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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments that none of the cited references teaches an “elongated substantially cylindrically-shaped body cushion” – the combination of Taylor et al. and Stronconi does in fact teach this shape/structure (see below rejection).
With regards to claim 5’s amended limitation “…further comprises a support web” – paragraph (0032) recites “the support grid 40 comprises a hexagonal grid.” Paragraph (0033) then recites “Such a support grid 40 may be referred to as a ‘support web’”. The support web and hexagonal grid are the same member. Thus, the disclosure does not support claim 5 wherein “the support grid further comprises a support web”.
With regards to claim 17’s amended limitation “shredded elastomeric gel” – the specification (0040) recites “…pieces of shredded material 374 such as foam or a gel (e.g. a gel elastomer) (alone or in combination with shredded foam).” The disclosure does not describe a fill of “shredded elastomeric gel”.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 4/20/2021 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 29/779639, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Application 29/779639 fails to provide support for at least claim 1 of the instant application, i.e. an outer fabric layer, a support grid, and a primary cushion. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
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 5 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. The originally filed disclosure fails to describe a support grid that comprises both a hexagonal grid (claim 4) and a support web (claim 5). Paragraph (0032) recites “the support grid 40 comprises a hexagonal grid.” Paragraph (0033) then recites “Such a support grid 40 may be referred to as a ‘support web’”. The support web and hexagonal grid are the same member. Thus, the disclosure does not support claim 5 wherein “the support grid further comprises a support web”. Accordingly claim 5 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 17 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. The originally filed disclosure fails to describe wherein the primary cushion comprises shredded elastomeric gel. The specification (0040) recites “…pieces of shredded material 374 such as foam or a gel (e.g. a gel elastomer) (alone or in combination with shredded foam).” The disclosure does not describe a fill of “shredded elastomeric gel”. Accordingly claim 17 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 4 recites “wherein the support grid comprises a hexagonal grid” and dependent claim 5 recites “wherein the support grid further comprises a support web”. As noted above, it is unclear how the support grid comprises both a hexagonal grid and a support web. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is 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 17 requires a loose fill cushion comprising shredded elastomeric gel. Because “gel” is not a solid, it is unclear how a gel can be “shredded.” Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-15 and 20 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US 2020/0390247) in view Stronconi (US 2013/0119716). Taylor et al. disclose an elongated body cushion, comprising: a cover including: an outer fabric layer (42, 62) including an inner surface defining an interior of the cover and an outer surface defining major surfaces of an exterior of the cover; a support grid (50, 70) adjacent to the inner surface of the fabric layer and extending across substantially an entirety of the inner surface, the support grid comprising a plurality of walls each with a height and a width, wherein the height does not substantially exceed the width such that the support grid bulges under a load (0030, figure 2); and a primary cushion (100) within the interior of the cover. Taylor et al. also teaches that the support grid may be relatively thin (0030). However, assuming arguendo that Taylor et al. do not teach wherein the plurality of walls have a height that does not substantially exceed the width, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the support grid as such since such modification would have involved in a mere change in the size of a component. The motivation would have been to provide a thinner pillow/cushion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Taylor et al. as specified in claim 1. Furthermore, while Taylor et al. teach that the cushion can be of any shape (para. 0035), Taylor et al. is silent to the cushion being cylindrically-shaped and the cover including peripheral fabric layers. Nonetheless, Stronconi teaches a cylindrical cushion with fabric cover (22) including peripheral fabric layer joined to edges of the outer fabric layer and defining ends and/or a periphery of the cover (e.g. figure 3). Taylor et al. and Stronconi are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. pillows/cushions. It would have been obvious to modify Taylor et al.’s cushion and cover to be cylindrical. The motivation would have been to provide a more comfortable pillow, based on user preference. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Taylor et al.’s pillow/cover as specified in claims 1-2.
With regards to claim 3, the outer fabric layer has a cylindrical shape; and the peripheral fabric layer is located at ends of the cylindrical shape (Stronconi: figure 3).
In regards to claim 4, the support grid comprises a hexagonal grid (Taylor: para. 0031).
With regards to claim 5, the support grid comprises a support web (Taylor: para. 0031).
Regarding claim 6, a central thickness of the support grid at locations between the ends of the cylindrical shape exceeds an end thickness of the support grid at locations adjacent to the ends of the cylindrical shape (Taylor: para. 0043)
With regards to claim 7, the cover further includes an inner fabric layer (Taylor: 46, 66) within the interior of the cover, on an opposite side of the support grid from the outer fabric layer and defining a receptacle of the cover that receives the primary cushion.
Regarding claim 8, a material of the support grid impregnates the outer fabric layer (Taylor: para. 0044).
In regards to claim 9, a material of the support grid impregnates the outer fabric layer (Taylor: para. 0044).
In regards to claim 10, the support grid comprises a hexagonal grid (Taylor: para. 0031).
With regards to claim 11, flat sides of hexagons of the hexagonal grid are aligned with sides of the elongated body cushion (Taylor: fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 12, the support grid comprises a support web (Taylor: para. 0031).
With regards to claim 13, the primary cushion comprises one of a foam cushion, a gel cushion, a loose fill cushion, and a fiberfill cushion (Taylor: para. 0037).
Regarding claim 14, the primary cushion is a foam cushion and comprises a latex pillow or a memory foam pillow (Taylor: para. 0037).
With regards to claim 15, the primary cushion is a gel cushion and comprises an array of buckling columns (Taylor: para. 0037).
Regarding claim 20, the primary cushion comprises one of a body pillow, a neck roll pillow, a lumbar pillow or a back pillow, a knee pillow, an orthopedic pillow, and a sleeping pillow.
Claim(s) 16-19 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US 2020/0390247) in view Stronconi (US 2013/0119716), and in further view of Dorsey (US 2021/0361093). Taylor et al. as modified, does not teach wherein the primary cushion is a loose fill or fiberfill cushion. Dorsey teaches that it is known to fill pillows/cushions using shredded foam, shredded elastomeric gel, feathers, down, microbeads, cotton and/or polyester fiberfill (para. 0029). Taylor et al. and Dorsey are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. pillows/cushions. It would have been obvious to modify Taylor et al.’s primary cushion to comprise shredded gel, down, feathers, microbeads, or cotton or polyester fiberfill. The motivation would have been to provide a more comfortable pillow, based on user preference. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Taylor et al.’s pillow as specified in claims 16-19.
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 JONATHAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8227. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thurs, 6-6.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights