Claim Objections
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: Please insert —end— between “opposing” and “seam” in the third to last line of the claim to maintain consistency with the other independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts (US 5,189,744) in view of Wooten (US 2004/0187211).
Regarding Claim 1, Roberts discloses a pocket blanket device (10) comprising:
a body component (12); and
a pocket (15), wherein the pocket is placed over a bottom of a mattress (11) to secure the body component directly to the mattress (see Fig. 1), and further wherein the pocket maintains the body component in a secure position on the mattress; (see Figs. 1 and 4) and
wherein the pocket is between 8 and 12 inches in depth (see Col. 2, Lines 18-21).
Roberts fails to disclose wherein the body component is a multi-layer fabric body. Wooten teaches wherein a body component (10) is a multi-layer fabric body (see layers 21, 22, and 25 in Fig. 4). Roberts and Wooten 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 modify the pocket blanket of Roberts with the multi-layered body of Wooten. The motivation would have been to provide more insulation to the blanket of Roberts, thus keeping a user warm.
Regarding Claim 2, Roberts discloses wherein the body component is a flat portion (12) on which a user rests or is used as a cover.
Regarding Claim 3, Roberts discloses wherein the body component is comprised of an upper surface area and a lower surface area (see Figs. 1 and 2) and defines a free end (13) and a mattress fitting end (14).
Regarding Claim 4, Roberts discloses wherein the pocket is formed across a width of the mattress fitting end (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Roberts discloses wherein the pocket is formed integrally with the body component (see Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Roberts discloses wherein once in place, the pocket overlies an end portion of the mattress (see Figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Roberts discloses wherein the pocket is defined along a horizontal seam line (16) and opposing end seam lines (17 and 18) on each end of the pocket.
Regarding Claim 8, Roberts discloses wherein the pocket comprises elastic elements (21-23) sewn along its edges.
Regarding Claim 9, Roberts discloses wherein a series of expandable gathers (24) are integrally formed along the pocket when it is first sewn, and the series of expandable gathers function to expand along with the elastic elements (see Fig. 3 and Col. 2, Lines 9-12).
Regarding Claim 10, Roberts discloses wherein when the pocket is fitted over an end of a mattress, the elastic elements and the series of the expandable gathers are initially expanded so as to fit the pocket over the mattress end (see Col. 2, Lines 12-16).
Regarding Claim 11, Roberts discloses wherein when the pocket is then released, the elastic elements will contract about the mattress end to produce a tight fit, and the series of the expandable gathers will assume an expanded form (see Col. 1, Lines 39-45).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts (US 5,189,744) in view of Wooten (US 2004/0187211) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pharr (US 6,041,456).
Regarding Claim 12, Roberts fails to disclose wherein the body component comprises opposing split sides which extend a length past the pocket and allow the body component to lay flat and square on a bed. Pharr teaches wherein a body component comprises opposing split sides (17) which extend a length past the pocket and allow the body component to lay flat and square on a bed (see Figs. 1 and 2). Roberts and Pharr 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 modify the pocket blanket of Roberts with the split sides of Pharr. The motivation would have been to make the pocket blanket of Roberts extend past the mattress and over a box spring, as shown by Pharr in Fig. 2, in order to provide user(s) with more blanket material, thus providing greater convenience to the user(s).
Claim(s) 13, 14, 16-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts (US 5,189,744) in view of Brown (US 2012/0297541).
Regarding Claim 13, Roberts discloses pocket blanket device (10) comprising:
a body (12) component comprising upper and lower surface areas and defining a free end (13) and a mattress fitting end (14); and
a pocket (15) formed integrally with the body component and formed across a width of the mattress fitting end;
wherein the pocket is placed over a bottom of a mattress to secure the body component directly to the mattress (see Fig. 1);
wherein once in place, the pocket overlies an end portion of the mattress (see Figs. 1 and 4);
wherein the pocket comprises a plurality of elastic inserts (21-23) incorporated into a horizontal seam line (16) and opposing end seam lines (17 and 18) on each end of the pocket (see Col. 2, Lines 2-6); and
wherein the pocket further comprises a series of expandable gathers integrally formed along the pocket and configured to expand along with the elastic inserts to secure the body component to the mattress (see Fig. 3 and Col. 2, Lines 9-12).
Roberts fails to disclose wherein the body component further comprises a plurality of laced (or ribboned as required in Claim 20) outer edges. Brown teaches wherein a body component further comprises a plurality of laced or ribboned outer edges (see para. [0049]). Roberts and Brown 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 modify the pocket blanket of Roberts with the laced or ribboned outer edges of Brown. The motivation would have been to make the pocket blanket of Roberts more decorative, thus enhancing the aesthetic aspect of the blanket.
Regarding Claim 14, Roberts does not disclose a plurality of indicia. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404).” See MPEP 2111.05 (1){A). “Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.” See MPEP 2111.05 (1)(B). There is no functional relationship between the plurality of indicia and Applicant’s pocket blanket device. As shown in Applicant’s Fig. 4 and para. [0048], the indicia is merely “any suitable indicia 400 as is known in the art can be included, such as, but not limited to, patterns, logos, emblems, images, symbols, designs, letters, words, characters, animals, advertisements, brands, etc., that may or may not be bedding, blanket, or brand related.” Accordingly, no patentable weight has been given to Claim 14. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Roberts with a plurality of indicia as known in the art.
Regarding Claim 16, Roberts discloses wherein when the pocket is fitted over an end of a mattress, the elastic inserts and the series of the expandable gathers are initially expanded so as to fit the pocket over the mattress end (see Col. 2, Lines 12-16).
Regarding Claim 17, Roberts discloses wherein when the pocket is then released, the elastic inserts elements will contract about the mattress end to produce a tight fit, and the series of the expandable gathers will assume an expanded (see Col. 1, Lines 39-45).
Regarding Claim 19, Roberts discloses wherein the body component is a flat portion (12) on which a user rests or is used as a cover.
Regarding Claim 20, Roberts as modified in the rejection of Claim 13 above teaches a method of securing a blanket to a bed for use, the method comprising the following steps:
providing a pocket blanket device (Roberts: 10) comprising a body component (Roberts: 12) with an elastic, expandable pocket (Roberts: 15) positioned along a bottom edge;
choosing a specific style and size of the pocket blanket device (Roberts: see Fig. 1);
positioning the pocket blanket device on a bed with the elastic pocket secured around a bottom of the mattress (Roberts: see Figs. 1 and 4); and
using the pocket blanket device while sleeping without worry of the device moving out of place during use (Roberts: see Figs. 1 and 4); and
wherein the elastic, expandable pocket comprises a plurality of elastic inserts (Roberts: 21-23) positioned within a series of expandable gathers (Roberts: 24) along a horizontal (Roberts: 17) and opposing seam lines (Roberts: 17 and 18) of the pocket;
and
wherein the body component further comprises a plurality of ribboned outer edges (Brown: see para. [0049] and Claim 13 rejection above).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts (US 5,189,744) in view of Brown (US 2012/0297541) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Pharr (US 6,041,456).
Regarding Claim 18, Roberts fails to disclose wherein the body component comprises opposing split sides which extend a length past the pocket and allow the body component to lay flat and square on a bed. Pharr teaches wherein a body component comprises opposing split sides (17) which extend a length past the pocket and allow the body component to lay flat and square on a bed (see Figs. 1 and 2). Roberts and Pharr 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 modify the pocket blanket of Roberts with the split sides of Pharr. The motivation would have been to make the pocket blanket of Roberts extend past the mattress and over a box spring, as shown by Pharr in Fig. 2, in order to provide user(s) with more blanket material, thus providing greater convenience to the user(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 and 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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