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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12035831. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent anticipate the current claims in the application.
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 11-20 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 11 recites the limitation "the front panel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret this as saying “a front panel”.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5,7-15,17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Great Brittan Patent No. GB2578718 issued to Harrison in view of U.S. Publication No. 20160192793 issued to Cavoise
Regarding claim 1,
Harrison discloses a bedding cover and bedding insert (Harrison: Abstract “A duvet cover 10 comprises a rectangular aperture 16 for allowing insertion of a duvet into the cover 10.”) comprising: a front panel; (Harrison: FIG. 1 (12)) … a second zipper disposed proximate to a middle of the front panel; (Harrison: FIG. 1 (22)) a back panel; (Harrison: FIG. 1 (18)) and a third zipper disposed along an outside edge of a separated portion of the back panel connectable to the second zipper, (Harrison: see page 4 4th paragraph “The second 42 and third 44 edges of the opening 16 each include separate elongate fastening means 20 for attaching the edges 42, 44 of the opening 16 to the corresponding edges of the flap 18. The elongate fastening means 20 could be for instance a zip or a hook and loop fastener such as Velcro O.”) the separated portion of the back panel being smaller than the front panel and being attached to a bottom end of the front panel. (Harrison: FIG. 1 shows the back panel (18) attached to the front panel (12) and being smaller than the front panel (12))
Harrison does not appear to disclose a first zipper disposed proximate to an outside edge of the front panel and having a first end and a second end disposed only on one side of the outside edge of the front panel;
However, Cavosie discloses a first zipper disposed proximate to an outside edge of the front panel and having a first end and a second end disposed only on one side of the outside edge of the front panel; (Cavosie: [0070] see also [0059] “Fastener 500a can be affixed along part or a whole of a duvet side by various means.” As well as [0090] that talks about fasteners being zippers, and FIG. 15)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harrison directed to a duvet cover with a centrally located flap opening by adding fasteners along the interior edges of the cover and corresponding fasteners on the comforter as taught in Cavoise, related to the problem of misalignment and bunching of the comforter within the cover, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g. zippers). The modification is prompted by design incentives and consumer demand for bedding that is both easy to insert and resistant to shifting. Because the addition of fasteners is a known solution to alignment problems, the modification would have yielded the predictable result of a duvet system that allows easier insertion and secure retention of the comforter inside the cover.
Regarding claim 2,
Harrison in view of Cavoise discloses the bedding cover and bedding insert of claim 1, further comprising a fourth zipper, having a first portion disposed on the bedding cover which is connectable with a second portion of the fourth zipper disposed on the bedding insert. (Cavoise: FIG. 15 shows 4 fasteners, which could be zippers see [0090] that connect to the comforter.)
Regarding claim 3,
Harrison in view of Cavoise discloses the bedding cover and bedding insert of claim 1, wherein the first end and the second end of the first zipper end at opposing sides of the outside edge of the front panel. (Cavoise: FIG. 16 shows an embodiment where the zippers run to the opposing sides of the outside edge of the front panel.)
Regarding claim 4,
Harrison in view of Cavoise discloses the bedding cover and bedding insert of claim 1, the bedding cover further comprising: one or more zippers separating a portion of the back panel from the front panel. (Harrison: FIG. 1)
Regarding claim 5,
Harrison in view of Cavoise discloses the bedding cover and bedding insert of claim 4, wherein the one or more zippers on the bedding cover are located further from an edge of the bedding cover than the second zipper portion. (Harrison: FIG. 1, shows one or more zippers located further from an edge of the bedding cover than the second zipper portion i.e. the other zipper)
Regarding claim 7,
Harrison in view of Cavoise discloses the bedding cover and bedding insert of claim 1, the bedding cover further comprising: one or more buttons. (Harrison: FIG. 1 (22) see also page 4 lines 30-31 “The fourth edge 46 of the opening includes discrete fastening means 22, for instance snap fasteners or buttons.”)
Regarding claim 8,
Harrison in view of Cavoise discloses the bedding cover and bedding insert of claim 7, the bedding cover further comprising: one or more buttonholes sized to receive the one or more buttons. (Harrison: FIG. 1 (22) see also page 4 lines 30-31 “The fourth edge 46 of the opening includes discrete fastening means 22, for instance snap fasteners or buttons.”)
Regarding claim 9,
Harrison in view of Cavoise discloses the bedding cover and bedding insert of claim 8, wherein the buttons are located on the back panel. (Harrison: FIG. 1, although unlabeled the examiner notes that the back panel (18) would otherwise have the corresponding fasteners for the button holes (22) as discussed in page 4 lines 30-33 of Harrison)
Regarding claim 10,
Harrison in view of Cavoise discloses the bedding cover and bedding insert of claim 9, wherein the buttonholes are located on a panel attached to a back side of the front panel. (Harrison: FIG. 1, although unlabeled the examiner notes that the back panel (18) would otherwise have the corresponding fasteners for the button holes (22) as discussed in page 4 lines 30-33 of Harrison)
Regarding claim 11,
Harrison discloses a bedding system comprising a bedding cover and bedding insert that is connectable to the bedding cover (Harrison: Abstract “A duvet cover 10 comprises a rectangular aperture 16 for allowing insertion of a duvet into the cover 10.”) the bedding cover and bedding insert, further comprising … a second zipper disposed proximate to a middle of the front panel; (Harrison: FIG. 1 (22) is disposed proximate to (12)) a back panel; (Harrison: FIG. 1 (18)) and a third zipper disposed along an outside edge of a separated portion of the back panel connectable to the second zipper, (Harrison: see page 4 4th paragraph “The second 42 and third 44 edges of the opening 16 each include separate elongate fastening means 20 for attaching the edges 42, 44 of the opening 16 to the corresponding edges of the flap 18. The elongate fastening means 20 could be for instance a zip or a hook and loop fastener such as Velcro O.”) the separated portion of the back panel being smaller than the front panel and being attached to a bottom end of the front panel. (Harrison: FIG. 1 shows the back panel (18) attached to the front panel (12) and being smaller than the front panel (12))
Harrison does not appear to disclose a first zipper disposed proximate to an outside edge of the front panel and having a first end and a second end disposed only on one side of the outside edge of the front panel;
However, Cavosie discloses a first zipper disposed proximate to an outside edge of the front panel and having a first end and a second end disposed only on one side of the outside edge of the front panel; (Cavosie: [0070] see also [0059] “Fastener 500a can be affixed along part or a whole of a duvet side by various means.” As well as [0090] that talks about fasteners being zippers, and FIG. 15)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harrison directed to a duvet cover with a centrally located flap opening by adding fasteners along the interior edges of the cover and corresponding fasteners on the comforter as taught in Cavoise, related to the problem of misalignment and bunching of the comforter within the cover, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g. zippers). The modification is prompted by design incentives and consumer demand for bedding that is both easy to insert and resistant to shifting. Because the addition of fasteners is a known solution to alignment problems, the modification would have yielded the predictable result of a duvet system that allows easier insertion and secure retention of the comforter inside the cover.
Regarding claim 12,
Harrison in view of Cavoise discloses the bedding system of claim 11, further comprising a fourth zipper, having a first portion disposed on the bedding cover which is connectable with a second portion of the fourth zipper disposed on the bedding insert. (Cavoise: FIG. 15 shows 4 fasteners, which could be zippers see [0090] that connect to the comforter.)
Regarding claim 13,
Harrison in view of Cavoise discloses the bedding system of claim 11, wherein the first end and the second end of the first zipper end at opposing sides of the outside edge of the front panel. (Cavoise: FIG. 16 shows an embodiment where the zippers run to the opposing sides of the outside edge of the front panel.)
Regarding claim 14,
Harrison in view of Cavoise discloses the bedding system of claim 11, the bedding cover further comprising: one or more zippers separating a portion of the back panel from the front panel. (Harrison: FIG. 1)
Regarding claim 15,
Harrison in view of Cavoise discloses the bedding system claim 14, wherein the one or more zippers on the bedding cover are located further from an edge of the bedding cover than the second zipper portion. (Harrison: FIG. 1, shows one or more zippers located further from an edge of the bedding cover than the second zipper portion i.e. the other zipper)
Regarding claim 17,
Harrison in view of Cavoise discloses the bedding system of claim 11, the bedding cover further comprising: one or more buttons. (Harrison: FIG. 1 (22) see also page 4 lines 30-31 “The fourth edge 46 of the opening includes discrete fastening means 22, for instance snap fasteners or buttons.”)
Regarding claim 18,
Harrison in view of Cavoise discloses the bedding system of claim 17, the bedding cover further comprising: one or more buttonholes sized to receive the one or more buttons. (Harrison: FIG. 1 (22) see also page 4 lines 30-31 “The fourth edge 46 of the opening includes discrete fastening means 22, for instance snap fasteners or buttons.”)
Regarding claim 19,
Harrison in view of Cavoise discloses the bedding system of claim 18, wherein the buttons are located on the back panel. (Harrison: FIG. 1, although unlabeled the examiner notes that the back panel (18) would otherwise have the corresponding fasteners for the button holes (22) as discussed in page 4 lines 30-33 of Harrison)
Regarding claim 20,
Harrison in view of Cavoise discloses the bedding system of claim 19, wherein the buttonholes are located on a panel attached to a back side of the front panel. (Harrison: FIG. 1, although unlabeled the examiner notes that the back panel (18) would otherwise have the corresponding fasteners for the button holes (22) as discussed in page 4 lines 30-33 of Harrison)
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Great Brittan Patent No. GB2578718 issued to Harrison in view of U.S. Publication No. 20160192793 issued to Cavoise further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20120311785 issued to Goldberg.
Regarding claim 6,
Harrison in view of Cavoise discloses the bedding cover and bedding insert of claim 5.
Harrison in view of Cavoise does not appear to disclose the bedding cover further comprising: one or more zipper pockets sized to house one or more zipper sliders attached to the one or more zippers.
However, Goldberg discloses the bedding cover further comprising: one or more zipper pockets sized to house one or more zipper sliders attached to the one or more zippers. (Goldberg: [0073] “The housing cover may also be constructed to cover the front region 124 of the zipper slider when the slider connecting region of the barrier and the barrier connection portion of the zipper slider are connected. In some embodiments, the housing or cover may be constructed to cover the entire zipper slider when the zipper assembly is placed in a closed position.” See also FIG. 8 (450))
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harrison in view of Cavoise by incorporating zipper pockets to house zipper sliders therein as taught by Goldberg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “prevent the zipper assembly from becoming partially unzipped, for example, resulting from incidental movement or rustling of the zipper assembly and/or article” or “further contribute to obstructing migration of particles or organisms between opposing sides of the barrier.” (Goldberg: [0073])
Regarding claim 16,
Harrison in view of Cavoise discloses the bedding system of claim 15.
Harrison in view of Cavoise does not appear to disclose the bedding cover further comprising: one or more zipper pockets sized to house one or more zipper sliders attached to the one or more zippers.
However, Goldberg discloses the bedding cover further comprising: one or more zipper pockets sized to house one or more zipper sliders attached to the one or more zippers. (Goldberg: [0073] “The housing cover may also be constructed to cover the front region 124 of the zipper slider when the slider connecting region of the barrier and the barrier connection portion of the zipper slider are connected. In some embodiments, the housing or cover may be constructed to cover the entire zipper slider when the zipper assembly is placed in a closed position.” See also FIG. 8 (450))
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harrison in view of Cavoise by incorporating zipper pockets to house zipper sliders therein as taught by Goldberg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “prevent the zipper assembly from becoming partially unzipped, for example, resulting from incidental movement or rustling of the zipper assembly and/or article” or “further contribute to obstructing migration of particles or organisms between opposing sides of the barrier.” (Goldberg: [0073])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C ORTIZ whose telephone number is (303)297-4378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-3:30 pm.
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 C. Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. 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.
/ADAM C ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673