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 9/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued, “Malicki, in the cited portion and elsewhere, describes a bed sheet 10 having an upper edge 11 and a lower edge 12. The bed sheet 10 may be made of a first layer of paper 19 (allegedly equated to "top layer" of claim 1) and a second layer of paper 20 (allegedly equated to "bottom layer" of claim 1) superimposed upon one another with the reinforcing mesh material 21 (allegedly equated to "middle layer" of claim 1) between the layers 19, 20. The sheet 10 includes opening cut-outs (presumably equated to "first cut-out pattern" of claim 1) in which material 14 such as cloth/mesh is inserted and sewed at 15.Malicki, at best, describes the bed sheet 10 having opening cut-outs in which the material 14 such as cloth/mesh is inserted and sewed at 15. Malicki further describes that the bed sheet 10 may be made of two layers of paper 19 and 20 superimposed upon one another with a reinforcing mesh material 21 between the layers. However, Malicki does not teach or suggest that the mesh material 21 is completely enclosed between the top layer 19 and the bottom layer 20, and the same mesh material 21 is selectively exposed through the opening cutouts (in which the material 14 is inserted and sewed at 15). Further, Malicki does not teach or suggest that the opening cutouts in the top layer 19 and the bottom layer 20 selectively expose the mesh material 21.Malicki cannot possibly teach or suggest the above-recited feature of the amended independent claim 1. When the cut-out is made in the sheet 10, complete portion/patch of the sheet 10 containing the layers 19, 20, and 21 is removed. Hence, the mesh material 21 cannot be selectively exposed through the cut-out (as the mesh material 21 is also removed). The mesh material 21 is nowhere visible when the cut-out is made. In addition, the material 14 such as cloth/mesh is the external material sewed at 15 to cover the cut-out. The material 14 covers the cut-out when the sheet portion containing the layers 19, 20, and 21 is removed. The material 14 is not enclosed between the top layer 19 and the bottom layer 20. Thus, the material 14 at the cut-out area (which is visible via the cut-out) cannot be considered as the "middle layer" of claim 1. Thus, Malicki does not teach or suggest that the mesh material 21 is fully enclosed between the layers 19 and 20 and the same mesh material 21 is selectively exposed through the cut-out made at the layers 19 and 20.Waters is not contended to cure the deficiencies in the rejection of the amended independent claim 1 above.”
This is not found persuasive. Examiner agrees with Applicant that Malicki does not teach a continuous mesh insert throughout the sheet or blanket. Malicki, as Applicant points out, teaches attaching smaller pieces of mesh into cutouts within a top and bottom layer. However, Examiner disagrees that Waters does not teach the amended features. Waters, in Figures 10a and 16, shows a blanket which features a breathable material throughout the entire length and width of the blanket. In paragraph 129, Waters further describes that the breathable material forming the blanket may feature a mesh material sandwiched between a top and bottom layer, similar to Malicki. When modifying Malicki with Waters, the multiple pieces of mesh would be modified to be a singular piece of mesh, placed between the upper and lower sheets, as taught by Waters. The upper and lower sheets of Malicki would remain the same with the cutouts formed in them as taught and shown in Malicki, and the sheet of mesh between them would result in the mesh layer being selectively exposed through the cutout pattern.
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) 1-6 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malicki (US Patent 3325832) in view of Waters (US Patent Application Publication 20160157638).
Regarding claim 1, Malicki teaches a blanket (Figure 2; 11) comprising: a top layer of fabric (Figure 7; 19); a bottom layer of fabric (Figure 7; 20); and a middle layer of mesh (Figure 7; 21) disposed between the top layer and the bottom layer, wherein the top layer and the bottom layer comprise a first cut-out pattern (Figure 2; cutouts at 14) to enable a user to breathe through the first cut-out pattern (Figure 2; cutouts at 14 are capable of allowing a user to breathe through them as they are mesh)[Examiner notes that this limitation (“to enable a user to breathe through the first cut-out pattern) is intended use and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. (“"[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 preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).”)], and wherein the first cut-out pattern of the top layer and the bottom layer selectively expose the middle layer (Figure 1; as shown). Malicki does not teach wherein the middle layer extends continuously from top edges of the top layer and the bottom layer to bottom edges of the top layer and the bottom layer, and wherein a length and width of the middle layer is equivalent to lengths and widths of the top layer and the bottom layer, and wherein the middle layer is completely enclosed between the top layer and the bottom layer and selectively exposed through the first cut-out pattern. Waters teaches the middle layer extends continuously from top edges of the top layer and the bottom layer to bottom edges of the top layer and the bottom layer, and wherein a length and width of the middle layer is equivalent to lengths and widths of the top layer and the bottom layer (Figure 16; as shown, and Paragraph 128) and wherein the middle layer is completely enclosed between the top layer and the bottom layer and selectively exposed through the first cut-out pattern (Figure 10a, 16 and Paragraphs 128-129 show a blanket with a continuous middle mesh layer between a top layer and a bottom layer. When modifying Malicki’s mesh layer to be structured as in Waters, the continuous middle mesh layer would be selectively exposed through the cutouts of Malicki’s top and bottom layers). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a three layer blanket with cutouts) and Waters (directed to a three layer blanket with a continuous middle layer) and arrived at a three layer blanket with cutouts and a continuous middle layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide “a breathable apparatus (e.g. objects such as blankets)” as taught in Waters (Paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 2, Malicki teaches the first cut-out pattern is disposed in proximity to the top edges of the top layer and the bottom layer (Figure 2; cutout to the left of the cutout where 15 is marked (top center cutout of the three cutouts on the top edge), the top of that cutout is disposed in proximity to the top blanket edge (near where 11 is marked).
Regarding claim 3, Malicki teaches the first cut-out pattern is disposed at a blanket center top position (Figure 2; the topmost centermost cutout (to the left of the cutout 15 is marked on) is in the center of the blanket, at least at the top end)) to enable the user to see through the first cut-out pattern (Figure 2; cutouts at 14 are capable of allowing a user to see through them as they are mesh)[Examiner notes that this limitation (“to enable the user to see through the first cut-out pattern”) is intended use and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. (“"[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 preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing .., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).”)].
Regarding claim 4, Malicki teaches the top layer and the bottom layer further comprise a second cut-out pattern (Figure 2; the rightmost bottom cutout, to the right of where 13 is marked and adjacent where “Fig. 2” is written).
Regarding claim 5, Malicki teaches the second cut-out pattern is disposed in proximity to the bottom edges of the top layer and the bottom layer (Figure 2; the rightmost bottom cutout is disposed at least at the bottom, near the bottom edge of the blanket).
Regarding claim 6, Malicki teaches the first cut-out pattern is different from the second cut-out pattern (Figure 2; the rightmost bottom cutout is smaller and shorter than the centermost top cutout).
Regarding claim 13, Malicki teaches a blanket (Figure 2; 11) comprising: a top layer of fabric (Figure 7; 19); a bottom layer of fabric (Figure 7; 20); and a middle layer of mesh (Figure 7; 21) disposed between the top layer and the bottom layer, wherein the top layer and the bottom layer comprise a first cut-out pattern (Figure 2; centermost top cutout, the cutout to the left of the cutout that 15 is marked on) disposed in proximity to a blanket top edge, and a second cut- out pattern (Figure 2; the bottom rightmost cutout, adjacent to where “Fig. 2” is written) disposed in proximity to a blanket bottom edge, and wherein the first cut-out pattern of the top layer and the bottom layer selectively expose the middle layer (Figure 1; as shown). Malicki does not teach wherein the middle layer extends continuously from top edges of the top layer and the bottom layer to bottom edges of the top layer and the bottom layer, and wherein a length and width of the middle layer is equivalent to lengths and widths of the top layer and the bottom layer and wherein the middle layer is completely enclosed between the top layer and the bottom layer and selectively exposed through the first cut-out pattern. Waters teaches the middle layer extends continuously from top edges of the top layer and the bottom layer to bottom edges of the top layer and the bottom layer, and wherein a length and width of the middle layer is equivalent to lengths and widths of the top layer and the bottom layer (Figure 16; as shown, and Paragraph 128) and wherein the middle layer is completely enclosed between the top layer and the bottom layer and selectively exposed through the first cut-out pattern (Figure 10a, 16 and Paragraphs 128-129 show a blanket with a continuous middle mesh layer between a top layer and a bottom layer. When modifying Malicki’s mesh layer to be structured as in Waters, the continuous middle mesh layer would be selectively exposed through the cutouts of Malicki’s top and bottom layers). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a three layer blanket with cutouts) and Waters (directed to a three layer blanket with a continuous middle layer) and arrived at a three layer blanket with cutouts and a continuous middle layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide “a breathable apparatus (e.g. objects such as blankets)” as taught in Waters (Paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 14, Malicki teaches the first cut-out pattern is disposed at a blanket center top position (Figure 2; the centermost top cutout is disposed at the blanket center top position at least at the top of the cutout) to enable a user to see through the first cut-out pattern (Figure 2; cutouts at 14 are capable of allowing a user to see through them as they are mesh)[Examiner notes that this limitation (“to enable the user to see through the first cut-out pattern”) is intended use and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. (““[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 preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).”)].
Regarding claim 15, Malicki teaches the first cut-out pattern is different from the second cut-out pattern (Figure 2; the rightmost bottom cutout is smaller and shorter than the centermost top cutout).
Claim(s) 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malicki (US Patent 3325832) in view of Waters (US Patent Application Publication 20160157638) in view of Tracy (US Patent D453607).
Regarding claim 7, Malicki does not teach a strap disposed at a blanket top edge, wherein the strap is configured to be attached around a user neck. Tracy teaches a strap disposed at a blanket top edge (Figure 1; strap at top of Figure, as shown), wherein the strap is configured to be attached around a user neck (Figure 9; as shown). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a blanket with mesh cut outs) and Tracy (directed to a blanket with a neck strap) and arrived at a blanket with mesh cut outs and a neck strap. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to allow the blanket to be used as “a hooded raincoat” (Tracy Description).
Regarding claim 20, Malicki teaches a blanket (Figure 2; 11) comprising: a top layer of fabric (Figure 7; 19); a bottom layer of fabric (Figure 7; 20); a middle layer of mesh (Figure 7; 21) disposed between the top layer and the bottom layer, wherein the top layer and the bottom layer comprise a first cut-out pattern (Figure 2; centermost top cutout, the cutout to the left of the cutout that 15 is marked on) to enable a user to breathe through the first cut-out pattern (Figure 2; cutouts at 14 are capable of allowing a user to breathe through them as they are mesh)[Examiner notes that this limitation (“to enable a user to breathe through the first cut-out pattern) is intended use and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. (““[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 preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).”)], and wherein the first cut-out pattern of the top layer and the bottom layer selectively expose the middle layer (Figure 1; as shown). Malicki does not teach a strap disposed at a blanket top edge, wherein the strap is configured to be attached around a user neck, and wherein the middle layer extends continuously from top edges of the top layer and the bottom layer to bottom edges of the top layer and the bottom layer, and wherein a length and width of the middle layer is equivalent to lengths and widths of the top layer and the bottom layer, and wherein the middle layer is completely enclosed between the top layer and the bottom layer and selectively exposed through the first cut-out pattern. Tracy teaches a strap disposed at a blanket top edge (Figure 1; strap at top of Figure, as shown), wherein the strap is configured to be attached around a user neck (Figure 9; as shown). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a blanket with mesh cut outs) and Tracy (directed to a blanket with a neck strap) and arrived at a blanket with mesh cut outs and a neck strap. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to allow the blanket to be used as “a hooded raincoat” (Tracy Description). Malicki as modified does not teach wherein the middle layer extends continuously from top edges of the top layer and the bottom layer to bottom edges of the top layer and the bottom layer, and wherein a length and width of the middle layer is equivalent to lengths and widths of the top layer and the bottom layer. Waters teaches the middle layer extends continuously from top edges of the top layer and the bottom layer to bottom edges of the top layer and the bottom layer, and wherein a length and width of the middle layer is equivalent to lengths and widths of the top layer and the bottom layer (Figure 16; as shown, and Paragraph 128) ) and wherein the middle layer is completely enclosed between the top layer and the bottom layer and selectively exposed through the first cut-out pattern (Figure 10a, 16 and Paragraphs 128-129 show a blanket with a continuous middle mesh layer between a top layer and a bottom layer. When modifying Malicki’s mesh layer to be structured as in Waters, the continuous middle mesh layer would be selectively exposed through the cutouts of Malicki’s top and bottom layers). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a three layer blanket with cutouts) and Tracy (directed to a blanket with a neck strap) and Waters (directed to a three layer blanket with a continuous middle layer) and arrived at a three layer blanket with cutouts and a continuous middle layer and a neck strap. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide “a breathable apparatus (e.g. objects such as blankets)” as taught in Waters (Paragraph 8).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malicki (US Patent 3325832) in view of Waters (US Patent Application Publication 20160157638) in view of Heiman (US Patent Application Publication 20180027998).
Regarding claim 8, Malicki does not teach the top layer is removably attached to the bottom layer using a fastener. Heiman teaches the top layer is removably attached to the bottom layer using a fastener (Figure 7 shows a three layer blanket (12, 14, 16) with each layer removable via fastener 20). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a blanket with mesh cut outs) and Heiman (directed to a blanket with detachable layers) and arrived at a blanket with mesh cut outs and detachable layers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “layers are thus configured to be removed (and replaced) easily for cleaning separate from the intermediate layer.” (Heiman Paragraph 6)
Regarding claim 9, Malicki does not teach the fastener comprises a hook and loop. Heiman teaches the fastener comprises a hook and loop (Figure 4; 20 and Paragraph 40). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a blanket with mesh cut outs) and Heiman (directed to a blanket with detachable layers) and arrived at a blanket with mesh cut outs and detachable layers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “layers are thus configured to be removed (and replaced) easily for cleaning separate from the intermediate layer.” (Heiman Paragraph 6)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malicki (US Patent 3325832) in view of Waters (US Patent Application Publication 20160157638) in view of Sherts (US Patent Application Publication 20200397078).
Regarding claim 10, Malicki does not teach an internal pocket attached to a top layer inner surface or a bottom layer inner surface. Sherts teaches an internal pocket attached to a top layer inner surface or a bottom layer inner surface (Paragraph 71 discusses a pocket, shown at Figure 1; 118 for carrying the blanket when not in use, and Paragraph 71 notes “Still yet another alternative is to stitch a bag into the inside of wrap 100.”, thus this bag on the inside of wrap 100 would be attached to at least one of the top or bottom layer inner surfaces (Examiner notes that Paragraph 47 sets forth that the wrap is multiple layers)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a blanket with mesh cut outs) and Sherts (directed to a blanket with a pocket) and arrived at a blanket with mesh cut outs and a pocket. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to allow the blanket to be “stuffed into the pocket as illustrated in FIG. 5, [so that] it may be easily carried” (Sherts Paragraph 66).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malicki (US Patent 3325832) in view of Waters (US Patent Application Publication 20160157638) in view of Vergona (Us Patent Application Publication 2009029944772).
Regarding claim 11, Malicki does not teach a heating element removably attached to the blanket. Vergona teaches a heating element removably attached to the blanket (Abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a blanket with mesh cut outs) and Vergona (directed to a blanket with removable heating elements) and arrived at a blanket with mesh cut outs and removable heating elements. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide heat to a user while maintaining portability (Paragraph 3 of Vergona).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malicki (US Patent 3325832) in view of Waters (US Patent Application Publication 20160157638) in view of Lee (US Patent Application 20150104118).
Regarding claim 12, Malicki does not teach a flexible wire disposed at a blanket perimeter. Lee teaches a flexible wire disposed at a blanket perimeter (Figure 8; 17, and Paragraph 16). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a blanket with mesh cut outs) and arrived at a blanket with mesh cut outs and a wire perimeter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order “to increase weight of the mat 1 so that it is difficult of blowing the flattened mat 1 on the ground in outdoors” (Lee Paragraph 16).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malicki (US Patent 3325832) in view of Waters (US Patent Application Publication 20160157638) in view of Tracy (US Patent D453607).
Regarding claim 16, Malicki does not teach a strap disposed at the blanket top edge, wherein the strap is configured to be attached around a user neck. Tracy teaches a strap disposed at a blanket top edge (Figure 1; strap at top of Figure, as shown), wherein the strap is configured to be attached around a user neck (Figure 9; as shown). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a blanket with mesh cut outs) and Tracy (directed to a blanket with a neck strap) and arrived at a blanket with mesh cut outs and a neck strap. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to allow the blanket to be used as “a hooded raincoat” (Tracy Description).
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malicki (US Patent 3325832) in view of Waters (US Patent Application Publication 20160157638) further in view of Heiman (US Patent Application Publication 20180027998).
Regarding claim 17, Malicki does not teach the top layer is removably attached to the bottom layer using a fastener. Heiman teaches the top layer is removably attached to the bottom layer using a fastener (Figure 7 shows a three layer blanket (12, 14, 16) with each layer removable via fastener 20). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a blanket with mesh cut outs) and Heiman (directed to a blanket with detachable layers) and arrived at a blanket with mesh cut outs and detachable layers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “layers are thus configured to be removed (and replaced) easily for cleaning separate from the intermediate layer.” (Heiman Paragraph 6)
Regarding claim 18, Malicki does not teach the fastener comprises a hook and loop. Heiman teaches the fastener comprises a hook and loop (Figure 4; 20 and Paragraph 40). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a blanket with mesh cut outs) and Heiman (directed to a blanket with detachable layers) and arrived at a blanket with mesh cut outs and detachable layers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “layers are thus configured to be removed (and replaced) easily for cleaning separate from the intermediate layer.” (Heiman Paragraph 6)
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malicki (US Patent 3325832) in view of Waters (US Patent Application Publication 20160157638) in view of Sherts (US Patent Application Publication 20200397078).
Regarding claim 19, Malicki does not teach an internal pocket attached to a top layer inner surface or a bottom layer inner surface. Sherts teaches an internal pocket attached to a top layer inner surface or a bottom layer inner surface (Paragraph 71 discusses a pocket, shown at Figure 1; 118 for carrying the blanket when not in use, and Paragraph 71 notes “Still yet another alternative is to stitch a bag into the inside of wrap 100.”, thus this bag on the inside of wrap 100 would be attached to at least one of the top or bottom layer inner surfaces (Examiner notes that Paragraph 47 sets forth that the wrap is multiple layers)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a blanket with mesh cut outs) and Sherts (directed to a blanket with a pocket) and arrived at a blanket with mesh cut outs and a pocket. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to allow the blanket to be “stuffed into the pocket as illustrated in FIG. 5, [so that] it may be easily carried” (Sherts Paragraph 66).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – Alternate Rejection of Claims 1-12, 14, and 20
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) 1-6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malicki (US Patent 3325832) in view of Lewis (US Patent Application Publication 20210219751) in view of Waters (US Patent Application Publication 20160157638).
Regarding claim 1, Malicki teaches a blanket (Figure 2; 11) comprising: a top layer of fabric (Figure 7; 19); a bottom layer of fabric (Figure 7; 20); and a middle layer of mesh (Figure 7; 21) disposed between the top layer and the bottom layer, wherein the top layer and the bottom layer comprise a first cut-out pattern (Figure 2; cutouts at 14) and wherein the first cut-out pattern of the top layer and the bottom layer selectively expose the middle layer (Figure 1; as shown). Malicki does not explicitly teach the cut outs are to enable a user to breathe through the first cut-out pattern and wherein the middle layer extends continuously from top edges of the top layer and the bottom layer to bottom edges of the top layer and the bottom layer, and wherein a length and width of the middle layer is equivalent to lengths and widths of the top layer and the bottom layer, and wherein the middle layer is completely enclosed between the top layer and the bottom layer and selectively exposed through the first cut-out pattern. Lewis teaches the cut outs are to enable a user to breathe through the first cut-out pattern (Figure 2; at 12 show the user using the mesh cutout to breathe through the cut out). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a blanket with mesh cut outs) and Lewis (directed to a blanket with mesh portions for breathing) and arrived at a blanket with mesh cut outs for breathing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because doing so “will allow users to breathe during their sleep when the comforter is over their head.” as taught in Lewis (Paragraph 8). Malicki does not teach wherein the middle layer extends continuously from top edges of the top layer and the bottom layer to bottom edges of the top layer and the bottom layer, and wherein a length and width of the middle layer is equivalent to lengths and widths of the top layer and the bottom layer, and wherein the middle layer is completely enclosed between the top layer and the bottom layer and selectively exposed through the first cut-out pattern. Waters teaches the middle layer extends continuously from top edges of the top layer and the bottom layer to bottom edges of the top layer and the bottom layer, and wherein a length and width of the middle layer is equivalent to lengths and widths of the top layer and the bottom layer (Figure 16; as shown, and Paragraph 128) ) and wherein the middle layer is completely enclosed between the top layer and the bottom layer and selectively exposed through the first cut-out pattern (Figure 10a, 16 and Paragraphs 128-129 show a blanket with a continuous middle mesh layer between a top layer and a bottom layer. When modifying Malicki’s mesh layer to be structured as in Waters, the continuous middle mesh layer would be selectively exposed through the cutouts of Malicki’s top and bottom layers). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a three layer blanket with cutouts) and Lewis (directed to a blanket with mesh portions for breathing) and Waters (directed to a three layer blanket with a continuous middle layer) and arrived at a three layer blanket with cutouts including mesh portions for breathing and a continuous middle layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide “a breathable apparatus (e.g. objects such as blankets)” as taught in Waters (Paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 2, Malicki teaches the first cut-out pattern is disposed in proximity to the top edges of the top layer and the bottom layer (Figure 2; cutout to the left of the cutout where 15 is marked (top center cutout of the three cutouts on the top edge), the top of that cutout is disposed in proximity to the top blanket edge (near where 11 is marked).
Regarding claim 3, Malicki teaches the first cut-out pattern is disposed at a blanket center top position (Figure 2; the topmost centermost cutout (to the left of the cutout 15 is marked on) is in the center of the blanket, at least at the top end)). Malicki does not explicitly teach the cutout is centered to enable the user to see through the first cut-out pattern. Lewis teaches the cutout is centered to enable the user to see through the first cut-out pattern (Figure 2 shows that in use the eyes are aligned within the mesh portion so the user could see through the mesh portion). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a blanket with mesh cut outs) and Lewis (directed to a blanket with mesh portions for breathing) and arrived at a blanket with mesh cut outs for breathing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because doing so “will allow users to breathe during their sleep when the comforter is over their head.” as taught in Lewis (Paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 4, Malicki teaches the top layer and the bottom layer further comprise a second cut-out pattern (Figure 2; the rightmost bottom cutout, to the right of where 13 is marked and adjacent where “Fig. 2” is written).
Regarding claim 5, Malicki teaches the second cut-out pattern is disposed in proximity to the bottom edges of the top layer and the bottom layer (Figure 2; the rightmost bottom cutout is disposed at least at the bottom, near the bottom edge of the blanket).
Regarding claim 6, Malicki teaches the first cut-out pattern is different from the second cut-out pattern (Figure 2; the rightmost bottom cutout is smaller and shorter than the centermost top cutout).
Regarding claim 14, Malicki teaches the first cut-out pattern is disposed at a blanket center top position (Figure 2; the centermost top cutout is disposed at the blanket center top position at least at the top of the cutout). Malicki does not explicitly teach the cutout is centered to enable a user to see through the first cut-out pattern. Lewis teaches the cutout is centered to enable a user to see through the first cut-out pattern (Figure 2 shows that in use the eyes are aligned within the mesh portion so the user could see through the mesh portion). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a blanket with mesh cut outs) and Lewis (directed to a blanket with mesh portions for breathing) and arrived at a blanket with mesh cut outs for breathing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because doing so “will allow users to breathe during their sleep when the comforter is over their head.” as taught in Lewis (Paragraph 8).
Claim(s) 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malicki (US Patent 3325832) in view of Lewis (US Patent Application Publication 20210219751) in view of Waters (US Patent Application Publication 20160157638) further in view of Tracy (US Patent D453607).
Regarding claim 7, Malicki does not teach a strap disposed at a blanket top edge, wherein the strap is configured to be attached around a user neck. Tracy teaches a strap disposed at a blanket top edge (Figure 1; strap at top of Figure, as shown), wherein the strap is configured to be attached around a user neck (Figure 9; as shown). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a blanket with mesh cut outs) and Lewis (directed to a blanket with mesh portions for breathing) and Tracy (directed to a blanket with a neck strap) and arrived at a blanket with mesh cut outs for breathing and a neck strap. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to allow the blanket to be used as “a hooded raincoat” (Tracy Description).
Regarding claim 20, Malicki teaches a blanket (Figure 2; 11) comprising: a top layer of fabric (Figure 7; 19); a bottom layer of fabric (Figure 7; 20); a middle layer of mesh (Figure 7; 21) disposed between the top layer and the bottom layer, wherein the top layer and the bottom layer comprise a first cut-out pattern (Figure 2; centermost top cutout, the cutout to the left of the cutout that 15 is marked on) and wherein the first cut-out pattern of the top layer and the bottom layer selectively expose the middle layer (Figure 1; as shown). Malicki does not explicitly teach the first cutout pattern is to enable a user to breathe through the first cut-out pattern; and a strap disposed at a blanket top edge, wherein the strap is configured to be attached around a user neck, and wherein the middle layer extends continuously from top edges of the top layer and the bottom layer to bottom edges of the top layer and the bottom layer, and wherein a length and width of the middle layer is equivalent to lengths and widths of the top layer and the bottom layer, and wherein the middle layer is completely enclosed between the top layer and the bottom layer and selectively exposed through the first cut-out pattern. Lewis teaches the cut outs are to enable a user to breathe through the first cut-out pattern (Figure 2; at 12 show the user using the mesh cutout to breathe through the cut out). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a blanket with mesh cut outs) and Lewis (directed to a blanket with mesh portions for breathing) and arrived at a blanket with mesh cut outs for breathing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because doings so “will allow users to breathe during their sleep when the comforter is over their head.” as taught in Lewis (Paragraph 8). Tracy teaches a strap disposed at a blanket top edge (Figure 1; strap at top of Figure, as shown), wherein the strap is configured to be attached around a user neck (Figure 9; as shown). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a blanket with mesh cut outs) and Lewis (directed to a blanket with mesh portions for breathing) and Tracy (directed to a blanket with a neck strap) and arrived at a blanket with mesh cut outs for breathing and a neck strap. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to allow the blanket to be used as “a hooded raincoat” (Tracy Description). Waters teaches the middle layer extends continuously from top edges of the top layer and the bottom layer to bottom edges of the top layer and the bottom layer, and wherein a length and width of the middle layer is equivalent to lengths and widths of the top layer and the bottom layer (Figure 16; as shown, and Paragraph 128), and wherein the middle layer is completely enclosed between the top layer and the bottom layer and selectively exposed through the first cut-out pattern (Figure 10a, 16 and Paragraphs 128-129 show a blanket with a continuous middle mesh layer between a top layer and a bottom layer. When modifying Malicki’s mesh layer to be structured as in Waters, the continuous middle mesh layer would be selectively exposed through the cutouts of Malicki’s top and bottom layers). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a three layer blanket with cutouts) and Lewis (directed to a blanket with mesh portions for breathing) and Tracy (directed to a blanket with a neck strap) and Waters (directed to a three layer blanket with a continuous middle layer) and arrived at a three layer blanket with cutouts including mesh portions for breathing and a continuous middle layer and a neck strap. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide “a breathable apparatus (e.g. objects such as blankets)” as taught in Waters (Paragraph 8).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malicki (US Patent 3325832) in view of Lewis (US Patent Application Publication 20210219751) in view of Waters (US Patent Application Publication 20160157638) further in view of Heiman (US Patent Application Publication 20180027998).
Regarding claim 8, Malicki does not teach the top layer is removably attached to the bottom layer using a fastener. Heiman teaches the top layer is removably attached to the bottom layer using a fastener (Figure 7 shows a three layer blanket (12, 14, 16) with each layer removable via fastener 20). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a blanket with mesh cut outs) and Lewis (directed to a blanket with mesh portions for breathing) and Heiman (directed to a blanket with detachable layers) and arrived at a blanket with mesh cut outs for breathing and detachable layers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “layers are thus configured to be removed (and replaced) easily for cleaning separate from the intermediate layer.” (Heiman Paragraph 6)
Regarding claim 9, Malicki does not teach the fastener comprises a hook and loop. Heiman teaches the fastener comprises a hook and loop (Figure 4; 20 and Paragraph 40). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a blanket with mesh cut outs) and Lewis (directed to a blanket with mesh portions for breathing) and Heiman (directed to a blanket with detachable layers) and arrived at a blanket with mesh cut outs for breathing and detachable layers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “layers are thus configured to be removed (and replaced) easily for cleaning separate from the intermediate layer.” (Heiman Paragraph 6)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malicki (US Patent 3325832) in view of Lewis (US Patent Application Publication 20210219751) in view of Waters (US Patent Application Publication 20160157638) further in view of Sherts (US Patent Application Publication 20200397078).
Regarding claim 10, Malicki does not teach an internal pocket attached to a top layer inner surface or a bottom layer inner surface. Sherts teaches an internal pocket attached to a top layer inner surface or a bottom layer inner surface (Paragraph 71 discusses a pocket, shown at Figure 1; 118 for carrying the blanket when not in use, and Paragraph 71 notes “Still yet another alternative is to stitch a bag into the inside of wrap 100.”, thus this bag on the inside of wrap 100 would be attached to at least one of the top or bottom layer inner surfaces (Examiner notes that Paragraph 47 sets forth that the wrap is multiple layers)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a blanket with mesh cut outs) and Lewis (directed to a blanket with mesh portions for breathing) and Sherts (directed to a blanket with a pocket) and arrived at a blanket with mesh cut outs for breathing and a pocket. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to allow the blanket to be “stuffed into the pocket as illustrated in FIG. 5, [so that] it may be easily carried” (Sherts Paragraph 66).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malicki (US Patent 3325832) in view of Lewis (US Patent Application Publication 20210219751) in view of Waters (US Patent Application Publication 20160157638) further in view of Vergona (Us Patent Application Publication 20090299442).
Regarding claim 11, Malicki does not teach a heating element removably attached to the blanket. Vergona teaches a heating element removably attached to the blanket (Abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Malicki (directed to a blanket with mesh cut outs) and Lewis (directed to a blanket with mesh portions for breathing) and Vergona (directed to a blanket with removable heating elements) and arrived at a blanket with mesh cut outs for breathing and removable heating elements. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide heat to a user while maintaining portability (Paragraph 3 of Vergona).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malicki (US Patent 3325832) in vie