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 Species A-I and B-I in the reply filed on 10/20/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the following ground(s) and is not found persuasive for the reasons set forth below. First, applicant argues that Species A-I and A-II are not mutually exclusive. Applicant is incorrect. Species A-I is the retention mechanism species in which solely the pouches are used for retention / coupling. Species A-II is the retention mechanism species in which additional couplers are utilized as well. The two are mutually exclusive options. Either one uses solely the pouches for retention / coupling (option 1) or one uses the pouch(es) with additional couplers (option 2). Paragraph 0043, as written, makes the above clear. Second, regarding Species B-I and B-II, whether or not the distinction is relevant to claims 1-10 is not the issue and is not a persuasive argument. The original disclosure does disclose two species identified as B-I and B-II. The above argument appears to be simply a statement by applicant that the claims are generic to the species, which is fine. The requirement was nevertheless proper, even if all of claims 1-10 are generic to the species at issue. An election of species requirement in no way deprives applicant of the ability to seek protection via dependent claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking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 10/20/25.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“head-end portion … not configured to couple to the mattress”– see claim 2 and 112(b) rejection below
“the pouch in the comforter extension configuration being configured to not couple the comforter to the mattress” – see claim 3 and 112(b) rejection below
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim fails to end with a period. 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 1-7 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 1 recites the limitation “whereby inserting the foot-end portion of the mattress… while providing draft protection to feet of a person sleeping on the mattress.” As written, it is unclear whether the claim is intending to positively recite feet of a person, which would be improper. The claim should instead recite the limitation without positively reciting a person or a part of a person, for example via claiming –while being configured to provide draft protection to feet of a person sleeping on the mattress--.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “and the head-end portion does not define a pouch and is not configured to couple to the mattress.” It is unclear how the head-end portion is not configured to couple to the mattress when it rests upon the mattress, which is a form of coupling.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the pouch in the comforter extension configuration being configured to not couple the comforter to the mattress.” It is unclear how this is the case. The pouch is the same pouch and when placed downward couples to the mattress. Therefore, even in the comforter extension configuration, it is still configured (i.e. made and/or designed to) couple the comforter to the mattress.
The claims rejected below are rejected as best understood in view of the above.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bauer (US PG Pub No. 20070151028).
Re Claim 1
Bauer discloses:
A method of using a comforter system, the method comprising:
laying a comforter sheet on a mattress, the comforter sheet having a head-end portion and a foot-end portion disposed opposite from the head-end portion of the comforter sheet, the foot-end portion of the comforter sheet defining a pouch (see figs. 1-3, see [0041], abstract, [0003], [0032]); and
inserting a foot-end portion of the mattress into the pouch (figs. 2-3; [0070]-[0072]),
whereby inserting the foot-end portion of the mattress into the pouch facilitates preventing misalignment of the comforter sheet relative to the mattress while providing draft protection to feet of a person sleeping on the mattress (figs. 2-3; [0070]-[0072]).
Re Claim 2
Bauer discloses:
wherein the pouch is defined by only the foot-end portion of the comforter sheet, and the head-end portion does not define a pouch and is not configured to couple to the mattress (figs. 2-3; [0070]-[0072]).
Re Claim 3
Bauer discloses:
wherein inserting the foot-end portion of the mattress into the pouch includes transitioning the pouch from a comforter extension configuration (prior to installation on the mattress / when not installed on the mattress) to a mattress coupling configuration (during / when installed on the mattress), the pouch in the comforter extension configuration being configured to not couple the comforter to the mattress (see above, see figs. 2-3; [0070]-[0072]), the pouch in the mattress coupling configuration being configured to couple the comforter to the mattress (see above, see figs. 2-3; [0070]-[0072]).
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) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US PG Pub No. 20070151028) in view of Lafoux (FR 2905580 A1).
Re Claim 4
Bauer discloses:
wherein a tensioner (302) is coupled to a portion of the foot-end portion of the comforter sheet (figs. 2-3)
However, Bauer does not disclose:
a tension adjuster is coupled to the tensioner, and transitioning the pouch from the comforter extension configuration to the mattress coupling configuration includes increasing tension along the tensioner between the foot-end portion of the comforter sheet and the tension adjuster.
Lafoux teaches the use of a tension adjuster coupled to a tensioner and a pouch in which application of the pouch with the mattress (i.e. transitioning from one configuration to another) includes increasing tension along the tensioner between the foot-end portion of the comforter sheet and the tension adjuster (see figs. 3, 4, and/or 5) for the purpose of securing the bedding / covering to the mattress and minimizing shift. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Bauer to have a tension adjuster is coupled to the tensioner, and transitioning the pouch from the comforter extension configuration to the mattress coupling configuration includes increasing tension along the tensioner between the foot-end portion of the comforter sheet and the tension adjuster as taught by Lafoux for the purpose(s) articulated above. It is noted that such a modification could be a simple substitution of one known part for another, e.g. replacing the elastic in Bauer with the cord within a channel and a lock / tension adjuster as taught by Lafoux. It is noted in Lafoux and generally known to loosen / tighten with appropriate installation steps. It is further noted that it is common and well-known in sheets to use these types of securing arrangements and structures.
Re Claim 5
Bauer as modified above discloses:
transitioning the pouch from the mattress coupling configuration to the comforter extension configuration by decreasing the tension along the tensioner between the foot-end portion of the comforter sheet and the tension adjuster (see modification above; see citations above; commonly known in the art to loosen the lock / tensioner during installation / uninstallation / removal / at the appropriate steps); and
laying the comforter sheet on the mattress while the comforter sheet is in the comforter extension configuration (see citations above).
Re Claim 6
Bauer as modified above discloses:
wherein the foot-end portion of the comforter sheet defines a channel in which the tensioner resides (see modification above; see citations above), the channel extending along a perimeter of the foot-end portion of the comforter sheet (see modification above; see citations above).
Re Claim 7
Bauer as modified above discloses:
wherein the head-end portion is devoid of the tensioner (see Bauer figs. 2-3; see modification above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional foot pouch structures relating to sheets, comforters, blankets, quilts, and/or other types of bedding are provided. Some of the above include a variety of tensioning mechanisms.
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