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 without traverse of Invention Group I and Species I (as represented by Figs. 1A-7 and 19-22) in the reply filed on 3/5/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking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. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/5/26.
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 1-10 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 recite the limitation “a single open-ended construction” and then “the first foldable flap and the second foldable flap on one end of the bedding” as well as “configured to individually fold over their respective first open end...” It is not clear as to how many openings exist, where they are situated, and how the flaps are folded over the openings. The recitations are confusing and conflict with one another.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “dependent upon which flap is folded over the other.” The recitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear how the shorter flap can be folded over the longer flap.
Claims 2-3 are indefinite as the recitation of “that accommodates two different sized pillows” and the accompanying descriptions of the pillow sizes convey that the two different sized pillows are accommodated simultaneously, which is simply not the case based upon the remainder of the original disclosure. The conflict created by these claim limitations with respect to the specification and the drawings renders the claims indefinite.
Claims 4-5 are indefinite for the same reason as claims 2-3 above, but with respect to duvets instead of pillows.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “… from one edge…” The recitation lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear if the claim is attempting to refer to a previously recited edge or whether it is introducing a new edge.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the other opposite edge.” The recitation lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear as to which edge the claim refers. See above.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “each corresponding side.” The recitation lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear as to which of the previously introduced sides the claim is referring.
Claim 9 appears to recite an active method step within the apparatus claim and is therefore indefinite as it is not clear whether an apparatus or a method is being claimed. The claim appears as if it may be mixing statutory subject matter classes. The recitation causes a lack of clarity which renders the claim indefinite. See, for example, “wherein the first foldable flap is lifted up and folded over…”
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the corresponding side of the bedding.” The recitation lacks proper antecedent basis.
The claims rejected below are rejected as best understood.
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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Walk (DE 8802019 U1).
Re Claim 1
Walk discloses:
A bedding (figs. 1-8) comprising:
a generally rectangular shape with opposing edges extending along in parallel relationship, a closed end, and a first open end opposite the closed end (fig. 4; fig. 8; 0007, 0013, 0015),
a first length that is defined by the distance between an edge of the closed end of the bedding and a distal end of a first foldable flap, which is situated on a first side of the bedding and that extends beyond a second foldable flap on a second opposing and shorter side of the bedding (see figs. 1, 4, 5; see 0007; note that when the flaps are unfolded, the relatively lower flap will extend further than the relatively upper flap),
a second length that is shorter than the first length and defined by the distance between the same edge of the closed end and a distal end of the second foldable flap that is situated on the second opposing and shorter side of the bedding, the first and second foldable flaps are situated on the opposite first and second sides of the bedding, respectively, and about a first opening at the first open end, which is opposite the closed end and leads to a cavity into which a pillow or duvet can be received, each foldable flap overlaps a portion of each corresponding side by a desired length (see figs. 1, 4, 5; see 0007; note that when the flaps are unfolded, the relatively lower flap will extend further than the relatively upper flap), and
wherein the bedding defines a single open-ended construction in which the first foldable flap and the second foldable flap on one end of the bedding is configured to individually fold over their respective first open end and one another to retain and hide therein one of a designated and different sized pillow or duvet dependent upon which foldable flap is folded over the other (see figs. 1-5; see 0007, 0013, 0015, see figs. 5-7 showing different sizes inside a duvet cover and 1-3 showing different size pillows when used as a pillowcase).
Re Claim 2
Walk discloses:
wherein the bedding is a pillowcase that accommodates two different sized pillows (see all figs; see 0005-0007; see 0015-0016).
Re Claim 3
Walk discloses:
wherein the two different sized pillows are a queen and a king size pillow or a queen and a standard size pillow (see all figs; see 0005-0007; see 0012, 0015-0016).
Re Claim 4
Walk discloses:
wherein the bedding is a duvet cover that accommodates two different sized duvets (see all figs; see 0005-0007; see 0012, 0015-0016).
Re Claim 5
Walk discloses:
wherein the two different sized duvets are a queen and a king size duvet or a queen and a standard duvet (see all figs; see 0005-0016).
Re Claim 6
Walk discloses:
wherein each foldable flap extends along a width of the bedding from one edge to the other opposite edge and overlaps a portion of each corresponding side by a desired length (see figs 4 and 8).
Re Claim 7
Walk discloses:
wherein a width of the bedding is generally uniform along the first and second lengths (see figs. 4 and 8).
Re Claim 8
Walk discloses:
wherein the bedding can retain and hide therein one of a designated and different sized pillow or duvet that generally corresponds to the first and second lengths, respectively, and the width of the bedding (see 0005-0016; see figs. 2-3 and/or 7 for example too; the bedding is capable of the claimed feature).
Re Claim 9
Walk discloses:
wherein the first foldable flap is lifted up and folded over along a hinge formed by an intersection of the distal end of the first foldable flap and a terminal end of the corresponding side of the bedding, and the second foldable flap includes a proximal edge that is situated below a proximal edge of the first foldable flap (see figs. 1-3 and/or any of 5-7).
Re Claim 10
Walk discloses:
wherein the first foldable flap can include a colored yarn and the second foldable flap can include a different colored yarn to designate different sized pillows or duvets that each flap can accommodate (the flaps have the capability of including the yarns as claimed. The claim does not actually require the yarns, merely the capability, which exists in the reference).
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) 3 and 5 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walk (DE 8802019 U1).
Re Claim 3
Walk discloses all claim limitations, see above, and while it is believed that Walk discloses the following (see above), an alternative rejection is nevertheless provided:
wherein the two different sized pillows are a queen and a king size pillow or a queen and a standard size pillow.
Regarding the above limitation, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to adjust the size of the apparatus to have the two different sized pillows are a queen and a king size pillow or a queen and a standard size pillow, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. 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). Such a modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date for the purpose of accommodating standard size bedding varieties as described in the reference’s disclosure.
Re Claim 5
Walk discloses:
wherein the two different sized duvets are a queen and a king size duvet or a queen and a standard duvet.
Regarding the above limitation, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to adjust the size of the apparatus to have the two different sized duvets are a queen and a king size duvet or a queen and a standard duvet, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. 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). Such a modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date for the purpose of accommodating standard size bedding varieties as described in the reference’s disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional similar bedding structures are provided, most of which utilize flaps or other closure mechanisms. Multiple of the references appear to have some distinction between the lengths of closure mechanisms provided.
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
Prosecution Insights