DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The Amendments filed February 20th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-15, and 17-19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every Specification Objection and 102 Rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 20th, 2025 and are hereby withdrawn in light of their correction.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-8, 13-14, 17, and 19 is/are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madigan (U.S. Pat. No. 6886197) in view of itself and Shuck (U.S. Pub. No. 20100058537).
Regarding claim 1, Madigan discloses (FIGS. 1-7) a mattress system including an integrated sheeting (As illustrated in FIG. 1-7), the mattress {system} comprising: a mattress (84; FIG. 2) comprising an upholstery layer 38; FIG. 2) encapsulating a mattress core (correspondent 36 and 84; FIG. 2) configured to support a sleeper during use (where it has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)), wherein the mattress comprises a head end (correspondent the left side of FIG. 1; correspondent left 64; FIG. 7), a foot end (correspondent the right side of FIG. 1; correspondent right 64; FIG. 7) and lateral sides (correspondent the longitudinal side lengths of FIG. 1, correspondent 84; correspondent sides 66/72; FIG. 7) extending from the head end to the foot end (as illustrated in FIGS. 1), wherein the mattress further comprises a first engageable portion of a first fastener (correspondent 16 or 28; FIG. 2) extending on upholstered sides along an entire perimeter of the mattress (as conveyed in FIG. 7); and a fitted sheet (correspondent 46 or 44; FIG. 2) including a second engageable portion (correspondent and per claim 2: “corresponding complimentary fastening means consists of hook and loop fasteners (Velcro.TM.), buttons and buttonholes, hooks and eyes, snaps, zippers, or other recognized complementary fastening system”) configured to be releasably engaged with the first engageable portion of the first fastener and provide releasable attachment of the fitted sheet to the upholstered sides of the mattress (as conveyed in claims 1 and 2 through releasable fastening means disclosed including hook and loop, zippers, snaps, buttons); a first engageable portion of a second fastener (correspondent 22 or 24; FIG. 2) provided on the upholstered side at the foot end of the mattress at an attachment point below the first engageable portion of the first fastener (as illustrated in FIG. 2); and a flat sheet (correspondent 20 or 18; FIG. 2) including a second engageable portion (as conveyed through claims 1-2, “corresponding complimentary fastening means consists of hook and loop fasteners (Velcro.TM.), buttons and buttonholes, hooks and eyes, snaps, zippers, or other recognized complementary fastening system”) along a terminal end of the flat sheet that corresponds to the foot end (as illustrated between FIGS. 1, 2, and 5-7), wherein the second engageable portion of the flat sheet is configured to be releasably engaged with the first engageable portion of the second fastener (as conveyed through claims 1 and 2) and provide releasable attachment of the flat sheet to the upholstered side of the foot end of the mattress (as illustrated in FIG. 1 and conveyed in claims 1 and 2); characterized in that the first fastener (correspondent 16 or 28; FIG. 2) and the second fastener (correspondent 22 or 24) are in a separate, stacked configuration in which the first fastener is at a height dimension of the upholstered side relative to ground and the second fastener (correspondent 22 or 24; FIG. 2) is {spaced apart} from the first fastener (as illustrated in FIG. 2) at a {second arbitrary} height dimension {below the first fastener}.
However, although Madigan discloses fasteners at separate heights per their sets (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3) Madigan does not explicitly disclose wherein the first fastener is at less than one inches from the second.
Regardless, Madigan discloses the claimed invention except for the first fastener being disposed less than 1 inches from the second fastener. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have rendered the first fastener (sets) disposed two inches from the second fastener (sets), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. Where the results would have been predictable as a change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). Where there is a lack of criticality as to the dimension and size of the dimension/percentage, with applicant’s disclosure only indicating “In one or more embodiments, the second fastener 50 is below the first fastener 46 and spaced apart from the first fastener by a distance of less than 2 inches. In other embodiments, the spacing between the fit and second fasteners is less than 1 inch” [0033]. Whereupon the particular sizing constraint between the two fasteners could advantageously be facilitated for mattresses of smaller sizes and smaller heights/thickness, extending the operability of the invention of Madigan to different sized mattresses and conditions. Where Madigan further acknowledges “All components may be customized to the dimensions of the mattress to be covered, for example, twin, full, queen, king, youth, long, cot, air mattress or crib” [3:44-59].
However, Madigan does not explicitly disclose wherein the flat sheet includes a second engageable portion spaced apart from a terminal end of the flat sheet that corresponds to the foot end of the mattress such that the first and second fasteners are hidden by the flat sheet when attached.
Regardless, Shuck teaches (FIG. 7) a two-sheet fastening system wherein the flat sheet (46; FIG. 7) includes a second engageable portion (correspondent 126; FIG. 7) spaced apart from a terminal end of the flat sheet (correspondent the bottom hanging end of 46; FIG. 7) that corresponds to the foot end of the mattress (as illustrated in FIG. 7) and such that the first and second fasteners (of both a flat sheet and a bed sheet underneath (44; FIG. 7) are hidden by the flat sheet when attached (as illustrated in FIG. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the overhanging/extent of the flat sheet relative to the second engageable portion of the second fastener of Shuck (as illustrated in FIG. 7) into Madigan (FIG. 1-3). Where the results would have been predictable as both Shuck and Madigan consider the use of one type of overhang material (Shuck: FIG. 7, Madigan, dust ruffle 40; Fig. 2). Where advantageously, the combination thereof would provide a bridging cover between the secured flat sheet (20; FIG. 2) and the dust ruffle (40; FIG. 2), advantageously better preventing inadvertent undoing or alteration of the dust ruffle’s setting and improving the convenience of setting the bed dressing and retaining the bed dressings.
Regarding claim 3, Madigan in view of Shuck and itself discloses (FIGS. 1-7) the mattress system of claim 1, wherein the first engageable portion of the second fastener on the mattress further extends from the foot end to at least a fraction of each lateral side of the mattress (as illustrated in FIGS. 5-7); and the second engageable portion of the second fastener on the flat sheet extends a similar distance as the first engageable portion of the second fastener as illustrated and conveyed in FIGS. 5-7 and FIG. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 4, Madigan in view of Shuck and itself discloses (FIGS. 1-7) the mattress system of claim 1, wherein the first fastener (correspondent 16 or 28; FIG. 2) is at an {arbitrary} height dimension of the upholstered side relative to ground and the second fastener (correspondent 22 or 24; FIG. 2) is spaced apart from the first fastener (as illustrated in FIG. 2) at a {second arbitrary} height dimension {lower than the first fastener}.
However, although Madigan discloses fasteners at separate heights per their sets (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3) Madigan does not explicitly disclose wherein the first fastener is at about 70 percent of a height dimension of the upholstered side relative to ground and the second fastener is spaced apart from the first fastener at about 30 percent of a height dimension of the upholstered side.
Regardless, Madigan discloses the claimed invention except for the first fastener being disposed about 70 percent of the height dimension of the upholstered side and the second fastener is disposed at about 30% of the height. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have rendered one of the first fastener (sets) disposed about 70 percent of the height dimension of the upholstered side and the second fastener (sets) is disposed at about 30% of the height, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. Where the results would have been predictable as a change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). Where there is a lack of criticality as to the dimension and size of the dimension/percentage, with applicant’s disclosure only indicating “However, it should be noted that the attachment location height can vary up to about the entire height of the upholstered sides 22” [0027] and “at about 30 percent of the height of the upholstered side 22 relative to ground. However, as previously noted, the vertical attachment height of the first and/or second fastener as well as the spacing for non-continuous fasteners such as buttons/buttonholes are not intended to be limited” [0028]. Whereupon the particular placement would reasonably avail access and handling to the respective fastener set with minimal interference and inadvertently undoing any fastening thereof, thereby improving the convenience of the invention of Madigan.
Regarding claim 6, Madigan in view of Shuck and itself discloses (FIGS. 1-7) the mattress system of claim 1, wherein the first engageable portion of the second fastener is provided on the upholstered side at the foot end of the mattress at an attachment point below the first engageable portion of the first fastener (as illustrated in FIG. 7) and further extends along a majority length of each lateral side (as illustrated in FIGS. 5 and 7); and wherein the second engageable portion is provided at a terminal end of the flat sheet end corresponding to the foot end of the mattress and further extends along a similar distance along a side dimension of the flat sheet as the first engageable portion on the mattress (as illustrated in FIGS. 5 and 7, and conveyed with the fastening pairings of FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Madigan in view of Shuck and itself discloses (FIGS. 1-7) the mattress system of claim 1, wherein the first and second fasteners have releasable attachment mechanisms.
However, although Madigan discloses that the fastener system may use a number of different fasteners (e.g. “Attachment of the components to the base covering can be provided by use of buttons and buttonholes, snaps, loop and hook attachments (Velcro.COPYRGT.), hooks and eyes, zippers or other attachment system” [3:44-59]), Madigan does not explicitly disclose wherein the fastener systems are particularly different as by intermixing.
Regardless, Madigan does teach many numerous fasteners and does avail “or other attachment system”, and teaches a high plurality with a high plurality of many different sheets and materials (FIGS. 1-3, and [3:44-59]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated one of the many different fastener sets Madigan provides for one of the fastener sets. Where the results would have been predictable as Madigan considers many different fasteners of equivalent results, and wherein advantageously it is considered that variations of fastener types can facilitate their unique benefits, such as a zipper may avail a more grounded and secured connection to ensure retention (such as for the bottom most sheet), while a fastener such as hook-and-loop or snaps may avail more expedient removal such as for a top sheet to avail quicker removal for laundering, replacement, adjustment, or entering the bedding arrangement.
Regarding claim 8, Madigan in view of Shuck and itself discloses (FIGS. 1-7) the mattress system of claim 1, wherein the first and second fasteners comprise hook and loop fasteners, buttons and button-holes, snaps, or zippers (per claim 2: “fastening means consists of hook and loop fasteners (Velcro.TM.), buttons and buttonholes, hooks and eyes, snaps, zippers, or other recognized complementary fastening system).
Regarding claim 10, Madigan in view of Shuck and itself discloses (Shuck: FIG. 7) the mattress system of claim 1, wherein the second engageable portion of the second fastener is spaced apart from a terminal foot end of the flat sheet by a distance effective to extend the flat sheet beyond the second fastener when releasably attached (as conveyed through Shuck: FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Madigan in view of Shuck discloses (FIGS. 1-7) the mattress system of claim 1, wherein the first and second fasteners have releasable attachment mechanisms.
However, although Madigan discloses that the fastener system may use a number of different fasteners (e.g. “Attachment of the components to the base covering can be provided by use of buttons and buttonholes, snaps, loop and hook attachments (Velcro.COPYRGT.), hooks and eyes, zippers or other attachment system” [3:44-59]), Madigan does not explicitly disclose wherein the fastener systems are particularly different as by intermixing.
Regardless, Madigan does teach many numerous fasteners and does avail “or other attachment system”, and teaches a high plurality with a high plurality of many different sheets and materials (FIGS. 1-3, and [3:44-59]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated one of the many different fastener sets Madigan provides for one of the fastener sets. Where the results would have been predictable as Madigan considers many different fasteners of equivalent results, and wherein advantageously it is considered that variations of fastener types can facilitate their unique benefits, such as a zipper may avail a more grounded and secured connection to ensure retention (such as for the bottom most sheet), while a fastener such as hook-and-loop or snaps may avail more expedient removal such as for a top sheet to avail quicker removal for laundering, replacement, adjustment, or entering the bedding arrangement.
Regarding claim 12, Madigan in view of Shuck and itself discloses (FIGS. 1-7) the mattress system of claim 9, wherein the first and second fasteners comprise hook and loop fasteners, buttons and button-holes, snaps, or zippers (per claim 2: “fastening means consists of hook and loop fasteners (Velcro.TM.), buttons and buttonholes, hooks and eyes, snaps, zippers, or other recognized complementary fastening system).
Regarding claim 13, Madigan discloses (FIGS. 1-7) a mattress system including an integrated sheeting (As illustrated in FIG. 1-7), the mattress {system} comprising: a mattress (84; FIG. 2) comprising an upholstery layer 38; FIG. 2) encapsulating a mattress core (correspondent 36 and 84; FIG. 2) configured to support a sleeper during use (where it has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)), wherein the mattress comprises a head end (correspondent the left side of FIG. 1; correspondent left 64; FIG. 7), a foot end (correspondent the right side of FIG. 1; correspondent right 64; FIG. 7) and lateral sides (correspondent the longitudinal side lengths of FIG. 1, correspondent 84; correspondent sides 66/72; FIG. 7) extending from the head end to the foot end (as illustrated in FIGS. 1), wherein the mattress further comprises a first engageable portion of a first fastener (correspondent 16 or 28; FIG. 2) extending on upholstered sides along an entire perimeter of the mattress (as conveyed in FIG. 7); and a fitted sheet (correspondent 46 or 44; FIG. 2) including a second engageable portion (correspondent and per claim 2: “corresponding complimentary fastening means consists of hook and loop fasteners (Velcro.TM.), buttons and buttonholes, hooks and eyes, snaps, zippers, or other recognized complementary fastening system”) configured to be releasably engaged with the first engageable portion of the first fastener and provide releasable attachment of the fitted sheet to the upholstered sides of the mattress (as conveyed in claims 1 and 2 through releasable fastening means disclosed including hook and loop, zippers, snaps, buttons); and a flat sheet (correspondent 20 or 18; FIG. 2) including a second engageable portion (as conveyed through claims 1-2, “corresponding complimentary fastening means consists of hook and loop fasteners (Velcro.TM.), buttons and buttonholes, hooks and eyes, snaps, zippers, or other recognized complementary fastening system”) along at least a terminal end of the flat sheet that corresponds to the foot end of the mattress (as illustrated between FIGS. 1, 2, and 5-7), wherein the second engageable portion of the flat sheet is configured to be releasably engaged with the first engageable portion of the second fastener (as conveyed through claims 1 and 2) and provide releasable attachment of the flat sheet to the upholstered side of the foot end of the mattress (as illustrated in FIG. 1 and conveyed in claims 1 and 2).
However, although Madigan discloses fasteners at separate heights per their sets (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3) Madigan does not explicitly disclose wherein the first fastener is at less than one inches from the second.
Regardless, Madigan discloses the claimed invention except for the first fastener being disposed less than 1 inches from the second fastener. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have rendered the first fastener (sets) disposed one inches from the second fastener (sets), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. Where the results would have been predictable as a change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). Where there is a lack of criticality as to the dimension and size of the dimension/percentage, with applicant’s disclosure only indicating “In one or more embodiments, the second fastener 50 is below the first fastener 46 and spaced apart from the first fastener by a distance of less than 2 inches. In other embodiments, the spacing between the fit and second fasteners is less than 1 inch” [0033]. Whereupon the particular sizing constraint between the two fasteners could advantageously be facilitated for mattresses of smaller sizes and smaller heights/thickness, extending the operability of the invention of Madigan to different sized mattresses and conditions. Where Madigan further acknowledges “All components may be customized to the dimensions of the mattress to be covered, for example, twin, full, queen, king, youth, long, cot, air mattress or crib” [3:44-59].
However, Madigan does not explicitly disclose wherein the flat sheet includes a second engageable portion spaced apart from a terminal end of the flat sheet that corresponds to the foot end of the mattress such that the first and second fasteners are hidden by the flat sheet when attached.
Regardless, Shuck teaches (FIG. 7) a two-sheet fastening system wherein the flat sheet (46; FIG. 7) includes a second engageable portion (correspondent 126; FIG. 7) spaced apart from a terminal end of the flat sheet (correspondent the bottom hanging end of 46; FIG. 7) that corresponds to the foot end of the mattress (as illustrated in FIG. 7) and such that the first and second fasteners (of both a flat sheet and a bed sheet underneath (44; FIG. 7) are hidden by the flat sheet when attached (as illustrated in FIG. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the overhanging/extent of the flat sheet relative to the second engageable portion of the second fastener of Shuck (as illustrated in FIG. 7) into Madigan (FIG. 1-3). Where the results would have been predictable as both Shuck and Madigan consider the use of one type of overhang material (Shuck: FIG. 7, Madigan, dust ruffle 40; Fig. 2). Where advantageously, the combination thereof would provide a bridging cover between the secured flat sheet (20; FIG. 2) and the dust ruffle (40; FIG. 2), advantageously better preventing inadvertent undoing or alteration of the dust ruffle’s setting and improving the convenience of setting the bed dressing and retaining the bed dressings.
Regarding claim 14, Madigan discloses (FIGS. 1-7) the mattress system of claim 13, wherein the first engageable portion of the second fastener on the mattress further extends from the foot end to at least a fraction of each lateral side of the mattress (as illustrated in FIGS. 5-7); and the second engageable portion of the second fastener on the flat sheet extends a similar distance as the first engageable portion of the second fastener as illustrated and conveyed in FIGS. 5-7 and FIG. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 15, Madigan discloses (FIGS. 1-7) the mattress system of claim 13, wherein the first fastener (correspondent 16 or 28; FIG. 2) is at an {arbitrary} height dimension of the upholstered side relative to ground and the second fastener (correspondent 22 or 24; FIG. 2) is spaced apart from the first fastener (as illustrated in FIG. 2) at a {second arbitrary} height dimension {lower than the first fastener}.
However, although Madigan discloses fasteners at separate heights per their sets (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3) Madigan does not explicitly disclose wherein the first fastener is at about 70 percent of a height dimension of the upholstered side relative to ground and the second fastener is spaced apart from the first fastener at about 30 percent of a height dimension of the upholstered side.
Regardless, Madigan discloses the claimed invention except for the first fastener being disposed about 70 percent of the height dimension of the upholstered side and the second fastener is disposed at about 30% of the height. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have rendered one of the first fastener (sets) disposed about 70 percent of the height dimension of the upholstered side and the second fastener (sets) is disposed at about 30% of the height, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. Where the results would have been predictable as a change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). Where there is a lack of criticality as to the dimension and size of the dimension/percentage, with applicant’s disclosure only indicating “However, it should be noted that the attachment location height can vary up to about the entire height of the upholstered sides 22” [0027] and “at about 30 percent of the height of the upholstered side 22 relative to ground. However, as previously noted, the vertical attachment height of the first and/or second fastener as well as the spacing for non-continuous fasteners such as buttons/buttonholes are not intended to be limited” [0028]. Whereupon the particular placement would reasonably avail access and handling to the respective fastener set with minimal interference and inadvertently undoing any fastening thereof, thereby improving the convenience of the invention of Madigan.
Regarding claim 17, Madigan discloses (FIGS. 1-7) the mattress system of claim 13, wherein the first engageable portion of the second fastener is provided on the upholstered side at the foot end of the mattress at an attachment point below the first engageable portion of the first fastener (as illustrated in FIG. 7) and further extends along a majority length of each lateral side (as illustrated in FIGS. 5 and 7); and wherein the second engageable portion is provided at a terminal end of the flat sheet end corresponding to the foot end of the mattress and further extends along a similar distance along a side dimension of the flat sheet as the first engageable portion on the mattress (as illustrated in FIGS. 5 and 7, and conveyed with the fastening pairings of FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Madigan discloses (FIGS. 1-7) the mattress system of claim 13, wherein the first and second fasteners have releasable attachment mechanisms.
However, although Madigan discloses that the fastener system may use a number of different fasteners (e.g. “Attachment of the components to the base covering can be provided by use of buttons and buttonholes, snaps, loop and hook attachments (Velcro.COPYRGT.), hooks and eyes, zippers or other attachment system” [3:44-59]), Madigan does not explicitly disclose wherein the fastener systems are particularly different as by intermixing.
Regardless, Madigan does teach many numerous fasteners and does avail “or other attachment system”, and teaches a high plurality with a high plurality of many different sheets and materials (FIGS. 1-3, and [3:44-59]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated one of the many different fastener sets Madigan provides for one of the fastener sets. Where the results would have been predictable as Madigan considers many different fasteners of equivalent results, and wherein advantageously it is considered that variations of fastener types can facilitate their unique benefits, such as a zipper may avail a more grounded and secured connection to ensure retention (such as for the bottom most sheet), while a fastener such as hook-and-loop or snaps may avail more expedient removal such as for a top sheet to avail quicker removal for laundering, replacement, adjustment, or entering the bedding arrangement.
Regarding claim 19, Madigan discloses (FIGS. 1-7) the mattress system of claim 13, wherein the first and second fasteners comprise hook and loop fasteners, buttons and button-holes, snaps, or zippers (per claim 2: “fastening means consists of hook and loop fasteners (Velcro.TM.), buttons and buttonholes, hooks and eyes, snaps, zippers, or other recognized complementary fastening system).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pages 7-8), filed February 20th, 2026, with respect to Specification/Abstract Objections alongside 102 Rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Specification/Abstract Objections alongside 102 Rejections of November 20th, 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pages 8-9), filed February 20th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8, 13-14, 17, and 19 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Madigan in view of itself and Shuck.
Applicant's arguments filed February 20th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Particularly, it is considered that the newly amended matters of claims 1 and 13, while extent, appear to be nearly verbatim the subject matter of previously dependent (now cancelled) claims 2 and 5, and additionally now cancelled claim 9.
With regards to applicant’s argument that the disclosure of Madigan does not express a separate, stacked fasteners. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this characterization however, as FIG. 2A clearly does demonstrate discretized fasteners that are indeed respectfully vertically stacked in the profile/cross sectional view of FIG. 2A. And while applicant’s allege that Madigan does not permit first and second fasteners to be hidden by the flat sheet when attached, which in the instant office action considers 20. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Shuck is additionally considered in combination with Madigan (in view of itself), where Shuck provides an overhang that will clearly hide all fasteners (including the one affixing the top/flat sheet of the invention), as is eminently demonstrated in FIG. 7 with 46 overhanging both 66 and 96 (with the fastener 66 being of the flat sheet per the claims necessitating the second engagement being part of the flat sheet.
Therefore, claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 13-14, 17, and 19, and dependents thereof are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 with Madigan in view of itself and Shuck.
Conclusion
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights