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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “even if Kaikenger’s pillow were substituted for the cushion” of the Korea reference, that “it would fail to achieve the required inclination that is directed towards the front” and that “Kaikenger’s structural geometry is incompatible with the support configuration of the Korea reference”. Examiner wishes to point out that in the proposed modification, Kaikenger’s pillow is not being substituted for the cushion of the Korea reference, the teaching of Kaikenger of slanting a horseshoe shaped face pillow down and towards the front (or top of head) of a patient is being used to further modify the Korea reference. Applicant argues that Korea does not disclose a horseshoe shape as claimed. Mitchell discloses the horseshoe shape as claimed, not Korea. Applicant argues that Korea modified by Mitchell and Kaikenger does not disclose wherein the bottom surface of the front end is formed to be convex upward. Mac Marbury III discloses this limitation, not Korea. Applicant does not make any arguments directed toward the Cheng, Mac Marbury III, or Vilsone references.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-0839364 (Korea hereinafter) in view of USP 9,867,749 (Mitchell hereinafter), USPAP 2022/0125653 (Kaikenger et al. hereinafter), and USPAP 2014/0053337 (Mac Marbury III hereinafter).
With regard to claim 1, Korea discloses a head support cushion comprising:
a support cushion member (10) to support facial edges and a chin of a user in a prone position; and
a height adjustment member (20A, 20B) disposed below the support cushion member (10) to position the support cushion member (10) at a predetermined height so that a user's head seated on the support cushion member (10) is positioned higher than the user's feet;
wherein the height adjustment member (20A, 20B) comprises:
a first height adjustment member (20A) formed in a ring shape when seen in a plan view.
Korea does not disclose wherein the support cushion member is a horseshoe shape when seen in a plan view, wherein the height adjustment member is configured to arrange the support cushion member slanted downward toward a front, which is a direction toward which the head of the user in the prone position faces, or wherein the height adjustment member comprises a first height adjustment member having a height gradually decreasing from a rear end of a side toward a center of a front end, so that a bottom surface of the front end of the first height adjustment member is formed to extend convexly upward, wherein the support cushion member is coupled to the first height adjustment member, so as to be open toward the rear end.
Mitchell teaches a facial support pillow that is a horseshoe shape when seen in a plan view (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the apparatus of Korea by providing that support cushion member is a horseshoe shape when seen in a plan view as taught in Mitchell for the purposes of creating a chin clearance channel while still supporting the user’s face (col. 3 lines 26-31).
Kaikenger et al. teaches a horseshoe shaped face pillow (Fig. 26) that is able to be slanted downward toward a front, which is a direction toward which the head of the user in the prone position faces (paragraph [0116]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to further modify the apparatus of Korea by altering the height adjustment member to have an angled top so that it is configured to arrange the support cushion member slanted downward toward a front, which is a direction toward which the head of the user in the prone position faces as taught in Kaikenger et al. for the purposes of accommodating a morphology of the user to improve comfort and reduce pressure sores (paragraph [0116] of Kaikenger et al.).
Mac Marbury III teaches a face pillow (10) wherein a bottom surface has a convex upward shape (Q, Fig.’s 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to further modify the apparatus of the Korea modification with regard to claim 1 by providing wherein a center portion of a front end is convex upward as taught in Mac Marbury III for the purposes of providing even more channels for airflow to ease breathing of the user (paragraph [0016] of Mac Marbury III).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korea in view of Mitchell, Kaikenger et al., Mac Marbury III, and USPAP 2015/0040322 (Cheng et al. hereinafter).
With regard to claim 3, the Korea modification with regard to claim 1 discloses all of the limitations except for wherein on a rear central portion of an upper surface of the first height adjustment member, a portion open toward a rear of the support cushion member is located, and the rear central portion is formed to have a concave shape in a left-right direction.
Cheng et al. teaches a cushion member (90) with a height adjustment member (100) wherein on a rear central portion of an upper surface of the first height adjustment member, a portion open toward a rear of the support cushion member is located, and the rear central portion is formed to have a concave shape in a left-right direction (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to further modify the apparatus of the Korea modification with regard to claim 1 by providing that on a rear central portion of an upper surface of the first height adjustment member, a portion open toward a rear of the support cushion member is located, and the rear central portion is formed to have a concave shape in a left-right direction as taught in Cheng et al. for the purposes of providing a ventilation channel for breathing (paragraph [0047] of Cheng et al.).
With regard to claim 4, the Korea modification with regard to claim 3 discloses the head support cushion of claim 1, wherein the height adjustment member (20A, 20B) further comprises:
a second height adjustment member (20B) formed with a ring shape when seen in a plan view, having an entire body with a constant height, and having a center portion of a front end extending convexly upward so that an entire upper surface of the second height adjustment member (20B) is in contact with an entire bottom surface of the first height adjustment member (20A).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korea in view of Mitchell, Kaikenger et al., Mac Marbury III, and Cheng et al. and in further view of USPAP 2023/0148771 (Vilsone hereinafter).
With regard to claim 5, the Korea modification with regard to claim 4 discloses the head support cushion of claim 4, wherein the support cushion member (10), the first height adjustment member (20A), and the second height adjustment member (20B) are coupled to one another by snaps.
The Korea modification with regard to claim 4 does not disclose the support cushion member and first and second height adjustment members coupled to each other by a protruding groove structure.
Vilsone teaches a pillow (50) having three layers (22, 24, 26), wherein the layers are connected to each other via a protruding groove structure (32, 34, 42, 44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to further modify the apparatus of The Korea modification with regard to claim 4 by providing that the support cushion member and first and second height adjustment members coupled to each other by a protruding groove structure as taught in Vilsone for the purposes of connecting the layers in close and tight tolerances (paragraph [0058] of Vilsone).
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 AARON R EASTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 C. 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.
/AARON R EASTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673