DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 4/27/26. Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are pending. Claims 1-5 and 7-12 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 .
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 1-5, 7-8, and 11 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 3,542,421 to Ambrose.
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 base element is flat (Smith Fig. 1, #12 is flat), 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 the at least one padded element is arrangeable on the at least one base element in a plurality of configurations and wherein the retaining means to ensure that the at least one padded element is firmly maintained in a first configuration selected from the plurality of configurations that is conferred and defined thereto and, at a same time, allows removable connection between the at least one base element and the at least one padded element and are placed on the at least one base element and the at least one padded element, respectively, so that the at least one padded element is repositionable on the at least one base element in a second configuration selected from the plurality of configurations and different from the first configuration (Smith, Figs. 1 and 6 discloses a removable connection between the base element and the padded element, but does not explicitly disclose that the attachment location is “repositionable”; Ambrose teaches a similar pillow that includes and bolster that are attached by hook and loop fasteners, and which explicitly teaches in column 2, lines 23-27 that the position of the bolsters be repositioned to provide a configuration that is most comfortable; therefore 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 apparatus of Smith with hook and loop fasteners that are larger than those of Smith in order to allow for the padded element of Smith to be repositionable).
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, in view of Ambrose 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 a larger hook and loop fastener, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
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 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 in rejection of claims 1 and 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 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2019/0045950 to Smith and US Patent 3,542,421 to Ambrose, 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 and US Patent 3,542,421 to Ambrose, 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]).
Response to Applicant's remarks and amendments
Regarding prior objections to the drawings, Applicant has cancelled claim 6 and the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding prior objections to the specification, Applicant has cancelled claim 6 and the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 112(b), Applicant has amended the claim language, and the rejections have been withdrawn.
With respect to independent claim 1, Applicant argues on pages 7-9 of Applicant’s remarks that in cited prior art of Smith does not disclose the invention as now claimed. While this may or may not be true, the current claim language is rejected in view of Smith and Ambrose as necessitated by Applicant’s claim amendments.
Applicant provides several arguments that the currently claimed invention allows for positioning the upper padded element in various reconfigurable locations, and that Smith does not provide for this functionality. The argument is understood, however, as discussed in above rejections, Ambrose teaches this functionality, and it would have been obvious to modify Smith in view of Ambrose to provide these features.
Conclusion
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 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, Matthew Troutman can be reached on 571-270-3654. 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
Prosecution Insights