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 .
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.
Claim 8 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 8 recites the limitation "the respective rod". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being disclosed by Lucas (US Patent Application Publication 20060185086).
Regarding claim 1, Lucas teaches an assistive device for removing and replacing a pillowcase on a pillow, the device comprising: a base plate (Figure 1; 50); and a plurality of rods (Figure 1; 16 front and back) protruding upwardly from a top surface of the base plate, wherein the plurality of rods are positioned in a rectangular shape (Figure 1; the rods 16 form a rectangle with the base plate when viewed from the side) forming a perimeter sized to receive a pillow in an upright position within an interior space defined within the perimeter of the plurality of rods (Figure 6; as shown).
Regarding claim 2, Lucas teaches the plurality of rods are slidably adjustable to define different sizes of the interior space (Paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 3, Lucas teaches each of the plurality of rods includes a locking mechanism to fix the respective rod in a selected position (Paragraph 29 and Figure 2; 71).
Regarding claim 4, Lucas teaches distal ends of the plurality of rods are rounded (Figure 1; top of 16 at 42 and 34).
Regarding claim 6, Lucas teaches a device for removing and replacing a pillowcase on a pillow, the device comprising: a base plate (Figure 1; 50); and a plurality of walls extending upwardly from a top surface of the base plate (Figure 1; 16 and 64 back and front), wherein the plurality of walls are positioned in a rectangular shape Figure 1; the rods 16 form a rectangle with the base plate when viewed from the side) forming a perimeter sized to receive a pillow in an upright position within an interior space defined within the perimeter of the plurality of walls (Figure 6; as shown).
Regarding claim 7, Lucas teaches one or more of the plurality of walls are slidably adjustable to define different sizes of the interior space (Paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 8, Lucas teaches one or more of the plurality of walls includes a locking mechanism to fix the respective rod in a selected position (Paragraph 29 and Figure 2; 71).
Regarding claim 9, Lucas teaches the plurality of walls comprise two L-shaped walls (Figure 1; 16 and 64 form an l-shape when in the completely extended position (where 16 would form a right angle with 64, forming the L)).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas (US Patent Application Publication 20060185086) in view of Valdez (US Patent 6679462).
Regarding claim 5, Lucas does not teach the base includes at least one handle opening. Valdez teaches the base includes at least one handle opening (Figure 2; at 307). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Lucas (directed to a pillowcase opener) and Valdez (directed to a bag holder with handles on the base panels) and arrived at a pillowcase opener with handles on the base panels. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to facilitate hanging the in-use stiffener apparatus in different orientations” as taught in Valdez (Column 5; lines 47-49).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORGAN J MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)270-0362. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesdays 12pm-10pm and Thursdays 12pm-10pm.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at 5712728525. 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.
/MORGAN J MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3673