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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed March 13th, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the last three lines of each claim it is believed that “wherein the filling material (30) of the filling chamber (21) is substantially free of said cannabinoid-containing material and/or by a THC-containing material” and “the filling material (30) of the filling chamber (21) being substantially free of the cannabinoid-containing material and/or by a THC-containing material” should be —wherein the filling material (30) of the filling chamber (21) is substantially free of said cannabinoid-containing material and/or [[by]] of a THC-containing material— and —the filling material (30) of the filling chamber (21) being substantially free of the cannabinoid-containing material and/or [[by]] of a THC-containing material —, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said interspace" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant has sufficient antecedent basis for —said at least one intermediate space—, but it is unclear if “said interspace” is intended to be the same limitation. Claim further recites “said material” in 10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “said material” refers to the “filling material”, the “cannabinoid-containing material”, or the “THC-containing material”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the filling area". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Does this reference the “filling region” or the “filling chamber”. Since the reference numeral is listed as 22 in the claim, Examiner is interpreting this reference as —the at least one filling region—.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the hemp". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is interpreting this claim as depending from Claim 4. Claim56 also requires “the shoot axis”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant’s usage of “consists”, “comprising”, and “consisting of” in the claim may be unclear depending on the interpretation of “the shoot axis”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the material" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the material” refers to the “filling material, “filling layer material”, or “material” containing cannabinoid, THC, and /or hemp. Claim 6 further requires “in particular a quilted fabric” in line 5 of the claim. “[I]n particular” is analogous to —especially—, and it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase “in particular” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the interstitial space" in line 10 of the claim . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant has sufficient antecedent basis for —said at least one intermediate space—, but it is unclear if “the interstitial space” is intended to be the same limitation.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters (US 6,430,764) in view of Peterson (US 2016/0262403).
Regarding Claim 1, Peters discloses a pillow, blanket, topper, mattress and/or overlay (10) for calming a vegetative nervous system of a user, comprising
- at least one filling chamber (within bag 11) within which at least one filling material (13) is placed
- at least one filling region (within 12) within the filling chamber, the filling region being formed by at least one intermediate space which is at least partially delimited by the filling material (see Fig. 2),
characterised in that
said interspace is at least partially formed herbs (14 and 15), wherein the filling material of the filling chamber is substantially free of said cannabinoid-containing material and/or by a THC-containing material (see Fig. 2). Peters fails to disclose said interspace is at least partially formed by a cannabinoid-containing material and/or a THC-containing material and/or is formed of dried useful hemp with its natural, original active ingredients and/or at least partially with said material. Peters purpose of the herbs 14 and 15 is “for soothing and calming relief to a user” (see Claim 1 of Peters). Peterson teaches the use of a cannabinoid-containing material and/or a THC-containing material and/or is formed of dried useful hemp with its natural, original active ingredients and/or at least partially with said material (see “cannabis flower” in para. [0040]). Peters and Peterson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. bedding. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the herbs of Peters with the cannabis flower of Peterson, since this would be simply substituting one known item (herbs) for another (cannabis flower) to obtain predictable results (provide aromatic relief). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding Claim 2, Peters discloses the filling area is completely surrounded by the filling chamber (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Peters as modified teaches the material is formed with cannabis plant flowers (Peterson: see para. [0040]).
Regarding Claim 4, Peters as modified teaches the material is formed with a hemp containing THC or a cannabinoid (Peterson: “cannabis flowers” contain THC and CBD).
Regarding Claim 5, Peters as modified fails to teach the hemp consists of whole hemp plants, the hemp plant comprising at least the shoot axis consisting of a flower stalk, petals and a flower itself. Peterson teaches the use of a cannabis flower, however, usage of the whole hemp plant to include the shoot axis consisting of a flower stalk, petals and a flower itself would be an obvious modification within ordinary skill in the art. Using the whole hemp plant would reduce/eliminate the time used to separate the flowers from the plant and provide a greater concentration of THC and/or CBD, thus enhancing the known effects of the plant.
Regarding Claim 6, Peters discloses the filling material (13) is at least partly a filling layer material comprising a plurality of mutually adjacent layers, in particular a quilted fabric, wherein between at least two mutually adjacent layers of the filling material (13) the material is at least partly introduced and thus between two and/or through the two adjacent layers the filling region (within 12) is at least partly formed (see Fig. 2). If through subsequent amendments the “quilted fabric” is positively and clearly claimed, quilted fabrics are well-known and obvious throughout the art (see e.g. “quilted mattress toppers” in Peterson and quilted blanket of Tielkes (DE 3333270)).
Regarding Claim 7, Peters discloses the material is loosely inserted between adjacent layers (See Fig. 2)
Regarding Claim 8, Peters discloses the material is placed in pockets (12 is described as “one or more pouch members”) of the filling chamber (within bag 11), the pockets being delimited by chamber walls separating the material from the filling material (see Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 9, Peters as modified teaches a method of a pillow, blanket, topper, mattress and/or overlay for calming a vegetative nervous system of a user according to claim 1, wherein - at least one filling chamber (within bag 11), within which at least one filling material (13) is introduced, is created, and in a further step - at least one filling region (within 12) is created within the filling chamber (within bag 11), the filling region (within 12) being formed by at least one intermediate space which is at least partially delimited by the filling material (13, see Fig. 2), characterised in that the interstitial space is at least partially formed by and/or at least partially formed with a cannabinoid-containing material and/or a THC-containing material (Peterson: see para. [0040]), the filling material (13) of the filling chamber (within bag 11) being substantially free of the cannabinoid-containing material and/or by a THC-containing material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC J KURILLA whose telephone number is (571)270-7294. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7AM-6PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/ERIC J KURILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights