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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the prior 112(b) rejection for claim 3, applicant’s statement on the record in view of the specification has overcome the rejection. See below regarding a new 112(b) rejection necessitated by amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/25, with the exception of the 112(b) argument note above, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant asserts that Vogel fails to disclose the amended claim. Applicant is incorrect. See the rejection below for details. Applicant argues that Voegel does not disclose an elongate tubular pillow because the reference shows a u-shaped pillow. The two are not mutually exclusive, however. The u-shaped pillow shown is elongate and it is tubular. The claim language does not prevent the shape from having a curve such as a U. Further, the reference discloses other shapes which are also elongate and tubular as shown in the rejection below. Applicant points to figure 1 of the reference to assert that “the U-shaped pillow contacts the blanket at all points of the pillow,” rather than at only one end. Figure 1 does not depict what applicant describes. Further, the rejection refers to the depiction in figures 7-10, not figure 1. Each blanket is at one end. Note that the end may be a portion / region / area. There is nothing which requires the end to be solely a particular point, for example. The reference depicts and describes the two ends with a gap in the middle. Each blanket is coupled to only one end as shown and described. The claim language is therefore met. See the rejection below for details.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 12 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a pillow portion for receiving a pillow” followed by “wherein said pillow portion comprises a pillow...” It is unclear how the pillow portion can be for receiving a pillow while also comprising the pillow itself. The claim appears to recite that a pillow portion comprising a pillow is for receiving a pillow / that a portion which is for receiving a pillow also comprises the pillow, which is unclear and does not seem to make logical sense. The claim is therefore indefinite. Any and all claims rejected below are rejected as best understood.
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) 1-3 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Voegel (US PG Pub. No. 20230414015).
Re Claim 1
Voegel discloses:
A combination pillow and blanket (10) comprising:
a pillow portion (12 in combination with 14) for receiving a pillow (note that 14 may comprise a pillow as necessary under the BRI; further, this recitation is mere intended use and does not positively recite or require a pillow; 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 said pillow portion comprises a first end and a second end (first end proximate to 40);
a blanket only coupled to said first end of said pillow portion (first end being the left side in fig. 9 and the blanket being 40; see also figs. 7-8 and 10);
wherein said pillow portion (12 in combination with 14) comprises a pillow (14), and wherein said pillow is elongated and tubular (see figs. 7-10, elongated tubular shape curved as a U; further, see paragraph [0021] regarding other shapes which are also elongated and tubular such as rectangular prism, annular, and cylindrical).
Re Claim 2
Voegel discloses:
wherein said pillow portion and said blanket comprise the same material ([0037]).
Re Claim 3
Voegel discloses:
wherein said pillow portion and said blanket are permanently coupled ([0028]).
Re Claim 5
Voegel discloses:
wherein said pillow portion further comprises a pillow insert (36) for inserting said pillow (this recitation is mere intended use and does not positively recite or require a pillow; 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).).
Re Claims, 6, 7, and 8
Voegel discloses:
wherein said pillow portion further comprises a pocket (38).
wherein a portion of said blanket is stored within said pocket ([0029]; see all figs.).
wherein said blanket is stored within said pocket ([0029]; see all figs.).
Re Claim 9
Voegel discloses:
further comprising a second blanket coupled to said second end of said pillow portion (second end being the right side in fig. 9 and the second blanket being 42; see also figs. 7-8 and 10).
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) 4, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voegel (US PG Pub. No. 20230414015).
Re Claim 4
Voegel discloses all claim limitations, see above, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein said pillow portion and said blanket are temporarily coupled.
Voegel teaches sewing the blanket to the pillow portion ([0028]), stating that “the blanket 16 may be sewn into a seam of the cover 12 that extends along the radially outward side 34. Accordingly, the pillow 10 is arranged to provide improved support and comfort for a user and the pillow 10 is simpler to manufacture because the pillow 10 does not require additional fasteners to secure the blanket.” The disclosure supports and suggests the option of using other attachment means even though the preferred means is a sewn attachment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to replace the sewn coupling with a temporary coupling as suggested in the reference as a mere simple substitution (e.g. snaps, buttons, clasps, hook and loop fasteners, or a similar fastener) for the purpose of facilitating repair, maintenance, cleaning, or the preference of a user to use either portion of the apparatus (i.e. blanket vs. pillow) individually.
Re Claim 9
Claim 9 is rejected under 102 above. The claim is alternatively rejected as obvious here over Voegel. Under the BRI, it is reasonable to interpret 40 and 42 as first and second blankets. They are described in the reference as first and second sections of overall blanket 16, however. Therefore, to the extent necessary, examiner states that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to split the overall blanket into two separate elements, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177,179. Such a modification would have been obvious for the purpose of facilitating ease of manufacturing, and/or to facilitate cleaning, repair, and/or maintenance of the elements of the apparatus. The modification would yield the required “a second blanket coupled to said second end of said pillow portion” as described above; see above.
Re Claim 12
Voegel discloses all claim limitations, see above, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein said pillow portion and said blanket are integrally made from a single piece of cloth.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have the pillow portion and the blanket integrally made from a single piece of cloth, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Further, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973).
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 DAVID E SOSNOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7944. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM and 9 PM through 11:59 PM Monday through Friday, generally.
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 at (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.
/DAVID E. SOSNOWSKI/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673