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 argues that Singh in view of Galloway in view of Rains does not disclose or suggest creating a “cuddle zone” having an area up to 12 inches wide at the center of the mattress cover and asserts that a cuddle zone is intended to provide comfort to an infant. However, the claims do not recite any functional requirement related to comfort emotional effect, or infant soothing, and instead recite a compartment having bumper padding material integrated therein and a dimensional limitation. Intended use or subjective purpose does not impart patentable weight to the claimed structure. Further as set forth in In re Gardner, where the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions and the device would perform in the same manner, the claimed subject matter is not patentably distinct. In this present case, both Singh and Galloway disclose structures designed to support an infant, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the width of the padded compartment to accommodate common infant body dimensions, including a width up to 12 inches, as a matter of routine design choice and optimization. The rejection is therefore maintained.
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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 appears to be duplicate subject matter of the newly amended part of claim 18. 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1,5 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7904977 issued to Singh in view of U.S. Publication No. 20180352967 issued to Galloway further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5530974 issued to Rains.
Regarding claim 1,
Singh discloses a mattress cover, comprising a fitted bed sheet for an infants or toddler’s bed, (Singh: FIG. 1 (21)) the mattress cover including an overlay material sewn on the fitted bed sheet (Singh: FIG. 3 (35, 37) see col. 4 lines 9-14 “Safety sheet 21 may include a pair of sleeves 35 and 37 which are illustrated as empty in FIG. 1. Sleeve 35 may be attached to the top of main surface 23 adjacent first side 31 by a single seam 41 in order to avoid stressing the material of the sheet itself upon insertion of a stiffening object into the sleeve 35.” See also col. 3 lines 21-24 “The lines of stitching join the pockets to the sheet along the outer edges of the pocket material, as illustrated schematically by the stitch lines 35 and 36 in FIG. 3” Wherein the sleeves themselves are made of material and are separate from the safety sheet 21.) … said overlay material having a compartment formed thereon (Singh: FIG. 3 (35, 37) are formed thereon.) wherein bumper padding material can be integrated into the compartment to create a cuddle zone above the mattress cover within an area up to twelve inches wide that is defined by the compartment and the integrated bumper padding material; (Singh: FIG. 5 shows inserts (55, 61, 71, 73) all integrated within the compartment(s)) wherein the overlay material sewn over the mattress covering has at least one open and closable end; (Singh: col. 4 lines 19-24 “First sleeve 35 may have a first end 45 and a second end 47; likewise, second sleeve 37 may have first end 51 and second end 53. First ends 45 and 51 may be open as shown or may include flaps or other closures; likewise, second ends 47 and 53 may be open, closed, or closeable using flaps, snaps, ties or other similar kinds of closures (similarly not shown).” See FIG. 5 (55, 61, 71, 73)) wherein the hollow insert is inserted into the sleeve.) wherein the at least one open and closable end is adapted to receive bumper padding material; (Singh: FIG. 5 (55, 61, 71, 73)) wherein the hollow insert is inserted into the sleeve.)
Singh does not appear to disclose near the middle third of the fitted bed sheet, wherein the at least one open and closable end includes hook and loop material adapted to open the close and at least one open and closable end.
However, Galloway discloses near the middle third of the fitted bed sheet, (Galloway: [0038] “In some implementations, the body positioner 120 may be centered on the sheet 102. In some implementations, the body positioner 120 may not be centered on the sheet 102.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sleeves closer to the middle area of the sheet as taught in Galloway since it has been held in In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Singh in view of Galloway does not appear to disclose wherein the at least one open and closable end includes hook and loop material adapted to open the close and at least one open and closable end.
However, Rains discloses wherein the at least one open and closable end includes hook and loop material adapted to open and close the at least one open and closable end. (Rains: FIG. 7 shows two pocket entrance covers (36) that have two ends with hook and loop material (42) attached on its peripheral that is in continuous contact with hook and loop material (46))
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ends of the compartment of Singh to have hook-and-loop fasteners as taught by Rains since such a fastener is a well-known equivalent and is of “similar kinds of closures” which is mentioned in Singh in which one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as a predictable result. See MPEP 2144.06 II with regards to substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose.
Regarding claim 5,
Singh in view of Galloway in view of Rains discloses the invention of claim 1, the at least one open and closable end is adapted to receive bumper padding material and to be closed with the hook and loop material when the bumper padding material is contained within the overlay material representing the compartment. (Singh: FIG. 5 shows the bumper padding material being inserted therein.)
Regarding claim 18,
Singh in view of Galloway discloses a mattress covering, comprising: a mattress cover provided in the form of a fitted bed sheet; (Singh: FIG. 1 (21)) a compartment sewn onto the middle third area of the fitted bed sheet (Singh: FIG. 3 (35, 37) see col. 4 lines 9-14 “Safety sheet 21 may include a pair of sleeves 35 and 37 which are illustrated as empty in FIG. 1. Sleeve 35 may be attached to the top of main surface 23 adjacent first side 31 by a single seam 41 in order to avoid stressing the material of the sheet itself upon insertion of a stiffening object into the sleeve 35.” See also col. 3 lines 21-24 “The lines of stitching join the pockets to the sheet along the outer edges of the pocket material, as illustrated schematically by the stitch lines 35 and 36 in FIG. 3” Wherein the sleeves themselves are made of material and are separate from the safety sheet 21.) in a U-shape by an overlay material sewn over the fitted bed sheet, (Singh: FIG. 5 the interior of (35, 37, 65, 73) may be interpreted as compartments. The examiner notes that any three adjacent compartments may be collectively referred to as a compartment, forms a U-shape all of which would otherwise form a “cuddle zone”) said compartment having two open and closable ends adapted to receive bumper padding material, (Singh: col. 4 lines 20-25 “First ends 45 and 51 may be open as shown or may include flaps or other closures; likewise, second ends 47 and 53 may be open, closed, or closeable using flaps, snaps, ties or other similar kinds of closures (similarly not shown).”) wherein bumper padding can be integrated into the compartment in at least one of the two open and closable ends to create a cuddle zone … in a U-shape above the mattress covering within an area defined by the compartment within the U-shape; (Singh: FIG. 3) … and hook and loop material included at the two open and closable ends adapted to open and close the two open and closable ends; wherein bumper padding material integrable into the compartment formed on the mattress cover. (Singh: FIG. 5 shows inserts (55, 61, 71, 73) all integrated within the compartment(s))
Singh does not appear to disclose on the middle third of the fitted bed sheet,.. to create a cuddle zone with an area up to 12 inches wide above the mattress and hook and loop material included at the two open and closable ends adapted to open and close the two open and closable ends.
However, Galloway discloses on the middle third of the fitted bed sheet, (Galloway: [0038] “In some implementations, the body positioner 120 may be centered on the sheet 102. In some implementations, the body positioner 120 may not be centered on the sheet 102.”)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sleeves closer to the middle area of the sheet as taught in Galloway since it has been held in In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Singh in view of Galloway does not appear to disclose to create a cuddle zone with an area up to 12 inches wide above the mattress covering within an area defined by the compartment… and hook and loop material included at the two open and closable ends adapted to open and close the two open and closable ends.
However, it has been held in In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, both prior arts are designed to support an infant therefore it would be obvious to modify the dimensions to be 12 inches to accommodate most infant sizes.
Rains discloses and hook and loop material included at the two open and closable ends adapted to open and close the two open and closable ends. (Rains: FIG. 7 shows two pocket entrance covers (36) that have two ends with hook and loop material (42) attached on its peripheral that is in continuous contact with hook and loop material (46))
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ends of the compartment of Singh to have hook-and-loop fasteners as taught by Rains since such a fastener is a well-known equivalent and is of “similar kinds of closures” which is mentioned in Singh in which one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as a predictable result. See MPEP 2144.06 II with regards to substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose.
Regarding claim 19,
Singh in view of Galloway in view of Rains discloses the invention of claim 18, further comprising bumper padding material integrable into the compartment formed on the fitted bed sheet. (Singh: FIG. 5 shows inserts (55, 61, 71, 73) all integrated within the compartment(s))
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C ORTIZ whose telephone number is (303)297-4378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-3:30 pm.
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 C. 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.
/ADAM C ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673