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.
Claim(s) 15-18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eum (KR 20190043298).
Regarding Claim 15, Eum discloses an adjustable support pillow (intended usage), comprising: a pair of fabric sheets (11 and1 2) cut from a cutting apparatus equipped with computerized controls to cut one or more of the pair of fabric sheets (product-by-process), wherein the pair of fabric sheets includes a first rectangular fabric sheet (11) and a second rectangular fabric sheet (12), wherein the first rectangular fabric sheet has a first and a third side having a length, and a second and a fourth side having a width, wherein the second rectangular fabric sheet is dimensioned in accordance with the length and the width (see Fig. 1), a plurality of pockets (31) configured to contain particles of a filling material (50), wherein the plurality of pockets are created via a sewing device by directly joining (via 20) the pair of fabric sheets along a pattern (product-by-process), wherein the plurality of pockets is formed along multiple longitudinal marks on the first rectangular fabric sheet from the second to the fourth side of the first rectangular fabric sheet, and along multiple transverse marks on the first rectangular fabric sheet from the first to the third side of the first rectangular fabric sheet (see transverse and longitudinal boundary lines shown by dotted lines in Fig. 1), wherein the sewing device sews along a bottommost unenclosed transverse mark and also along the multiple longitudinal marks up until the multiple longitudinal marks intersect the bottommost unenclosed transverse mark (see 40 along perimeter and shown in-section in Fig. 2); and the particles of the filling material configured to be inserted into each pocket of the plurality of pockets (see Fig. 2) subsequent to the plurality of pockets being formed (product-by-process limitation) , via a filling system (product-by-process) that ensures even distribution within each pocket of the plurality of pockets (see Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the sewing device is further employed, after the particles of the filling material is inserted (product-by-process), to join all four corresponding sides of the pair of fabric sheets, wherein, after all four corresponding sides (see “Closure member 40 closes the edges of the blanket fabric 10” ) of the pair of fabric sheets are joined, wherein the pair of fabric sheets is foldable to align one segment of the pair of fabric sheets beneath another segment of the pair of fabric sheets to hold the segments of the pair of fabric sheets in a folded configuration (the blanket is foldable). “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” [citations omitted] See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 16, the filling system in claim 15 is only claimed as part of a product-by-process limitation and imparts no structure to the claimed “adjustable support pillow”. Therefore, limitations directed toward the filling system are afforded no patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 17, Eum discloses wherein the pattern is configured in a grid or rounded or triangular shape (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Eum discloses wherein the pair of fabric sheets are made of cotton, polyester, linen, bamboo, silk, microfiber, satin, nylon, spandex, and/or a nylon/spandex blend (see “The upper fabric 11 and the lower fabric 12 may both be fabric fabrics of dense woven fabric with a density of 300 t or more, or may include fabrics of microfiber material.”
Regarding Claim 21, Eum discloses wherein the sewing device is configured to form the plurality of pockets by stitching across a plurality of intersecting grid lines formed by the multiple first longitudinal marks and the multiple transverse marks (see Fig. 1), and wherein each pocket is fully enclosed (see Fig. 2).
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) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eum (KR 20190043298)).
Regarding Claim 19, Eum fails to disclose the use of an overlock stitch. Examiner takes Official Notice that overlock stitches are well-known within the art. See “ISO 4915” Class 500 stitch types. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use an overlock stitch as required by Claim 19. The motivation to use an overlock stitch would be to prevent fraying.
Regarding Claim 20, Eum fails to disclose wherein the filling material includes one or more of memory foam, cork, cotton, latex, polyester fiber fill, and/or microbeads of polyfoam. Examiner takes Official Notice that such filling material listed in Claim 20 are well-known within the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed use any of the aforementioned materials. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Applicant has overcome previous rejections under 35 USC 112 in the Office Action mailed September 2nd, 2025. Reasons for allowance are detailed in the aforementioned Office Action.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15-21 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