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 .
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 3-13 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 3 recites the limitation "wherein the body component comprises two semi-circular support sections joined to each other in an opposing manner" while parent claim 2 requires that “the body component is a continuous, resilient structure” (emphasis added). This appears to be a contradiction as a continuous structure is unbroken or uninterrupted. Examiner is interpreting this claim as depending from Claim 1.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gil Vizuete (US 8,919,843).
Regarding Claim 1, Gil Vizuete discloses a braided hair pillow device that provides a user with a multipurpose pillow for those who wear their hair in braids, the braided hair pillow device comprising:
a body component;
wherein the body component comprises a central area (2) and tapered ends (3); wherein the body component is configured in an S-shape (see Fig. 1);
wherein the central area accommodates a user’s head and neck (intended use, see Figs. 2-6);
wherein the tapered ends accommodates a user’s braids (intended use, see Figs. 2-6); and
further wherein the tapered ends can be adjusted to allow for a comfortable position for a user sleeping with braids (intended use, see Figs. 2-6).
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 parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding Claim 2, Gil Vizuete discloses wherein the body component is a continuous, resilient structure having a distinctive S-shape but can be adjusted in other configurations as well (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3., Lines 35-37).
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) 3-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gil Vizuete (US 8,919,843).
Regarding Claim 3, Gil Vizuete fails to disclose wherein the body component comprises two semi-circular support sections joined to each other in an opposing manner, so as to create the S-shape configuration. Gil Vizuete instead discloses a body consisting of a rubber foam. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the body component out of two semi-circular support sections joined to each other in an opposing manner 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.
Regarding Claim 4, Gil Vizuete discloses a plastic cover and fails to disclose wherein an external covering of the body component comprises a smooth fabric, textile, corduroy material, or terrycloth. Examiner takes Official Notice that covers including smooth fabric, textile, corduroy material, or terrycloth are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to make an external covering of the body component out of a smooth fabric, textile, corduroy material, or terrycloth , since 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.
Regarding Claim 5, Gil Vizuete fails to disclose wherein the external covering is manufactured in different colors and designs. Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. Applicant has not established any functional relationship between the printed matter and the associated substrate (see MPEP 2111.05), therefore, the external covering manufactured in different colors and designs is owed no patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 6, Gil Vizuete fails to disclose wherein the body component comprises a slipcover that allows for simple insertion or removal of the body component. Examiner takes Official Notice that slipcovers are well-known within the prior art (see e.g. Leach US 6,499,164 #38). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Gil Vizuete with a slipcover. The motivation would have been to provide a cover that is easily removable and washable, thus increasing convenience.
Regarding Claim 7, Gil Vizuete fails to disclose wherein the braided hair pillow device is manufactured in different sizes. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the device if Gil Vizuete in different sizes, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). One of ordinary skill would manufacture Gil Vizuete in different sizes to accommodate different sized users.
Regarding Claim 8, Gil Vizuete fails to disclose wherein the body component comprises a plurality of indicia. Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. Applicant has not established any functional relationship between the printed matter and the associated substrate (see MPEP 2111.05), therefore, the body component comprising a plurality of indicia is owed no patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 9, Gil Vizuete discloses wherein the central area is a generally enlarged, flexible area that acts to support a user’s head and neck (see Figs. 1-6).
Regarding Claim 10, Gil Vizuete discloses wherein the central area descends in size and shape as it spirals in opposite directions, away from the central area, and terminating in opposing tapered ends (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Gil Vizuete discloses wherein the opposing tapered ends can be adjusted in multiple ways to support a user’s braids (intended use, see Figs. 2-6).
Regarding Claim 12, Gil Vizuete discloses wherein the opposing tapered ends are brought in close proximity to each other to form a C-shape configuration (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Gil Vizuete discloses wherein the body component is manufactured of a rubber foam instead of a polyurethane or closed-cell foam for flexibility. Examiner takes Official Notice that cushions made of polyurethane or closed-cell foam are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to make an external covering of the body component out of a polyurethane or closed-cell foam , since 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.
Regarding Claim 14, Gil Vizuete as modified in the rejection of Claim 3 teaches a braided hair pillow device that provides a user with a multipurpose pillow for those who wear their hair in braids, the braided hair pillow device comprising:
a body component shaped in an S-shape configuration (see Fig. 1);
wherein the body component comprises a central area ( 2) and opposing tapered ends (3);
wherein the body component comprises two semi-circular support sections joined to each other in an opposing manner (see claim 3 rejection), so as to create the S-shape configuration (see Fig. 1);
wherein the body component is configured in the S-shape configuration but can be adjusted in other configurations as well (see Figs. 2-6);
wherein the central area is a generally enlarged, flexible area that acts to support a user’s head and neck (see Figs. 2-6);
wherein the central area descends in size and shape as it spirals in opposite directions, away from the central area, and terminating in opposing tapered ends (see Fig. 1); and
further wherein the opposing tapered ends can be adjusted in multiple ways to support a user’s braids (intended use, see Figs. 2-6).
Regarding Claim 15, see claim 12 rejection above.
Regarding Claim 16, see claim 13 rejection above.
Regarding Claim 17, Gil Vizuete discloses wherein the body component is of a specific material and firmness (“highly resistant and adjustable rubber foam”), such that it is not crushed or flattened when it is bent and can be re-shaped into the S-shape configuration (see Figs. 1-6).
Regarding Claim 18, see claim 4 rejection above.
Regarding Claim 19, see claim 6 rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 20 requires a specific method of using the braided hair pillow device not disclosed in the prior art of record. The prior art further fails to suggest the method of use, therefore the claim is novel and unobvious in view of the prior art of record.
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.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
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