Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/222,824

SUPERIMPOSED CUSHIONING ELEMENTS

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Jul 17, 2023
Examiner
WEYDEMEYER, ALICIA JANE
Art Unit
1781
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Purple Innovation LLC
OA Round
4 (Final)
46%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
72%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 46% of resolved cases
46%
Career Allow Rate
178 granted / 386 resolved
-18.9% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
57 currently pending
Career history
443
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
57.5%
+17.5% vs TC avg
§102
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
§112
24.0%
-16.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 386 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Examiner Notes Claims 1-24 are currently pending, of which claims 5, 13 and 18-22 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 6-9, and 14-15 are currently amended. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 recites that the overlapping layers of fabric comprise superimposed layers of fabric however, in order for the first and second layers of fabric to overlap they will necessarily be superimposed. Thus, claim 6 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim 7 is rejected as being dependent upon not further limiting claim 6. 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. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, 15-17 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poppe (US 2008/0271250) in view of Blazar (US 2014/0082846) in view of Alletto (US 2014/0096323). Regarding claims 1 and 6, Poppe discloses a pillow comprising a sleeve (11) made of fabric (0037) and forming a primary receptacle. The sleeve having overlapping/superimposed layers of fabric e.g., a first/top layer coupled to a second/bottom layer, and having first and second side surfaces, respectfully (Fig. 1). A comfort layer (5) formed of a compressible resilient temperature-sensitive elastic material (instant gel material; 0014 and 0022), and protruding from the first and second surfaces of the first and second sides of the first and second fabric (e.g., top and bottom; Fig. 1). The comfort material defining a plurality of interconnected walls (Fig. 2) where the plurality of interconnected walls comprises a central region at an approximate middle of the first cushion (Fig. 1). Poppe does not teach the comfort layer fixed to the surface of the first and second side of the fabric or that the height of the walls gradually tapers from the central region toward an outer periphery of the plurality of interconnected walls located at or near an edge of the first cushion. Regarding the fixing of the comfort material, Blazar, in the analogous field of pillows (0004), teaches a fabric cover firmly fixed to at least one surface of a cushion element (0026, 0031-0035). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the comfort layer of Poppe to be fixed to a surface of the fabric, as taught by Blazar, to afford more stability to allow the pillow to be washed more frequently without deterioration thereby extending the life and its overall value to a consumer (0026). Regarding the height of the comfort layers walls, Alletto, in the analogous field of pillows (0006), teaches an embodiment in which fill material is located both outside of an inner cover (48) and inside of an outer cover (12), where the fill material (52) is a solid foam layer in which the shape gradually tapers from a central region toward an outer periphery of the edge of the pillow (Fig. 6 and 7, 0031). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have adapted the shape of Alletto’s fill material, for the shape of the comfort layer of Poppe, to impart the overall shape of a pillow which supports the head and neck of a person (0005 and 0031). Regarding claims 2 and 3, Poppe teaches a plurality of first and second interconnected walls having first and second array of voids (Fig. 1 and 2). Regarding claim 4, Poppe teaches the first and second plurality of interconnected walls are aligned (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 7, Poppe teaches the sleeve fabric layers are superimposed where the first comfort layer protrudes from the first layer of the superimposed layer of fabric and the second cushion protrudes from a second layer of the superimposed layer of fabric (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 9, Poppe discloses a pillow comprising a sleeve (11) made of fabric (0037) and forming a primary receptacle. The sleeve having overlapping layers of fabric e.g., a first/top layer coupled to a second/bottom layer, and having first and second side surfaces, respectfully (Fig. 1). A comfort layer (5) formed of a compressible resilient temperature-sensitive elastic material (instant gel material; 0014 and 0022), and protruding from the first and second surfaces of the first and second sides of the fabric (e.g., top and bottom; Fig. 1). The comfort material defining a plurality of interconnected walls (Fig. 2) where the plurality of interconnected walls comprises a central region at an approximate middle of the first cushion (Fig. 1). Poppe does not teach the comfort layer fixed to the surface of the first and second side of the fabric or that the height of the walls gradually tapers from the central region toward an outer periphery of the plurality of interconnected walls located at or near an edge of the first cushion. Regarding the fixing of the comfort material, Blazar, in the analogous field of pillows (0004), teaches a fabric cover firmly fixed to at least one surface of a cushion element (0026, 0031-0035). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the comfort layer of Poppe to be fixed to a surface of the fabric, as taught by Blazar, to afford more stability to allow the pillow to be washed more frequently without deterioration thereby extending the life and its overall value to a consumer (0026). Regarding the height of the comfort layers walls, Alletto, in the analogous field of pillows (0006), teaches an embodiment in which fill material is located both outside of an inner cover (48) and inside of an outer cover (12), where the fill material (52) is a solid foam layer in which the shape gradually tapers from a central region toward an outer periphery of the edge of the pillow (Fig. 6 and 7, 0031). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have adapted the shape of Alletto’s fill material, for the shape of the comfort layer of Poppe, to impart the overall shape of a pillow which supports the head and neck of a person (0005 and 0031). Regarding claims 10 and 11, Poppe teaches a plurality of first and second interconnected walls having first and second array of voids (Fig. 1 and 2). Regarding claim 12, Poppe teaches the first and second plurality of interconnected walls are aligned (Fig. 1). Regarding claims 15 and 23-24, Poppe discloses a pillow comprising a sleeve (11) made of fabric (0037) and forming a primary receptacle. The sleeve having overlapping layers of fabric e.g., a first/top layer coupled to a second/bottom layer, and having first and second side surfaces, respectfully (Fig. 1). A comfort layer (5) formed of a compressible resilient temperature-sensitive elastic material (instant gel material; 0014 and 0022), and protruding from the first and second surfaces of the first and second sides of the fabric (e.g., top and bottom; Fig. 1). The comfort material defining a plurality of interconnected walls (Fig. 2) where the plurality of interconnected walls comprises a central region at an approximate middle of the first cushion (Fig. 1). Poppe does not teach the comfort layer fixed to the surface of the first and second side of the fabric or that the height of the walls gradually tapers from the central region toward an outer periphery of the plurality of interconnected walls located at or near an edge of the first cushion. Regarding the fixing of the comfort material, Blazar, in the analogous field of pillows (0004), teaches a fabric cover firmly fixed to at least one surface of a cushion element (0026, 0031-0035). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the comfort layer of Poppe to be fixed to a surface of the fabric, as taught by Blazar, to afford more stability to allow the pillow to be washed more frequently without deterioration thereby extending the life and its overall value to a consumer (0026). Regarding the height of the comfort layers walls, Alletto, in the analogous field of pillows (0006), teaches an embodiment in which fill material is located both outside of an inner cover (48) and inside of an outer cover (12), where the fill material (52) is a solid foam layer in which the shape gradually tapers from a central region toward an outer periphery of the edge of the pillow (Fig. 6 and 7, 0031). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have adapted the shape of Alletto’s fill material, for the shape of the comfort layer of Poppe, to impart the overall shape of a pillow which supports the head and neck of a person (0005 and 0031). Due to the taper from the central region, the height of the interconnected walls at the outer periphery will necessarily be shorter than at the center. Regarding claims 16, Poppe teaches a plurality of first and second interconnected walls having first and second array of voids (Fig. 1 and 2). Regarding claim 17, Poppe teaches the first and second plurality of interconnected walls are aligned (Fig. 1). Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poppe in view of Blazar in view of Alletto as applied to claims 1 or 9 above, and further in view of Pearce et al. (US 2005/0017396). Regarding claims 8 and 14, modified Poppe discloses the limitations of claim 1 or claim 9 as discussed above. Poppe does not teach the fabric sleeve comprising cotton. Pearce, in the analogous field of cushioning devices (0002), teaches a cushion comprising a cover of fabric like cotton (0159). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the fabric of Poppe to include cotton, as taught by Pearce, as this is a durable and attractive fabric for a cover (0159). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the sleeve of Poppe does not teach of suggest overlapping layers of fabric comprising and first fabric coupled with a second fabric, and forming a primary receptacle. The examiner respectfully disagrees. A sleeve necessarily comprises a structure of a first (top) layer of fabric coupled with a second (bottom) layer of fabric and which forms a receptacle. Applicant argues that Poppe does not teach the fabrics are fixed to the first and second cushions. The examiner agrees Poppe does not teach this structure. The examiner directs applicant to the rejection above in which Blazar was cited for teaching firmly fixing a fabric cover to the cushion elements. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4. 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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. /ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 17, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 17, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jan 08, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 08, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 22, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
May 16, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 16, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 14, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Nov 12, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 12, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 29, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600827
METHOD FOR THE SYNTHESIS OF A TWO-DIMENSIONAL OR QUASI-TWO-DIMENSIONAL POLYMER FILM, THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL OR QUASI-TWO-DIMENSIONAL POLYMER FILM AND THE USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584249
Tearable Cloth
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575041
DISPLAY MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570571
GLASS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12553189
ABSORBENT STRUCTURES WITH HIGH STRENGTH AND LOW MD STRETCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

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

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
46%
Grant Probability
72%
With Interview (+26.4%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 386 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month