes {hook and loop fasteners}. Where the limitation “for tying end portions of the strap” is construed as intended use of the claimed invention. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Wherein the strap ends (correspondent 13) make a connection together or become attached (Websters Dictionary: Tie: intransitive verb: definitions a and c).
Claims 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barry in view of itself and Eberl, in further view of Tan et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5499418); hereafter “Tan”, and Marshall et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9375343); hereafter “Marshall”, with Marshall used as a teaching reference.
Regarding claim 3, Barry in view of itself and Eberl discloses (FIG. 7) the functional feeding cushion of claim 1; where one-end of a connection tie (13; FIG. 7) passes under a fixation band (As illustrated in FIG. 7)
However, Barry does not explicitly disclose further comprising a side cushion having a connection tie and two pillows attached to both end portions of the connection tie, respectively, the connection tie passing under the fixation band of the outer cover
Regardless, Tan teaches (FIGS. 1 and 2) a side cushion (1-3; FIGS. 1 and 2) having a connection tie (3; FIGS. 1 and 2) and two pillows (1 and 2; FIGS. 1 and 2) attached to both end portions of the connection tie (as illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the side cushions and pillows thereof of Tan (as illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2) that can be attached to the ends of the connection tie of Barry (as illustrated in FIG. 7). Where the results would have been predictable as both Barry and Tan are concerned with infant securing/resting devices. Where further advantageously, the presence of bolsters as Tan would avail would better further secure the infant in sleep and prevent SIDS (Col. 1, lines 6-12). Where the combination of Barry with Tan would most likely be assembled in a capacity similar to the underlying connection tie and enveloping illustrated in Marshall (FIGS. 3 and 6A), however with the connection tie passing through the fixation band of Barry as previously established and maintained (as illustrated in FIGS. 7)
Regarding claim 4, Barry in view of itself, Eberl, Tan (and Marshall) discloses (Barry: FIGS. 7; Tan: FIGS. 1 and 2) the functional feeding cushion for a feeding cushion of claim 3, wherein the two pillows are attached to the connection tie by {hook and loop fasteners} (Tan: 5/6/15/16; FIGS. 1 and 2; Barry: 14/14A FIGS. 7).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barry in view of itself and Eberl in view of Rose et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6292964); hereafter “Rose”).
Regarding claim 5, Barry in view of itself and Eberl discloses the functional feeding cushion for a feeding cushion of claim 1.
However, Barry does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a lower cushion disposed in and coupled to a lower portion of the front surface of the cushion body.
Regardless, Rose teaches (FIGS. 1 and 5) a lower cushion (16; FIG. 1) disposed in and coupled to a lower portion (nearest 24; as illustrated in FIG. 1) of a front surface of a cushion body (12; FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the lower cushion disposed in and coupled to a lower portion of a front surface of a cushion body of covered with the outer cover as Rose teaches (as illustrated in FIGS. 1, and 5) into the assembly of Barry. Where the results would have been predictable as both Barry and Rose are concerned with cushioned resting surfaces that utilize hook and loop fasteners. Where advantageously, the inclusion of Rose’s pillow would allow “users to rearrange the cushions to desired location for comfort, and neck and lower back support” (Col. 1, lines 19-22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references cited on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) were considered pertinent because they address the state of the art concerning infant resting assemblies, configurations thereof, fastening systems, and other infant bedding accessories.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673