DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed July 10th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-4 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every Drawing Objection alongside each and every 112b Rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 11th, 2025 and are hereby withdrawn in light of their correction. It is acknowledged however, that claim 2 is marked “(Currently Amended)” but possesses seemingly no alteration or changes and annotations thereof to the claim, as such, claim 2 is respectfully treated as “(Original)”
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations “an acute angle” “an angle” “a line” and “from point” are recited. There is a degree of antecedent confusion as to the cited limitations as “an angle” has already been recited in claim 1, alongside “a line” and “a point”, and it’s unclear if the previous citations (those in claim 4) are synonymous with those of claim 1, or if they are delineated and separate entities therefrom. For the purposes of examination, the aforementioned citations are construed to be synonymous with the elements antecedently introduced in claim 1 and are construed to read as “the acute angle”/”the angle” (the acute angle being understood to be the angle), “the line” and “from the point”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Treece (U.S. Pat. No. 6823544).
Regarding claim 1, Treece discloses (FIGS. 4-6) a fitted bottom bed sheet (As illustrated in FIGS. 4-6) comprising: a fabric sheet (Title; FIGS. 5 and 6); corner cutouts (correspondent angle Alpha/Beta and 12c/12c’; FIG. 4-6) disposed at each corner of the fabric sheet (As illustrated in FIGS. 4-6), wherein the corner cutouts are disposed between side panels and end panels (18; As illustrated in FIGS. 4-6), which terminate in longitudinal cut edges and lateral cut edges that each converge to a point (As illustrated in FIGS. 4-6 correspondent to the convergent point of angle Beta and Alpha); wherein the longitudinal cut edges and the lateral cut edges are configured to be sewn ([4:49-51]: “prior to being sewn”) together and comprise mitered corner edges (As illustrated in FIGS. 4-6; particularly 5) that are formed at an angle that is 1 or more degrees from a line extending from the point and are orthogonal to a plane of the fabric sheet (As eminently demonstrated and illustrated in FIGS. 4-6 with the angle Alpha/Beta forming an angle that is at least one degrees from the point of convergence and a line extending from the point that is orthogonal to a top flat plane of the fabric sheet, and clarified in [7:4-11]).
Where it is observed in Treece that mitered edges would be inherently formed where angles of less than 45 between the respective edge of pleats or surfaces brought together would produce mitered edges with outwardly fanning trapezoidal pleats sewn at their edges together, as Treece clearly establishes as illustrated in FIGS. 6 and clarifies in [7:4-11], and would result in an angle at least 1 degree deviated from an imaginary line extending orthogonal from the point and plane of the fabric sheet. It is considered that Treece inherently by its geometry illustrated and specified with clarity would avail the mitered edges applicant’s claims similarly necessitate. Where Treece particularly identifies in [7: 1-4] that the single value given angle of alpha is 45 degrees, while angle beta (of alternate embodiment FIG. 6 is described in [7: 4-11] that the angle beta is a ‘smaller interior angle’ and given the immediate disclosure provides at least for an angle smaller than 45 degrees. Where particularly [6: 64-67] both identifies alpha as “internal angle” (and thus beta being ‘smaller internal angle’ must be smaller than internal angle, and likewise the citation avails understanding that the edges 12c (and analogously 12c’ per [7:4-11]) are ‘sewn or otherwise joined’. Joining the edges of 12c as portrayed with an angle less than 45, with outwardly fanning trapezoidal shapes would eminently avail a mitered edges to all corners as Treece’s configuration, geometry, angles, and attachment of associations as disclosed in the citations above, would avail a reverse hopper-like structure or otherwise a trapezoidal cuboid. Provided below is an annotated figure demonstrating the immediately observed geometry that is reasonable disclosure by Treece.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 6
Regarding claim 2, Treece discloses (FIGS. 4-7) a method of manufacturing a fitted bottom bed sheet (Title: “Method Of Forming A Fitted Mattress Pad”; FIGS. 4-7) comprising the steps of: providing a rectangular fabric sheet having a top edge and a bottom edge connected by a left edge and a right edge, meeting at corners (As illustrated in FIGS. 4-6); cutting corner cutouts from each of the corners (As illustrated in FIGS. 4-7 the corners have been cutout to form the pre-sewn sheet; and clarified in [7:4-11]: “a smaller portion 21’ of the first layer of material 12 is removed…”; where FIG. 7 demonstrates ‘cutter’ 33/34), the corner cutouts each being formed by lateral and longitudinal cut edges which converge to a point (As illustrated in FIGS. 4-6), and which define side panels and end panels (As illustrated in FIGS. 4-6); sewing together adjacent side panels and end panels to form mitered corner edges (as illustrated in FIGS. 4-6, and clarified in [4:49-51]: “prior to being sewn”) that are each formed at an acute or at an angle that is 1 or more degrees from a line extending from the point and are orthogonal to a plane of the fabric sheet (As eminently demonstrated and illustrated in FIGS. 4-6 with the angle Alpha/Beta forming an angle that is at least one degrees from the point of convergence and a line extending from the point that is orthogonal to a top flat plane of the fabric sheet, and clarified in [7:4-11]).
Where it is observed in Treece (and Annotated FIG. 6 provided above) that mitered edges would be eminently formed where angles of less than 45 between the respective edge of pleats or surfaces brought together would produce mitered edges with outwardly fanning trapezoidal pleats sewn at their edges together, as Treece clearly establishes as illustrated in FIGS. 6 while clarifies in [7:4-11], and would result in an angle at least 1 degree deviated from an imaginary line extending orthogonal from the point and plane of the fabric sheet. It is considered that Treece inherently by its geometry illustrated and specified with clarity would avail the mitered edges applicant’s claims similarly necessitate. Where Treece particularly identifies in [7: 1-4] that the single value given angle of alpha is 45 degrees, while angle beta (of alternate embodiment FIG. 6 is described in [7: 4-11] that the angle beta is a ‘smaller interior angle’ and given the immediate disclosure provides at least for an angle smaller than 45 degrees. Where particularly [6: 64-67] both identifies alpha as “internal angle” (and thus beta being ‘smaller internal angle’ must be smaller than internal angle, and likewise the citation avails understanding that the edges 12c (and analogously 12c’ per [7:4-11]) are ‘sewn or otherwise joined’. Joining the edges of 12c as portrayed with an angle less than 45, with outwardly fanning trapezoidal shapes would eminently avail a mitered edges to all corners as Treece’s configuration, geometry, angles, and attachment of associations as disclosed in the citations above, would avail a reverse hopper-like structure or otherwise a trapezoidal cuboid.
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) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treece in further view of itself.
Regarding claim 3, Treece discloses the fitted bottom bed sheet of claim 1, wherein the angle is {greater than 1 degree} (as demonstrated and inherently produced by the angle and association of materials as prescribed in Treece: FIGS. 6 and [7:4-11]).
However, Treece does not explicitly disclose that the angle is between 1 and 5 degrees.
Regardless, Treece discloses the claimed invention except for the resultant vector angle of the mitered seam being at an angle 1-5 degrees of an imaginary line orthogonal at a point and plane of the fabric sheet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have produced the resultant vector angle of the mitered seam being at an angle 1-5 degrees of an imaginary line orthogonal at a point and plane of the fabric sheet, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Where there is a lack of criticality as to the exact range of angle posed by applicant, respectfully only seeming to note “Importantly, each mitered corner edge 36 is formed at an angle A2 that is one or more degrees, preferably 1-5 degrees”. But does not appear to state why such a range of the angle is important. The specification seeming to note that the importance is in a ‘greater length’ and such ‘greater length enables easier application of the fitted bed sheet 10 to a mattress’ (pages 7-8 of the specification), however it is considered the length is not begetting of that particular angle range, and furthermore applicant disclaims further on page 7 of the specification “While these measurements are ideal for the present embodiment, they will of course vary depending upon the size of the mattress being used, and other particular details (e.g., materials used, needs of the user, etc.), so the measurements will vary.”. Where the results would have been obvious as Treece contemplates multiple angles/sizes and shapes (per [7:4-11] and multiple angles through at least FIGS. 1 and 6). Where it is contemplated by the Examiner that advantageously the resultant mitered angle produced of a degree between 1-5 degrees would better secure a block memory foam topper where a more vertically mitered angle would better prevent shifting by increasing compression as a result of height thereon and reducing maintenance to maintain the topper centered on the bed.
Regarding claim 4, Treece discloses the fitted bottom bed sheet of claim 1, wherein the longitudinal cut edge and the lateral cut edge converge at {the} acute angle (as illustrated in FIG. 1), and wherein each mitered corner edge is formed at {the} angle that {greater than 1 degrees}, from {the} line extending from {the} point orthogonal to the plane of the fabric sheet (as demonstrated and inherently produced by the angle and association of materials as prescribed in Treece: FIGS. 6 and [7:4-11]).
However, Treece does not explicitly disclose that the angle is between 1 and 5 degrees.
Regardless, Treece discloses the claimed invention except for the resultant vector angle of the mitered seam being at an angle 1-5 degrees of an imaginary line orthogonal at a point and plane of the fabric sheet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have produced the resultant vector angle of the mitered seam being at an angle 1-5 degrees of an imaginary line orthogonal at a point and plane of the fabric sheet, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Where there is a lack of criticality as to the exact range of angle posed by applicant, respectfully only seeming to note “Importantly, each mitered corner edge 36 is formed at an angle A2 that is one or more degrees, preferably 1-5 degrees”. But does not appear to state why such a range of the angle is important. The specification seeming to note that the importance is in a ‘greater length’ and such ‘greater length enables easier application of the fitted bed sheet 10 to a mattress’ (pages 7-8 of the specification), however it is considered the length is not begetting of that particular angle range, and furthermore applicant disclaims further on page 7 of the specification “While these measurements are ideal for the present embodiment, they will of course vary depending upon the size of the mattress being used, and other particular details (e.g., materials used, needs of the user, etc.), so the measurements will vary.”. Where the results would have been obvious as Treece contemplates multiple angles/sizes and shapes (per [7:4-11] and multiple angles through at least FIGS. 1 and 6). Where it is contemplated by the Examiner that advantageously the resultant mitered angle produced of a degree between 1-5 degrees would better secure a block memory foam topper where a more vertically mitered angle would better prevent shifting by increasing compression as a result of height thereon and reducing maintenance to maintain the topper centered on the bed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed July 10th, 2025, with respect to 112b Rejections and Drawing Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Drawing Objections and 112b Rejections of April 11th, 2025 has been withdrawn. Particularly applicant’s amendments to the claims and Drawings obviate Examiner’s previous Rejections and Objections thereto respectively. However, applicant’s amendments (new amendment 4) necessitates a new 112b rejection thereto as set forth in the pertinent section.
Applicant's arguments filed July 10th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Particularly with regards to Treece and 102 Rejections thereof (Remarks: page 4-5), concerning that Treece is a mattress pad while applicant’s invention is a sheet. This is respectfully not found to be persuasive at the present time as Treece necessitates a fitted fabric layer 12 (per [5:5-10] “first layer of fabric 12”), illustrated in FIG. 2, and [7:4-11] clarifies the cutouts 21’ to be in material 12 (the fabric layer/sheet material). Therefore it is considered Treece anticipates applicant’s claimed invention and material of a bed sheet/fabric sheet material by providing a fabric layer.
With regards to applicant’s arguments concerning Treece states “it is the same as U.S. 4338693”, this appears to respectfully be incorrect as Treece actually appears to state “In other words, the mattress pad is made like a conventional fitted sheet except it is fully quilted on the top, sides and ends. See U.S. Pat. No. 4,338,693.” (bolding/underlining added for emphasis; cited in [2:34-48]). Notably, Treece is not saying it is the same as US Pat. No. 4338693, but that it’s construction is similar to a conventional mattress, and to observe practices such as those of US. Pat. No. 4338693, but not that it is “incorporated by reference” and dominates the invention. Respectfully, Treece appears to be disclosing a method of producing a mattress providing its own disclosure with angular cutouts that may be an angle smaller than 90 per the eminent illustration of FIG. 6 and explanations of [7:4-11]. It is further considered if Treece were incorporating by reference U.S. Pat. No. 4338693, Treece’s Beta.Angle being a ‘smaller interior angle’ (with the ‘interior angle’ defined as angle alpha in [6:63-67], would then be within a range smaller than 90 degrees, which would be furthermore within the scope of applicant’s dependent claims 3 and 4. However, as Treece does not appear to state reference by incorporation, Examiner respectfully posits a 103 Rejection of claims 3 and 4 rather than an inherency/anticipation of Treece .
With regard to Remarks (page 5) concerning that Treece describes the angle beta as a smaller internal angle “relative to angle alpha”, while Examiner does agree this may be one interpretational read of the invention (And would indeed result in a vector resultant angle of 1 or more degrees from an imaginary line orthogonal from a point and plane of the fabric surface), the invention only needs contemplate this is a smaller angle, that an acute is formed between the two edges, and that given the two edges effectively are exceeding the parallel edges of the bedsheet that will form (see Annotated FIG. 6 below), the prior art of Treece would produce a mitered edge, with consideration of the inherent geometry posed, and a reasonable degree of specificity in the disclosure that renders the figures more than merely representative by identifying an angle thereof and specifying such angle a ‘smaller internal angle’, while also particularly providing outwardly fanning trapezoidal pleats.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 6
Where it is considered Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928) (MPEP 2125 is relevant), and furthermore, {w}hen the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value, but specifies “However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977). Particularly, in the instant application and Rejection of record, Treece discloses a set of edges that are sewn together, in all other instances an angle of 90 degrees appears to be produced (the angle of 45 for alpha appears to be in relation to the complementary angle formed on the side of the invention), however, a ‘smaller angle’ of either 90 degrees or 45 degrees would result in a mitered edge in the eventual completion of particularly FIG. 6, which demonstrates four outwardly fanning trapezoidal shapes, not two inner and two outer fanning trapezoidal shapes for the sides/pleats, such a construction of four outer fanning trapezoidal shapes would inherently produce the mitered edge applicant claims in their independent claims (an angle of at least one degree measured to an imaginary line orthogonal to the point and plane of the fabric surface). In fact, it is considered under the geometry present only an angle of about 89.8-90.2 degrees would result in a resultant vector angle of the mitered edge being less than 1 degrees (as effectively an absolute angle would be formed whether the mitered angle was outward extending (if angle beta of FIG. 6 was less than 90 degrees) or inwardly extending (if angle beta of FIG. 5 was greater than 90 degrees), effectively the prior art would necessitate a right angle to leave applicant’s invention unanticipated, but FIG. 6 clearly states “a smaller internal angle”, and the drawings may be considered as prior art by presenting an angle beta less than 90 degrees, which would result in a mitered resultant vector angle of at least 1 degrees deviated from the imaginary orthogonal line claimed by applicant. Furthermore, although Treece does not specify in its claims any angle, the specification is part of Treece’s disclosure and is still respectfully providing anticipation through FIGS. 6 and at least specification [7:4-11].
Therefore, examiner is respectfully not persuaded at the present time that Treece fails to anticipate applicant’s claimed invention of the independent claims. While new claims 3-4 are newly rejected under 103 with Treece in view of itself.
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.
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached on 571-272-8525. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673