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 .
Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Decision
Upon closer review of Applicant’s claim amendments, the Examiner recognizes that she did not appreciate that the “rear bottom curvature region” and the “front bottom curvature region” each encompass an angle of at least 80 degrees in the side elevational view. The concave shape of the inner support surface is viewed from a front or rear end elevational view, while the front and rear bottom curvature regions are viewed from the side elevational view. This action is made non-final and the finality of the office action dated October 28, 2025 is withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the acute angles between the beveled bottom surface and the front and rear planar bottom surfaces as required by claims 22 and 23 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 22 and 23 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.
Claim 22 and 23 recite the beveled bottom surface comprising a “continuous surface oriented at an acute angle larger than 45 degrees relative to the front and rear planar bottom surfaces.” Applicant’s originally filed disclosure makes no reference to the word “acute.” A review of the Figures seems to disclose a beveled bottom surface (414) that forms an obtuse angle, larger than 90 degrees, with the bottom surface (412) and an obtuse angle, larger than 90 degrees, with the bottom surface (416). Clarification is required. See labelled Figure 4 below to help explain the Examiner’s position.
PNG
media_image1.png
303
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 2-3, 7-11, 13 and 20 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.
The following words/phrases lack sufficient antecedent basis:
the bottom side surface (claim 2, line 3)
front top curvature region (claim 13, line 2)
the beveled bottom surface (claim 20, line 7)
Claim 13 recites the phrase “a front lip top surface” in line 3. This claim limitation is already recited in claim 1, lines 22-23. If Applicant is referring to the same limitation in claim 13, the phrase should be amended to read - - the front lip top surface - -.
Claims not specifically addressed are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 12, 14-19 and 21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claims 1 and 19, the prior art of record neither singly or in obvious combination discloses a side pillow support device comprising: a bottom surface having a front planar bottom surface and a rear planar bottom surface separated by a beveled bottom surface wherein the rear planar bottom surface is entirely disposed above the front planar bottom surface; the rear bottom planar surface disposed between the beveled bottom surface and a rear bottom curvature region wherein the rear bottom curvature region encompasses an angle of at least 80 degrees in a side elevational view; the front planar bottom surface is disposed between the beveled bottom surface and a front bottom curvature region that encompasses an angle of at leas 80 degrees in the side elevational view, the front planar bottom surface terminates into a front lip; and an inner support surface disposed between left and right side cushions wherein a backside curvature region terminates into the inner support surface, the inner support surface comprises a concave shape that terminates in a front lip top surface and the concave shape is inclined relative to the front lip top surface.
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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed on December 30, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 obviousness rejections over Schlieps in view of Temple and Schlieps in view of Temple in further view of Dayton are persuasive. Upon further review of the claim language the Examiner noted above that the rear bottom curvature and front bottom curvature regions encompassing angles of at least 80 degrees in the side elevational view was not appreciated at the time of the FINAL office action. This action is made NON-FINAL and the finality of the October 28, 2025 office action has been withdrawn. No prior art rejections stand against the claims.
With respect to the 112 (a) rejection of claims 22 and 23, Applicant argues that the examiner takes an unnaturally narrow interpretation of the claim element “acute angle larger than 45 degrees.” Applicant further notes that the unnaturally narrow view is because the Examiner has a desire not to provide examination analysis of the contents of the claims. The Examiner maintains that claim 22 and 23 are not supported by Applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Applicant’s annotated Figure has been included below.
PNG
media_image2.png
232
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant has labeled an acute angle measured from the beveled surface to a dashed line extending into the body of the cushion. The dashed line extending in the body of the cushion is coincident with the rear planar bottom surface. Applicant has similarly labeled an acute angle measured from the beveled surface to a second dashed line extending outward into space and coincident with the front planar bottom surface. The claim language reads “the beveled bottom surface comprises a continuous surface oriented at an acute angle larger than 45 degrees relative to the front and rear planar bottom surfaces.” The dashed lines drawn by Applicant are not the front and rear planar bottom surfaces. They are not surfaces as all. The Examiner maintains that Applicant’s disclosure does not have support for “an acute angle larger than 45 degrees” between the beveled bottom surface comprising a continuous surface and the front and rear planar bottom surfaces. As noted above by the Examiner’s annotations, the angle between the beveled surface and the rear planar surface, as required by the claim language, is obtuse and the angle between the beveled surface and the front planar surface is also obtuse. Applicant’s dashed lines in his annotation do not equate to the front and rear planar surfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH B. MCPARTLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6854. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/SARAH B MCPARTLIN/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993