DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 11/23/24. Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1-12 are rejected.
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 .
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. Additionally 35 USC §113 requires that “the applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented.” Therefore, “an additional cover” recited in claim 6, must be shown in the drawings, and clearly indicated with a reference character, or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification does not discuss “an additional cover”, as recited in claim 6. The specification must be amended to include language regarding “an additional cover.” The configuration recited in claim 6, specifically with “a covering lining” and “an additional cover”, is not described in the originally filed specification, or in the drawings. No new matter may be entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
CONCLUSION.--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 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention. The claims recite “a length much greater than…” The terminology “much greater” is a relative term of degree and is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(b). Appropriate correction is required.
35 USC § 112(f) – Interpretation of claims
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.--An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Applicant’s Claim 1 contains several limitations that have been interpreted under 35 USC §112(f). Note that this is not a rejection, but merely a statement of how the claim language has been interpreted. These limitations interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) are “a retaining means,” because the term uses a non-structural term coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim these limitations are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations:
“Retaining means” has been interpreted in accordance with Applicant’s paragraph [0028] as “a non-slip material”, or in accordance with paragraph [0096], as “male/female hook-and-loop strips,” and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If Applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For more information, see Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
In view of the above rejections the respective claims are rejected as best understood on prior art as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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; or
(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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2019/0045950 to Smith.
Claim 1. A support and restraint system for a human body or for a segment of a human body, comprising: at least one padded element (Smith, Fig. 1, #14), having a substantially tubular shape, and at least one base element (Smith, Fig. 1, #12), wherein the at least one padded element having a substantially tubular shape and the at least one base element are distinct, independent and entirely separate components (Smith, Fig.6), wherein the at least one padded element and the at least one base element are provided with respective retaining means (Smith, Fig. 6, #18) for coupling the at least one padded element to the at least one base element, and wherein a desired arrangement on the at least one base element can be given to the at least one padded element and the retaining means to ensure that the at least one padded element firmly maintains the arrangement that is conferred and defined thereto (see Smith, Figs. 1 and 6).
Claim 3. The support and restraint system according to claim 1, wherein the retaining means are discrete retaining means (see Smith Fig. 6, discrete fasteners #18).
Claim 4. The support and restraint system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one padded element includes a covering lining and a padding received inside the covering lining (Smith paragraph [0029] discloses a filler material #21 which is “encased in cloth, such as a plain muslin material”).
Claim 7. The support and restraint system according to claim 3, wherein the at least one padded element includes a covering lining and a padding received inside the covering lining (Smith paragraph [0029] discloses a filler material #21 which is “encased in cloth, such as a plain muslin material”), and wherein the discrete retaining means are obtained by placing male or, respectively, female connecting members on the at least one base element and by placing corresponding female or, respectively, male connecting members on the covering lining of the at least one padded element (see Smith Fig. 6, discrete fasteners #18).
Claim 8. The support and restraint system according to claim 7, wherein the male or, respectively, female connecting members of the at least one base element and the female or, respectively, male connecting members of the at least one padded element allow a removable connection between the at least one base element and the at least one padded element (see Smith Fig. 6 and claim 17, “wherein the cradle portion is removable from the base”).
Claim 11. The support and restraint system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one padded element has an elongated tubular shape, wherein the at least one padded element has a cross-section having a variable size along the length of the at least one padded element, and wherein the at least one padded element has a length much greater than a maximum size of the cross-section (Smith discloses a pillow #14 in Fig. 3 that is seen to be tapered).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2019/0045950 to Smith.
Claim 2. The support and restraint system according to claim 1, wherein the retaining means are continuous and distributed retaining means (as best understood from Applicant’s Fig. 1, “continuous and distributed retaining means” is meant to confer a single fastener rather than multiple discrete fasteners as seen in Applicant’s Fig. 1; Smith discloses separate fasteners #18 as seen in Fig. 6; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enlarge the fasteners to cover the entire bottom surface of pillow 14 in order to provide a more secure fastening system that ensure the pillow will remain in a desired position; furthermore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to provide a single larger fastener instead of smaller discrete fasteners since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and 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)).
Claim 5. The support and restraint system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one padded element includes a covering lining and a padding received inside the covering lining (Smith paragraph [0029] discloses a filler material #21 which is “encased in cloth, such as a plain muslin material”), and wherein the distributed retaining means are obtained by totally or partially making the covering lining of the at least one padded element of a non-slip material, and by providing the at least one base element with a coating totally or partially made of a non-slip material (as noted with respect to claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make fasteners #18 of Smith Fig. 6 larger to cover the entire bottom surface of pillow #14).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2019/0045950 to Smith in view of US Patent Application Publication 2002/0124316 to Matthews Brown.
Claim 6. The support and restraint system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one padded element includes a covering lining and a padding received inside the covering lining (Smith paragraph [0029] discloses a filler material #21 which is “encased in cloth, such as a plain muslin material”), and wherein the distributed retaining means are obtained by covering the covering lining(s) of the at least one padded element with an additional cover (Smith does not disclose an “additional cover”, however pillow covers are well known in the prior art as taught by Matthews Brown in Fig. 2, which teaches a pillow with fill material and a shell, #32 and #30, and which also teaches a cover #12; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pillow #14 and fill #21 of Smith with an additional cover as taught by Matthews Brown at least for the purpose of being able to remove the cover to wash for sanitary purposes), capable of covering, totally or partially, the at least one padded element, by totally or partially making the additional cover of a non-slip material, and by providing the at least one base element with a coating totally or partially made of a non-slip material (as noted with respect to claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make fasteners #18 of Smith Fig. 6 larger to cover the entire bottom surface of pillow #14).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2019/0045950 to Smith in view of US Patent 6,499,164 to Leach.
Claim 9. The support and restraint system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one padded element has an elongated tubular shape, wherein the at least one padded element has a cross-section having a constant size along the length of the at least one padded element, and wherein the at least one padded element has a length much greater than the size of the cross-section (Smith does not disclose a pillow with a constant cross section; note that the pillow #14 in Fig. 3 appears to be tapered; however similar pillows with a constant cross section are known in the prior art, for example as taught by Leach in Figs. 1-3 and column 2, lines 5-22; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pillow of Smith with a constant cross-section diameter as an obvious matter of design choice, since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results, and additionally there does not appear to be any criticality or unexpected result from the choice of a constant-cross section pillow).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2019/0045950 to Smith in view of US Patent Application Publication 2018/0199738 to Klein.
Claim 10. The support and restraint system according to claim 4, wherein the padding of the at least one padded element is divided into several sectors, and wherein each sector of the padding is made by using one or more types and combinations of filling elements, which are identical or different (Smith does not disclose a pillow with multiple sectors and multiple materials, however this feature is known in the prior art of pillows, as taught by Klein in Fig. 4 and paragraph [0066]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide multiple sectors in a pillow with various types of fill in order to provide desired aesthetic characteristics and to optimize a user’s comfort; additionally, since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results).
Claim 12. The support and restraint system according to claim 4, wherein the padding of the at least one padded element is made by using one or more types and combinations of filling elements (Klein, Fig. 4 and paragraph [0066]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached on 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.
/MYLES A THROOP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673