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 .
Claims 1-16 and 18-22 are pending in the application. No canceled claims presented. Claims 22 is newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to have support for the claim limitation “wherein each lateral flap of the pair of later flaps extending on further than a longitudinal midpoint of the sheet portion”. Applicant’s drawings and specification do not appear to support this limitation. It appears in Applicants fig.2 & 8 that the length of the lateral flap of the pair of lateral flaps do in fact extend further than a longitudinal midpoint of the sheet portion”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4-12, 14 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication US2014/0189952A1 hereinafter referred to as Crispino in view of US Patent 5,333,769 hereinafter referred to as Skroski further in view of US Patent Publication US 2010/0275373A1 hereinafter referred to as Kaplan.
Re-claim 1
Crispino discloses a bottom sheet 101 fig.4 adapted to be secured to a sleeping pad 9 fig.29, the bottom sheet comprising: a sheet portion 123, 124,126, 127 gig.7/ 159 fig.10 adapted to underlie a user and configured for releasably coupling to the sleeping pad [0090 “In step 227, a gathering seam 159 stitching the gathering means 122 to the free edges 128 and 129 of the side panels 124 and 125 and the other free edges of panels 123, 126 to join these and form a perimeter. … Alternatively, in step 227, a gathering seam 159 can stitch an elastic ribbon to the free edges of the side(s) at each corner to secure the lower layer assembly 120 to the mattress 9.”], the sheet position having a longitudinally extending length (see fig.10); a pair of lateral flaps 103 fig.4 connected to the sheet portion in spaced relationship such that one lateral flap is spaced laterally from the other lateral flap, each lateral flap of the pair of lateral flaps having a longitudinally extending length less than the longitudinally extending length of the sheet portion (see fig.2).
However does not discloses at least one strap connected to the sheet portion and arranged to pass underneath the sleeping pad, the at least one strap being positioned along the longitudinal length of the sheet portion so as to be located within the longitudinal span of each lateral flap of the pair of lateral flaps to prevent tension on the lateral flaps from pulling the sheet portion off of the sleeping pad as the user moves around; and a hood having a transverse hood segment and a pair of lateral hood segments, the hood being selectively arrangeable between a first position wherein the hood surrounds the user's head and shoulders, and a second position wherein the hood is folded down as a pillow for the user's head, wherein each of the lateral hood segments of the hood are integral with a respective one of the lateral flaps.
Skroski teaches a bottom sheet 13, 18 fig.2 adapted to be secured to a sleeping pad 52 fig.5, the bottom sheet comprising: a sheet portion 13, 18, a pair of lateral flaps 14, 15 fig.2 connected to the sheet portion and a hood 17 fig.2 having a transverse hood segment and a pair of lateral hood segments, the hood being selectively arrangeable between a first position wherein the hood surrounds the user's head and shoulders, and a second position wherein the hood is folded down as a pillow for the user's head (Examiner notes the claimed first and second position of the hood is based on a intended use of the hood. The structure and structural arrangement does not change between the first and second positions. Only change is to how the hood structure is being used. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).), wherein each of the lateral hood segments of the hood are integral with a respective one of the lateral flaps (see fig.2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the sleeping arrangement of Crispino and the sleeping bag Skroski having a hood and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a sleeping arrangement having a hood. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of enclosing the users head and preventing inadvertent movement as taught in Skroski [column 4 lines 15-20].
Kaplan teaches a bottom sheet 222 fig.11/14 fig.19 adapted to be secured to a sleeping pad 24 fig.19, the bottom sheet comprising: a sheet portion 226 fig.11/ 14, at least one strap 22a, 22b, 22c fig.19/ 232 fig.10 connected to the sheet portion and arranged to pass underneath the sleeping pad [0059 “The sheet straps 232 are configured to be secured together around a sleeping surface.” 0068 “Three elastic straps 22a, 22b, and 22c keep side edges of the fitted sheet 14 secured to the mattress.”], the at least one strap being positioned along the longitudinal length of the sheet portion(see fig.10 & 19).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the sleeping arrangement of Crispino and the sleeping arrangement of Kaplan having at least one strap and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a sleeping arrangement having at least one strap. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of keep side edges of the sheet portion secured to the sleeping pad as taught in Kaplan [0068].
Crispino as modified by Skroski and Kaplan above discloses the claimed invention except for the at least one strap being positioned so as to be located within the longitudinal span of each lateral flap of the pair of lateral flaps to prevent tension on the lateral flaps from pulling the sheet portion off of the sleeping pad as the user moves around. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the at least one strap at a location within the longitudinal span of each lateral flap of the pair of lateral flaps, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Re-Claim 4
Crispino as modified by Skroski and Kaplan above discloses,
Crispino discloses wherein each flap of the pair of lateral flaps is sewn 151 fig.16 to the sheet portion (see fig.16 and 17 attached via panels 136, 137).
Re-Claim 5
Crispino as modified by Skroski and Kaplan above discloses,
Crispino discloses wherein each flap of the pair of lateral flaps has a medial edge and a lateral edge, the distance between the medial edge and the lateral edge defining a flap width (see fig.14 & 16).
Re-Claim 6
Crispino as modified by Skroski and Kaplan above discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the width is equal to or greater than 4 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the width of the flap to be equal or greater than 4 inches, 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. Such a value would provide enough space to the occupant to move and reposition.
Re-Claim 7
Crispino as modified by Skroski and Kaplan above discloses,
Crispino discloses wherein the lateral edge of each flap of the pair of lateral flaps includes a zipper element 143, 144 fig.14 & 15.
Re-Claim 8
Crispino discloses a bottom sheet 101 fig.4 adapted to be secured to a sleeping pad 9 fig.29, the bottom sheet comprising: a sheet portion 123, 124,126, 127 gig.7/ 159 fig.10 defining a top and an opposite bottom, the sheet portion including at least one fastener 112 fig.10; wherein the at least one fastener is adapted to releasably couple the sheet portion to the sleeping pad [0090 “In step 227, a gathering seam 159 stitching the gathering means 122 to the free edges 128 and 129 of the side panels 124 and 125 and the other free edges of panels 123, 126 to join these and form a perimeter. … Alternatively, in step 227, a gathering seam 159 can stitch an elastic ribbon to the free edges of the side(s) at each corner to secure the lower layer assembly 120 to the mattress 9.”], the sheet position having a longitudinally extending length (see fig.10); a first lateral flap 103 fig.4 attached to the sheet portion, the first lateral flap including a first lateral edge and a first fastening disposed along the first lateral edge (see fig.4 & 5A); a second lateral flap 103 fig.4 attached to the sheet portion in a spaced relationship from the first lateral flap, the second lateral flap including a second lateral edge and a second fastening disposed along the second lateral edge (see fig.4 & 5A); wherein each of the first lateral flap and the second lateral flap have a longitudinally extending length less than the longitudinally extending length of the sheet portion (see fig.2).
However does not discloses at least one strap connected to the sheet portion and arranged to pass underneath the sleeping pad, the at least one strap being positioned along the longitudinal length of the sheet portion so as to be located within the longitudinal span of each lateral flap of the pair of lateral flaps to prevent tension on the lateral flaps from pulling the sheet portion off of the sleeping pad as the user moves around or a hood attached to the sheet portion, the hood including a transverse hood segment and a pair of lateral hood segments, wherein the first lateral flap is integrally formed with one of the lateral hood segments and the second lateral flap is integrally formed with the other one of the lateral hood segments.
Skroski teaches a bottom sheet 13, 18 fig.2 adapted to be secured to a sleeping pad 52 fig.5, the bottom sheet comprising: a sheet portion 13, 18, a pair of lateral flaps 14, 15 fig.2 connected to the sheet portion and a hood 17 fig.2 attached to the sheet portion, the hood including a transverse hood segment and a pair of lateral hood segments (see fig.2), wherein the first lateral flap is integrally formed with one of the lateral hood segments and the second lateral flap is integrally formed with the other one of the lateral hood segments (see fig.2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the sleeping arrangement of Crispino and the sleeping bag Skroski having a hood and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a sleeping arrangement having a hood. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of enclosing the users head and preventing inadvertent movement as taught in Skroski [column 4 lines 15-20].
Kaplan teaches a bottom sheet 222 fig.11/14 fig.19 adapted to be secured to a sleeping pad 24 fig.19, the bottom sheet comprising: a sheet portion 226 fig.11/ 14, at least one strap 22a, 22b, 22c fig.19/ 232 fig.10 connected to the sheet portion and arranged to pass underneath the sleeping pad [0059 “The sheet straps 232 are configured to be secured together around a sleeping surface.” 0068 “Three elastic straps 22a, 22b, and 22c keep side edges of the fitted sheet 14 secured to the mattress.”], the at least one strap being positioned along the longitudinal length of the sheet portion(see fig.10 & 19).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the sleeping arrangement of Crispino and the sleeping arrangement of Kaplan having at least one strap and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a sleeping arrangement having at least one strap. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of keep side edges of the sheet portion secured to the sleeping pad as taught in Kaplan [0068].
Crispino as modified by Skroski and Kaplan above discloses the claimed invention except for the at least one strap being positioned so as to be located within the longitudinal span of each lateral flap of the pair of lateral flaps to prevent tension on the lateral flaps from pulling the sheet portion off of the sleeping pad as the user moves around. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the at least one strap at a location within the longitudinal span of each lateral flap of the pair of lateral flaps, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Re-Claim 9
Crispino as modified by Skroski and Kaplan above discloses,
Crispino discloses wherein each flap of the pair of lateral flaps is sewn 151 fig.16 to the sheet portion (see fig.16 and 17 attached via panels 136, 137).
Re-Claim 10
Crispino as modified by Skroski and Kaplan above discloses,
Crispino discloses wherein each of the first lateral flap and the second lateral flap has a medial edge and a lateral edge, the distance between the medial edge and the lateral edge defining a flap width (see fig.14 & 16).
Re-Claim 11
Crispino as modified by Skroski and Kaplan above discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the width is equal to or greater than 4 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the width of the flap to be equal or greater than 4 inches, 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. Such a value would provide enough space to the occupant to move and reposition.
Re-Claim 12
Crispino as modified by Skroski and Kaplan above discloses,
Crispino discloses wherein the first fastener disposed along the first lateral edge of the first lateral flap is a zipper element 143, 144 fig.14 & 15.
Re-Claim 14
Crispino as modified by Skroski and Kaplan above discloses,
Skroski discloses wherein the hood being selectively arrangeable between a first position wherein the hood surrounds the user's head and shoulders, and a second position wherein the hood is folded down as a pillow for the user's head (Examiner notes the claimed first and second position of the hood is based on a intended use of the hood. The structure and structural arrangement does not change between the first and second positions. Only change is to how the hood structure is being used. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).), wherein each of the lateral hood segments of the hood are integral with a respective one of the lateral flaps (see fig.2).
Re-Claim 22
Crispino as modified by Skroski and Kaplan above discloses the claimed invention except for wherein each lateral flap of the pair of lateral flaps extending on further than a longitudinal midpoint of the sheet portion. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to dimension the pair of lateral flaps to extend on further than a longitudinal midpoint of the sheet portion, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the relative dimensions of a component. A change is relative dimension is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held 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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 13, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crispino as modified by Skroski and Kaplan further in view of US Patent Publication US2007/0136946A1 hereinafter referred to as Haislip.
Re-claim 2
Crispino as modified by Skroski and Kaplan disclose the claimed apparatus however does not disclose wherein the sheet portion is constructed of a non-insulating material.
Haislip teaches a bottom sheet 10 fig.1 comprising: a sheet portion 10; a pair of lateral flaps (see fig.2 & 16, 17 fig.5) connected to the sheet portion and a hood 24 fig.1 & 2 wherein the sheet portion is constructed of a non-insulating material [0038 Haislip “The external shell 11 and the internal lining 12 are preferably made of 70-denier nylon, commonly known as single-ply taffeta…. The thickness of the yarn should be chosen to absorb body heat and quickly warm to body temperature, because the faster this warming occurs, the slower will be the rate of conductive heat loss from the body.”].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the sleeping arrangement of Crispino as modified above and the sleeping bag of Haislip having a layered shell arrangement and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a sleeping bag having a layered shell arrangement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of providing improved heating and warmth characteristics as taught in Haislip [0038-0040].
Re-Claim 3
Crispino as modified by Skroski , Kaplan and Haislip above discloses,
wherein each flap of the pair of lateral flaps is constructed of a thermally insulating material 13 fig.5 [0043] Haislip. “Even though insulation material 13 is described as a synthetic unbounded, silicone-coated continuous filament fiber, the multipurpose sleeping bag 10 can be made from any other suitable insulation filling.”
Re-claim 13
Crispino as modified by Skroski, Kaplan and Haislip above discloses,
Crispino as modified by Skroski and Kaplan disclose the claimed apparatus however does not disclose wherein the hood is constructed of thermally insulating material.
Haislip teaches a bottom sheet 10 fig.1 comprising: a sheet portion 10; a pair of lateral flaps (see fig.2 & 16, 17 fig.5) connected to the sheet portion and a hood 24 fig.1 & 2, wherein the hood is constructed of thermally insulating material 13 [0043] Haislip.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the sleeping arrangement of Crispino as modified above and the sleeping bag of Haislip having a layered shell arrangement and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a sleeping bag having a layered shell arrangement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of providing improved heating and warmth characteristics as taught in Haislip [0038-0040].
Re-Claim 16
Crispino as modified by Skroski, Kaplan and Haislip above discloses,
Crispino discloses a bottom sheet 101 fig.4 adapted to be secured to a sleeping pad 9 fig.29, the bottom sheet comprising: a sheet portion 123, 124,126, 127 gig.7/ 159 fig.10 configured for releasably coupling to the sleeping pad, the sheet portion having a longitudinally extending length; a first lateral flap 103 fig.4 attached to the sheet portion; a second lateral flap 103 fig.4 attached to the sheet portion in a spaced relationship from the first lateral flap; wherein each of the first lateral flap and the second lateral flap have a longitudinally extending length less than the longitudinally extending length of the sheet portion (see fig.2).
However does not disclose a thermally insulating hood attached to the non-insulating sheet portion, the hood including a transverse hood segment and a pair of lateral hood segments, the hood being selectively arrangeable between a first position wherein the hood surrounds the user's head and shoulders, and a second position wherein the hood is folded down as a pillow for the user's head, wherein the thermally insulating first lateral flap is integrally formed with one of the lateral hood segments and the thermally insulating second lateral flap is integrally formed with the other one of the lateral hood segments; at least one strap connected to the sheet portion and arranged to pass underneath the sleeping pad, the at least one strap being positioned along the longitudinal length of the sheet portion so as to be located within the longitudinal span of each lateral flap of the pair of lateral flaps to prevent tension on the lateral flaps from pulling the sheet portion off of the sleeping pad as the user moves around;
Skroski teaches a bottom sheet 13, 18 fig.2 adapted to be secured to a sleeping pad 52 fig.5, the bottom sheet comprising: a sheet portion 13, 18, a pair of lateral flaps 14, 15 fig.2 connected to the sheet portion and a hood 17 attached to the sheet portion, the hood including a transverse hood segment and a pair of lateral hood segments, the hood being selectively arrangeable between a first position wherein the hood surrounds the user's head and shoulders, and a second position wherein the hood is folded down as a pillow for the user's head (Examiner notes the claimed first and second position of the hood is based on a intended use of the hood. The structure and structural arrangement does not change between the first and second positions. Only change is to how the hood structure is being used. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).), wherein the first lateral flap is integrally formed with one of the lateral hood segments and the second lateral flap is integrally formed with the other one of the lateral hood segments (see fig.2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the sleeping arrangement of Crispino and the sleeping bag Skroski having a hood and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a sleeping arrangement having a hood. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of enclosing the users head and preventing inadvertent movement as taught in Skroski [column 4 lines 15-20].
Kaplan teaches a bottom sheet 222 fig.11/14 fig.19 adapted to be secured to a sleeping pad 24 fig.19, the bottom sheet comprising: a sheet portion 226 fig.11/ 14, at least one strap 22a, 22b, 22c fig.19/ 232 fig.10 connected to the sheet portion and arranged to pass underneath the sleeping pad [0059 “The sheet straps 232 are configured to be secured together around a sleeping surface.” 0068 “Three elastic straps 22a, 22b, and 22c keep side edges of the fitted sheet 14 secured to the mattress.”], the at least one strap being positioned along the longitudinal length of the sheet portion(see fig.10 & 19).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the sleeping arrangement of Crispino and the sleeping arrangement of Kaplan having at least one strap and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a sleeping arrangement having at least one strap. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of keep side edges of the sheet portion secured to the sleeping pad as taught in Kaplan [0068].
Crispino as modified by Skroski and Kaplan above discloses the claimed invention except for the at least one strap being positioned so as to be located within the longitudinal span of each lateral flap of the pair of lateral flaps to prevent tension on the lateral flaps from pulling the sheet portion off of the sleeping pad as the user moves around. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the at least one strap at a location within the longitudinal span of each lateral flap of the pair of lateral flaps, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Haislip teaches a bottom sheet 10 fig.1 comprising: a non-insulating sheet portion 11; a thermally insulating first lateral flap 13, 16 fig.5; a thermally insulating second lateral flap 17, 13 fig.5 and a thermally insulating hood 24, 13 fig.3 & 5.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the sleeping arrangement of Crispino and the sleeping bag of Haislip having a layered shell arrangement and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a sleeping bag having a layered shell arrangement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of providing improved heating and warmth characteristics as taught in Haislip [0038-0040].
Re-Claim 18
Crispino as modified by Skroski, Kaplan and Haislip above discloses,
wherein the longitudinally extending length of the sheet portion 13, 18, 20 fig.2 Skroski/ see fig.5A Crispino is about twice the longitudinally extending length of each of the thermally insulating first lateral flap and the thermally insulating second lateral flap (see fig.5 Haislip & fig.2 Skroski).
Re-Claim 19
Crispino as modified by Skroski, Kaplan and Haislip above discloses,
combination with the sleeping pad 52 fig.4 & 5 Skroski/ 9 fig.30 Crispino.
Re-Claim 20
Crispino as modified by Skroski, Kaplan and Haislip above discloses,
combination with a top cover 20 fig.2 Skroski/102 fig.4 Crispino.
Re-Claim 21
Crispino as modified by Skroski, Kaplan and Haislip above discloses,
wherein the top cover is configured for selectively engagement with each of the thermally insulated first lateral flap and the thermally insulated second lateral flap (via zipper 24, 25 fig.1 & 2 Skroski/ 104 fig.5A Crispino).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crispino as modified by Skroski and Kaplan further in view of US Patent Publication US2017/0020311A1 hereinafter referred to as Dubois.
Re-Claim 15
Crispino as modified by Skroski and Kaplan above discloses the claimed apparatus however does not disclose the bottom sheet in combination with a pillow positioned within the hood.
Dubois teaches a sheet portion 22 fig.7, a pair of flaps 17, 31 fig.7 and a hood 34 fig.7; wherein the bottom sheet is in combination with a pillow positioned within the hood [0031].
“The hood 34 is configured to receive a pillow and/or the head of the user.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the sleeping arrangement of Crispino as modified above and the sleeping bag of Dubois in combination with a pillow positioned within the hood and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a sleeping bag in combination with a pillow. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of supporting the head of the user as taught in Dubois [0031].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 and 18-21 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 IFEOLU A ADEBOYEJO whose telephone number is (571)270-3072. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10AM-5PM EST.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/IFEOLU A ADEBOYEJO/Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights