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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: on lines 11-12, “message of symbol” should be “message or symbol”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Regarding claim 6, the recitation that the messages are provided in a 3D tactile format contradicts the recitation in claim 1 that the messages are formed on the fabric by inkjet printing.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “DIY Pom Pom Pillow with Text” (DIY) in view of Arabo (2015/0113734) and “How to Print Fabric with an Inkjet Printer and a DIY Colorfast Recipe” (Inkjet).
Regarding claim 1, DIY discloses a home decor messaging system comprising: a first article (the left-hand pillow) having a first side and a second side; a second article (the right-hand pillow) having a first side and a second side; a first message or symbol applied to the first or second side of the first article (the text “LOVE YOU”); and a second message or symbol applied to the first or second sides of the second article (the text “MEAN IT”. Although the second message or symbol is responsive to the first message of symbol, there is no structural difference between this set of pillows and one in which the messages are unrelated. Therefore, this limitation is owed no patentable weight.
However, the pillows disclosed by DIY do not appear to have peripheral closures. Arabo teaches providing peripheral closures around a pillow, in order to enable internal storage within the pillow. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pillows disclosed by DIY with peripheral closures, as taught by Arabo, in order to enable internal storage within the pillows.
Further, the text on the pillows disclosed by DIY is formed by iron-on printing. Inkjet teaches using an inkjet printer to print text on a pillow. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to print the text on the pillows disclosed by DIY with an inkjet printer, as taught by Inkjet, as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claims 2-4, the first and second articles are pillows, which are soft textiles items.
Regarding claim 5, DIY discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, it is not known what the thread count of the article is. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the thread count between 50 and 400 threads per inch, because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 7, DIY discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, it is not known what material is used to make the pillows. Because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art, and since a person having ordinary skill in the art would know that cotton, polyester, cotton/polyester blend, silk or a combination of textile materials would be suitable for the fabrication of a pillow, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the pillow disclosed by DIY from cotton, polyester, cotton/polyester blend, silk or a combination of textile materials. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “DIY Pom Pom Pillow with Text” (DIY) in view of Arabo (2015/0113734) and “How to Print Fabric with an Inkjet Printer and a DIY Colorfast Recipe” (Inkjet), as applied to claim 5, above, and further in view of Sutton (2007/0253580).
DIY discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, DIY does not disclose 3D tactile indicia on the pillow. Sutton teaches providing 3D tactical indicia (in the form of embroidery) on a pillow. See paragraph 0043. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pillows disclosed by DIY with embroidery, as taught by Sutton, in order to improve the aesthetic appearance of the pillows.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of each reference is explained below, unless the relevance is deemed to be readily apparent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C HOGE whose telephone number is (571)272-6645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/GARY C HOGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631