Detailed Office Action
Applicant’s arguments and amendments dated 7/8/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1 and 3-4 are amended. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 5-10 are withdrawn from examination. Claims 1 and 3-10 remain pending.
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 Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claim 4 have overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the non-final office action of 4/21/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument that the amendments to claim 1 overcome the 35 USC 103 rejection, previously set forth in the non-final office action of 4/21/2026, is not persuasive and is addressed below.
Applicant states that the structure as taught by FUNATOGAWA is essentially a physical assembly of multiple independent cushion blocks. On the other hand, KOJIMA' s structure is a fused wire network integrally formed through an extrusion process. Forcibly incorporating the structure taught by FUNATOGAW A into the integrally formed filament conjugates of KOJIMA will inevitably disrupt the physical continuity of KOJIMA's structure. This combination is structurally incompatible and undermines the core advantage of KOJIMA's integral molding. Furthermore, in FUNATOGAWA, the feeling of "gradual change in hardness" comes from the geometric bevels between contact surfaces 4 and 6 and contact surfaces 5 and 7, rather than from a gradual change in "density of the filaments" of the cushioning material itself FUNATOGAWA does not disclose or teach a gradual change in "density of the filaments" within a single part/cushion block.
The Examiner never relied on the physical and separate/individual structure of the pillow as taught by the secondary art of FUNATOGAWA and thus, did not forcibly incorporate this structure in the pillow of the primary art of KOJIMA (emphasis added by the Examiner). The Examiner only relied on the teaching of FUNATOGAWA regarding the concept of gradual change of the density/hardness in directions towards the end portions and not how to implement this gradual change or a method/structure of applying this change (emphasis added by the Examiner).
Indeed, and as also articulated in the non-final office action of 4/21/2026 (see page 5), the primary art of KOJIMA teaches a method to implement density changes in its integral structure {[0084]-[0085]}, and therefore, an artisan would have been able to have implemented the concept of FUNATOGAWA regarding gradual change in density using the method of KOJIMA in its integral pillow structure. There was no need for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the method/structure of FUNATOGAWA, just its teachings regarding the benefit of this gradual increase in density.
Additionally, regarding the “feeling of hardness” and “geometric bevels” and as discussed above, the Examiner did not rely on the different sections as taught by FUNATOGAWA. The Examiner submits that since FUNATOGAWA teaches gradual change in hardness or density {[0058]}, the comfort or feeling is achieved in individual sections as well and thus the advantage of comfort as taught by FUNATOGAWA {[0008]} is applicable to the integral pillow of KOJIMA (emphasis added by the Examiner). The Examiner maintains the rejection and has reiterated it below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOJIMA (WO-2017199474-A1 and its English translation), hereinafter KOJIMA, in view of FUNATOGAWA (US-2005/0262637), hereinafter FUNATOGAWA. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, KOJIMA discloses A pillow cushion formed with a filament three-dimensional bonded member in which, in a state where a plurality of filaments formed of a thermoplastic resin or a thermoplastic elastomer are three-dimensionally entangled, contact points of the filaments are fused {[0001]-[0002]}.
KOJIMA, however, is silent on the rest of limitations of claim 1 “wherein a density of the filaments in a back head portion support region is higher in both end portions in a length direction of the pillow cushion than in a center portion, the back head portion support region is a region in the center of the pillow cushion that has a predetermined distance from both side surfaces of the pillow cushion in the length direction of the pillow cushion, and the density of the filaments in the back head portion support region is gradually increased from the center portion of the back head portion support region toward the both end portions of the back head portion support region in the length direction of the pillow cushion”, and claim 3 limitation of “wherein the density of the filaments in the back head portion support region is gradually increased from the center portion toward both end portions in a height direction”. The Examiner notes that KOJIMA teaches that the density or hardness can be varied in different parts of the pillow {[0084]-[0085]}, thus the pillow of KOJIMA can have a variation in density or hardness in different directions and the method for implementing such change is taught by KOJIMA.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to pillow cushion, FUNATOGAWA teaches that the central part of a pillow and the end directions both regarding shoulders (the length direction) and neck to the top of the head (height direction) can have different hardness or density and that the density or hardness in the central portion is lower than the end portions and this increase in density from center to the ends is gradual {[0010], [0013], [0041], [0047]-[0048], [0058]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of FUNATOGAWA in the pillow of KOJIMA and have gradually increased the densities from central portion in both the height and length directions toward the ends. Note that as discussed above, KOJIMA teaches change in density and how it is implemented. As disclosed by FUNATOGAW, the advantage of such increase in density is to prevent discomfort from being brought to a user {[0008]}.
Regarding claim 4 limitation of “wherein the pillow cushion is formed by stacking a first pillow unit and a second pillow unit in a thickness direction, each of the first pillow unit and the second pillow unit is formed with the filament three-dimensional bonded member, a density of the filaments in the back head portion support region of the first pillow unit is gradually increased from the center portion toward the both end portions in the length direction of the pillow unit and a density of the filaments in the back head portion support region of the second pillow unit is gradually increased from the center portion toward the both end portions in the height direction”, as discussed above, combination of KOJIMA and FUNATOGAWA teaches the filament three-dimensional bonded member and the gradual increase of the density in both directions.
The combination above, however, is silent on the pillow cushion being divided into two units in the thickness direction.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have separated the single pillow cushion of the combination of KOJIMA and FUNATOGAWA into two separate units in the thickness direction, since it has been held that constructing formerly integral structure in various elements or splitting a structure into two identical structures involves only routine skill in the art {see MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C)}.
One would have been motived to do so since by stacking thinner pillow units on top of each other, one can arrive at a desired thickness more accurately and generally formation of thinner pieces is more convenient than a thick unit.
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 S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights