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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1 – 10 and 20) and Species I (as represented by Figures 1, 2, 3A, 4-5, and 8-10) in the reply filed on 10/17/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) described below and the traversal is not found persuasive for the reasons that follow. Applicant argues that the inventive groups are not independent or distinct because they have overlapping structure which is referenced in the process claims. Applicant is incorrect. The inventions are independent or distinct for the reasons set forth in the original requirement. As explained on page 2 of the requirement, the product as claimed can be used in another and materially different process of using that product; refer to the original requirement for details. Applicant then argues that the product as claimed cannot be used in another and materially different process because the product is “specifically structured and intended for direct application to the mattress cover itself, and any deviation from this intended use would render the product unsuitable or ineffective for its configured function.” Applicant is incorrect. While the product may be intended for use in a particular way, that does not prevent the product from being able to be used in another and materially different process as set forth in the original requirement. Whether the product would be unsuitable or ineffective for its configured function appears to again simply articulate that applicant believes the product can only be used in one way, which is not the case. Applicant has not in any way shown that the examples provided in the original requirement are incorrect or deficient. The product can be used in another and materially different process such as ones clearly described in page 2 of the requirement, none of which have been rebutted persuasively. The product is not solely limited to applicants desired intended use. Applicant also argues that there is no significant search burden. Applicant is incorrect. First, the inventions are classified in different areas, which necessitates different searches for each invention on that basis alone. Second, different text searches would be required. For example, the process claim requires searches for performing the steps in order. The product claim is not limited to the particular step order or intended use and requires broader text searches on that basis. The process of use does not necessarily result from finding the product in this instance. If applicant believes otherwise, applicant is welcome to make that statement plainly on the record such that the product would necessarily anticipate and render obvious the process.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7 and 11-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/17/2025. It is noted that claim 7 is directed toward a non-elected species (fig. 3B, see paragraph 0039)
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and or” should be –and/or--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2-5 and 10 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 2 recites the limitation “the cover fastener parts the anchor parts.” It is unclear what is being recited due to the grammar issues in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “an elastic strap” and it is unclear whether this is one of the previously recited “straps” or whether it is a new strap, completely independent of and unrelated to the previously introduced straps. Therefore, proper antecedent basis is lacking.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the upper bedding part” and also “the upper bedding fastener parts.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for each 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 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Holt (US PG Pub No. 20190099018).
Re Claim 1
Holt discloses:
A bedding connection device for applying bedding to a mattress (see all figs), the device comprising:
a mattress cover (10), wherein the mattress cover is configured to be fitted with the mattress over corners of the mattress (fig. 8, for example; see also fig. 2);
a plurality of cover fastener parts (30) connected to the mattress cover at locations coinciding with or adjacent to the corners of the mattress (fig. 8);
a sheet (35) configured to sit atop the mattress cover and having corner portions to be positioned at or adjacent to the corners of the mattress (fig. 8); and
a plurality of sheet fastener parts (40) respectively connected to the sheet at locations coinciding with or adjacent to the corners of the sheet (fig. 8), each of the sheet fastener parts being connectable with an associated one of the cover fasteners parts (fig. 8, [0030]).
Re Claim 20
Holt discloses:
A system for applying bedding to a mattress (see all figs), the system comprising:
a mattress (2);
a mattress cover (10), wherein the mattress cover is configured to be fitted with the mattress over corners of the mattress (fig. 8, for example; see also fig. 2);
a plurality of cover fastener parts (30) connected to the mattress cover at locations coinciding with or adjacent to the corners of the mattress (fig. 8);
a sheet (35) configured to sit atop the mattress cover and having corner portions to be positioned at or adjacent to the corners of the mattress (fig. 8); and
a plurality of sheet fastener parts (40) respectively connected to the sheet at locations coinciding with or adjacent to the corners of the sheet (fig. 8), each of the sheet fastener parts being connectable with an associated one of the cover fasteners parts (fig. 8, [0030]).
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) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US PG Pub No. 20190099018) in view of De Witt (US Patent No. 2931084).
Re Claim 2, 3, and 4
Holt discloses the mattress cover, with each of the cover fastener parts connected to the mattress at locations coinciding with or adjacent to the corners of the mattress (see figs. 2-3 and 8 for example). However, Holt does not include respective straps as claimed.
Holt does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising straps connected to the mattress cover at anchoring points, wherein each of the cover fastener parts is connected to the mattress at locations coinciding with or adjacent to the corners of the mattress by a respective strap, allowing movement of the cover fastener parts the anchor points.
wherein each of the straps is configured with a cover fastener part adjustment arrangement to adjust a position of the cover fastener part relative to the respective anchoring point and or comprises an elastic strap to adjust a position of the cover fastener part relative to the respective anchoring point.
wherein the cover fastener part adjustment arrangement comprises a strap adjuster connected to the respective cover fastener part, the strap adjuster comprising a plurality of strap passage openings to adjust a position of the respective cover fastener part along a length of the respective strap.
De Witt teaches the following for the purpose of securing bedclothes in an adjustable manner permitting tightening / loosening / positioning:
further comprising straps (16) connected to the mattress cover at anchoring points (figs. 1-3), wherein each of the cover fastener parts is connected to the mattress at locations coinciding with or adjacent to the corners of the mattress by a respective strap (it would have been obvious to utilize the straps at fastener locations / anchor points in Holt as that is plainly the intention and design in De Witt), allowing movement of the cover fastener parts the anchor points (figs. 1-3).
wherein each of the straps is configured with a cover fastener part adjustment arrangement (e.g. one of 20 or 21) to adjust a position of the cover fastener part relative to the respective anchoring point (figs. 1-3) and or comprises an elastic strap to adjust a position of the cover fastener part relative to the respective anchoring point (16 is elastic; see figs. 1-3).
wherein the cover fastener part adjustment arrangement comprises a strap adjuster (the other of 20 or 21) connected to the respective cover fastener part (figs. 1-3), the strap adjuster comprising a plurality of strap passage openings to adjust a position of the respective cover fastener part along a length of the respective strap (see figs. 2-3).
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Holt to incorporate the teachings of De Witt with regard to all fasteners, including corner fasteners, as described above for the purpose(s) articulated above which therefore results in the claimed arrangement and elements; see above.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US PG Pub No. 20190099018) in view of De Witt (US Patent No. 2931084) and further in view of Rubin (US PG Pub No. 20240206635) or Hutton et al. (US Patent No. 5161276 and hereinafter “Hutton”).
Re Claim 5
Holt as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the anchoring points comprise a stitched connection of the strap to the mattress cover and/or a reinforced portion supporting and/or covering the connection of the respective strap and the mattress cover.
Rubin teaches reinforced portions which support connections at bedding attachment locations ([0007], [0027], etc.) and Hutton teaches the same (abstract, description of figures 2-3, figures 2-3 themselves etc.) for the purpose of preventing damage / tearing. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Holt to have a reinforced portion supporting and/or covering the connection of the respective strap and the mattress cover as taught by the references above for the articulated purpose.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US PG Pub No. 20190099018) in view of Vogland et al. (US PG Pub No. 20020062524 and hereinafter “Vogland”).
Re Claim 6
Holt discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the cover fastener parts each comprise a buckle clip defining a latching clip opening with a latching clip and the sheet fastener parts each comprise a knob-shaped stud configured to be received in the latching clip opening and retained therein with the latching clip, whereby upon connection of the cover fastener parts with the respective sheet fastener parts the sheet is held in position relative to the mattress cover.
Vogland discloses fastening bedding to a mattress using the claimed elements and arrangement, plainly showing the following in figures 1-3, which are used for a releasably secure coupling: wherein the cover fastener parts each comprise a buckle clip defining a latching clip opening with a latching clip and the sheet fastener parts each comprise a knob-shaped stud configured to be received in the latching clip opening and retained therein with the latching clip, whereby upon connection of the cover fastener parts with the respective sheet fastener parts the sheet is held in position relative to the mattress cover. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to simply substitute the attachment mechanism in Holt for the claimed attachment mechanism (see above for details) as taught in Vogland as another releasably secure coupling. It is noted that the Vogland mechanism would be more secure and less prone to inadvertent release or shifting. To the extent necessary, it would have been readily apparent and obvious to reverse the attachment mechanisms such that the knob is on one element vs. the buckle clip on the other as is commonly known in the art.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US PG Pub No. 20190099018) in view of Rubin (US PG Pub No. 20240206635) or Hutton et al. (US Patent No. 5161276 and hereinafter “Hutton”).
Re Claim 8
Holt discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the sheet is reinforced at locations at which the sheet fastener parts are connected to the sheet.
Rubin teaches reinforcing bedding at fastener locations ([0007], [0027], etc.) and Hutton teaches the same (abstract, description of figures 2-3, figures 2-3 themselves etc.) for the purpose of preventing damage / tearing. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Holt to have the sheet reinforced at locations at which the sheet fastener parts are connected to the sheet for the purpose of prevent damage / tearing as taught by the references above for the articulated purpose.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US PG Pub No. 20190099018) in view of Blatt et al. (US PG Pub No. 20220287468 and hereinafter “Blatt”).
Re Claim 9
Holt discloses all claim limitations, see above, including:
an upper bedding part (70; fig. 6) configured to sit atop the sheet and having corner portions to be positioned at or adjacent to the corners of the sheet (fig. 6, [0038], see figs. 5-6 and note the corner portion locations); and
a plurality of upper bedding fastener parts (e.g. 81, see fig. 6) respectively connected to the top sheet at locations coinciding with or adjacent to two of the corners of the upper bedding (see fig. 6 again)
Holt does not explicitly disclose that each of the top sheet fastener parts being connectable with an associated one of the cover fasteners parts.
Blatt teaches top sheet fastener parts (e.g. 570A-D, see fig. 5) connectable with associated cover fastener parts (e.g. 530A-D, see fig. 5) for the purpose of securing bedding in a user-friendly manner and/or to avoid shifting. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Holt to have the limitation(s) at issue above for the purpose(s) articulated above.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US PG Pub No. 20190099018) in view of Blatt et al. (US PG Pub No. 20220287468 and hereinafter “Blatt”) and further in view of Rubin (US PG Pub No. 20240206635) or Hutton et al. (US Patent No. 5161276 and hereinafter “Hutton”).
Re Claim 10
Holt discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the upper bedding part is reinforced at locations at which the upper bedding fastener parts are connected to the upper bedding part and / or the upper bedding part comprises a fastener cover portion to at least partially cover the respective upper bedding fastener.
Rubin teaches reinforcing bedding at fastener locations, i.e. at locations at which the bedding fastener parts are connected to a bedding part, ([0007], [0027], etc.) and Hutton teaches the same (abstract, description of figures 2-3, figures 2-3 themselves etc.) for the purpose of preventing damage / tearing. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have the upper bedding part reinforced at locations at which the upper bedding fastener parts are connected to the upper bedding part for the purpose of prevent damage / tearing as taught by the references above for the articulated purpose.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references with highly pertinent attachment mechanisms for bedding of various types have been provided. Certain structures attach mattress covers to sheets whereas others attach sheets to sheets or sheets / covers directly to the mattress themselves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SOSNOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7944. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM and 9 PM through 11:59 PM Monday through Friday, generally.
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 (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.
/DAVID E. SOSNOWSKI/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673