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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Please change “have” in line 2 of the claim to —having—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Please change “pillows” in line 1 of the claim to —pillow—. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4, 8, and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prince (US 2022/0395109).
Regarding Claim 1, Prince discloses a pillow (300), comprising: a body have a top, a bottom, and a plurality of sides, wherein at least a portion of the body is formed by a 3 dimensional (3D) printed matrix (see Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding Claim 2, Prince discloses wherein the 3D printed matrix is formed by a plurality of cells, each cell of the plurality of cells having a plurality of struts and nodes interconnecting the struts (see Figs. 3 and 4 and para. [0044]).
Regarding Claim 3, Prince discloses wherein one or more regions of the pillow has a construction characteristic different from a construction characteristic of one or more other regions of the pillow (“variable density lattice structure”, see para. [0044], and claim 4 of Prince) .
Regarding Claim 4, Prince discloses wherein one of the one or more regions is a central region (see Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Prince discloses wherein one of the one or more regions is other than a central region (see para. [0044] and Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding Claim 11, Prince discloses wherein an entirety of the body is formed by the 3D printed matrix (see Figs. 3 and 4 and para. 0057]).
Regarding Claim 12, Prince discloses wherein the top is formed by the 3D matrix (see Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding Claim 13, Prince discloses wherein a portion of the top is formed by the 3D matrix (see Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding Claim 14, Prince discloses wherein the plurality of sides are formed by gusset panels and wherein one or more of the gusset panels are formed by the 3D matrix (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 15, Prince discloses wherein the 3D printed matrix is formed from thermoplastic elastomers (TPEs), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), thermoplastic co-polyester (TPC), polyurethane (PU), polyurethane-like and polyurethane-based materials, polypropylene (PP), polyamide (nylon) and combinations thereof (see para. [0032]).
Regarding Claim 16, Prince discloses wherein the pillow is a travel pillows, a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) pillow, a cervical pillow, a pregnancy pillow, a chiropractic pillow, or a body pillow (see Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding Claim 17, Prince discloses wherein the pillow has differing support characteristics at different zones of the pillow (see claim 4 of Prince).
Regarding Claim 18, Prince discloses wherein the pillow has a same support characteristics in all of the zones of the pillow (see para. [0057], i.e. constant or variable firmness).
Regarding Claim 19, Prince discloses wherein the body or portion of the body is printed by vat polymerization, stereolithography, digital light processing (see para. [0029]). Examiner notes that claim 19 is a product-by process claim. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” [citations omitted] See MPEP 2113.
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) 5-7, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prince (US 2022/0395109) in view of Ho (US 2020/0205589)
Regarding Claim 5, Prince fails to explicitly disclose wherein the central region has a greater softness than the one or more other regions of the pillow. Prince discloses in Figs. 3 and 4 a pillow with a central region bordered by a perimeter region that has a different construction (see Figs. 3 and 4). Prince is concerned with varying the firmness of different locations across the pillow to minimize pressure points for various types of sleepers (see Claim 4 of Prince and [0006]). Ho teaches a pillow formed by a similar lattice structure with different regions of varying stiffnesses (see Figs. 7-9 and para. [0029]). Prince and Ho are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. pillows. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the central region of Prince with a greater softness than other regions of the pillow. The motivation would have been to tailor and customize a pillow to a user’s desired feel and/or comfort level as taught by Ho.
Regarding Claim 6, Prince discloses wherein the one or more other regions surround the central region (see Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Prince discloses wherein the central region is formed by the 3D matrix having one or more of a lesser density of cells forming the matrix, a lesser volume of material in at least some of the cells, and a different type or shape of the cells that form the central region (see Figs. 3 and 4, “variable density lattice structure”, see para. [0044], and claim 4 of Prince).
Regarding Claim 9, Prince fails to explicitly disclose wherein the other than the central region has a greater softness than a central region of the pillow. Using the same analysis which was used in the rejection of Claim 5, above, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the other than the central region Prince with a greater softness than the central region of the pillow. The motivation would have been to tailor and customize a pillow to a user’s desired feel and/or comfort level as taught by Ho.
Regarding Claim 10, Prince discloses wherein the other than the central region is formed by the 3D matrix having one or more of a lesser density of cells forming the matrix, a lesser volume of material in at least some of the cells, and a different type or shape of the cells that form the central region (see Figs. 3 and 4, “variable density lattice structure”, see para. [0044], and claim 4 of Prince).
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