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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20100229307 A1 to Sato.
Re Claim 1, Sato teaches:
A pillow (at least [Abstract] “pillow”) comprising to accommodate the preferred sleeping position of a vertigo sufferer while supporting the head in an elevated and angled position while supporting the neck and upper shoulders (at least [Abstract] “Considering a case where a patient with whiplash syndrome can sleep safely, it is when the patient is sleeping at an appropriate orientation, whereby if a pillow enabling sleep while maintaining an appropriate orientation exists, a sick person can sleep peacefully”) comprising of: a
pillow enclosure comprising a top and bottom each with a cut centrally located lengthwise along one side (at least Figs. 1-4); a band equaling the circumference of the top and bottom length, width (at least Figs. 1-4 and [0044] “the pillow 1 of the present example is the pillow body 2 having a rectangular shape in plain view in which an upper surface and a lower surface”), and cut centrally located lengthwise along one side (at least Figs. 1-4 and [0053] “annular cutout 31 (closed cutout 31) as a mark with respect to the cutout portion 62”);
a band whose ends are seamed or sewn together prior to sewing the band to the top and bottom; a band sewn to the top and bottom creating a pillow enclosure while leaving an opening along the upper lengthwise side for the purpose of filling the pillow (at least Figs. 1-4 element 23 and [0044] “an edge cloth 23 (outer edge) as a boundary are configured by an upper surface cloth 21 and a lower surface cloth 22 sewed at the edge cloth 23 of the outer periphery” and [0046] “a separation part 25 extending from the head depression part 4 to the edge cloth 23 of the pillow body 2 and being formed by sewing the upper surface cloth 21 to the lower surface cloth 22 may be formed in a symmetric position with respect to the groove part 6, thereby completely separating the pillow body 2 to the left and the right”);
a seam or a zipper sewn at the opening on the upper lengthwise side for closure of the pillow structure (at least Figs. 2-3 and [0044] “formed by sewing the upper surface cloth 21 to the lower surface cloth 22. Thus, the sewing line of the upper surface cloth 21 and the lower surface cloth 22 becomes close to a ground surface (surface of the mattress or the bed) of the pillow 1, and the sewing line is less likely to contact the neck of the patient with whiplash syndrome”. In other words, the sewing line taught by Sato is the claimed seam.).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of US 11141010 B1 to Mitchel.
Re Claim 2, Sato teaches:
A pillow of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Sato does not explicitly teach:
comprising a pillow enclosure made with polyester fabric.
However, Mitchel teaches:
comprising a pillow enclosure made with polyester fabric (at least [Col. 7 lines 35-60] “materials suitable for the fabric used to manufacture the cover may include polyester”.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pillow taught by Sato with the polyester fabric taught by Mitchel. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it “may be made of hypoallergenic materials and constructed from a light weight breathable fabric” (Mitchel [Col. 7 lines 35-60]), which is comfortable.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of US 20190269264 A1 to Pastrmac.
Re Claim 3, Sato teaches:
A pillow of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Sato does not explicitly teach:
the top and bottom having dimensions of 26" in length and 20" in width.
However, Pastrmac teaches:
the top and bottom having dimensions of 26" in length and 20" in width (at least [0034] “varies between 26-36 inches” and “typically about 20 inches”.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pillow taught by Sato with the dimensions taught by Pastrmac. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because pillow dimensions “can vary depending on the size of the pillow; i.e., standard, queen, king, etc.” (Pastrmac [0034]), which fits different sized mattresses. Further, it has been held that “where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Re Claim 4, Sato teaches:
A pillow of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Sato does not explicitly teach:
having a 9" cut centrally located lengthwise along one side of the top and bottom.
However, Pastrmac teaches:
having a 9" cut centrally located lengthwise along one side of the top and bottom (at least Fig. 3 and [0036] “the overall length L′ may be about 15 inches, with the length 1′ being about 5 inches”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pillow taught by Sato with the dimensions taught by Pastrmac. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because pillow dimensions “can vary depending on the size of the pillow; i.e., standard, queen, king, etc.” (Pastrmac [0034]), which fits different sized mattresses. Further, it has been held that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Re Claim 5, Sato teaches:
A pillow of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Sato does not explicitly teach:
having a band 5" In height, 110" in length plus 1" to allow for a 1/2" seam to sew the two ends together.
However, Pastrmac teaches:
having a band 5" In height (at least [0037] “a maximum height […] which may be between 5-10 inches”), 110" in length (at least [0034] “varies between 26-36 inches” and “typically about 20 inches”. It is noted that since the band wraps around all four sides, the claimed 110 inch length is the circumference. Pastrmac teaches 110 inches via dimensions 2x20 + 2*35 = 110 inches.) plus 1" to allow for a 1/2" seam to sew the two ends together (at least [0034] “varies between 26-36 inches” and “typically about 20 inches”. It is noted that the claimed 1 inch is taught by the 36th inch of “26-36 inches”.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pillow taught by Sato with the dimensions taught by Pastrmac. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because pillow dimensions “can vary depending on the size of the pillow; i.e., standard, queen, king, etc.” (Pastrmac [0034]), which fits different sized mattresses. Further, it has been held that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Re Claim 6, Sato teaches:
A pillow of claim 1, comprising a pillow enclosure by sewing the band to the circumference of the top and bottom including the length, width (at least Figs. 1-4 element 23 and [0044] “an edge cloth 23 (outer edge) as a boundary are configured by an upper surface cloth 21 and a lower surface cloth 22 sewed at the edge cloth 23 of the outer periphery” and [0046] “a separation part 25 extending from the head depression part 4 to the edge cloth 23 of the pillow body 2 and being formed by sewing the upper surface cloth 21 to the lower surface cloth 22 may be formed in a symmetric position with respect to the groove part 6, thereby completely separating the pillow body 2 to the left and the right”) and cut into the pillow body located centrally lengthwise on each of the top and bottom (at least Figs. 1-4 and [0053] “annular cutout 31 (closed cutout 31) as a mark with respect to the cutout portion 62”).
Sato does not explicitly teach:
9" cut, and leaving an opening along the top lengthwise side between the top and the band for the purpose of adding fill such as shredded foam.
However, Pastrmac teaches:
9" cut (at least Fig. 3 and [0036] “the overall length L′ may be about 15 inches, with the length 1′ being about 5 inches”), and leaving an opening along the top lengthwise side between the top and the band (at least [0033] “a lower edge 52 defining an opening extending across the width”) for the purpose of adding fill such as shredded foam (at least [0031] “soft inner fill or batting (not shown) to provide volume”. It is noted that the limitation “such as shredded foam” has optionality and does not require an explicit teaching because only “fill” requires explicit teaching, which is taught by Pastrmac’s soft inner fill.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pillow taught by Sato with the dimensions and opening taught by Pastrmac. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because pillow dimensions “can vary depending on the size of the pillow; i.e., standard, queen, king, etc.” (Pastrmac [0034]), which fits different sized mattresses. Further, it has been held that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of US 20210068562 A1 to Cuthbert.
Re Claim 7, Sato teaches:
A pillow of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Sato does not explicitly teach:
comprising zipper at the opening along the top lengthwise side between the top and the band for the purpose of closing the pillow enclosure after filling the pillow enclosure with shredded foam.
However, Cuthbert teaches:
comprising zipper at the opening along the top lengthwise side between the top and the band for the purpose of closing the pillow enclosure (at least Fig. 8 and [0059] “a zipper 111 to close and open aperture 110”) after filling the pillow enclosure with shredded foam (at least [0004] “adding shredded foam”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pillow taught by Sato with the zipper taught by Cuthbert. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it “allows for removal for washing or replacement if needed” (Cuthbert [0049]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of US 20160073802 A1 to Davis.
Re Claim 8, Sato teaches:
The pillow of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Sato does not explicitly teach:
comprising a vertigo sufferers' ability to sleep in their preferred sleeping position by placing their shoulder into the cut of the pillow, their head on the upper part of the pillow allowing the pillow to support their head in an elevated and angled position while their shoulder remains on the mattress and the lower area of the pillow supports their neck and shoulder.
However, Davis teaches:
comprising a vertigo sufferers' ability to sleep in their preferred sleeping position by placing their shoulder into the cut of the pillow, their head on the upper part of the pillow allowing the pillow to support their head in an elevated and angled position while their shoulder remains on the mattress and the lower area of the pillow supports their neck and shoulder (at least Fig. 6 and [0032] “a user lying in lateral decubitus position with their head placed on pillow 10 and shoulder within V-shaped cut outs 23 and 24. The height of the pillow 10 is 7 inches, which cushions the area between the head and shoulder, keeping the cervical spine in alignment. The V-shaped cut outs 23 and 24 comfortably cradle the shoulder. The width of pillow 10 is 19 inches, to accommodate the length of users head”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pillow taught by Sato with the sleeping position taught by Davis. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it “cushions the area between the head and shoulder, keeping the cervical spine in alignment” (Davis [0032]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
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.
/GEORGE SUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673