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
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 6-8, filed 16 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 over the combination of Sanders in view of Kummerfeld not teaching the claimed “first greatest thickness of the first insert being greater than both: a second greatest thickness of the second inserts and a third greatest thickness of the third insert” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20130263377 A1 to Wootten.
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) 1-2, 4-10, 12-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9138072 B1 to Sanders in view of US 20130145556 A1 to Kummerfeld and further in view of US 20130263377 A1 to Wootten.
Re Claim 1, Sanders teaches:
A nursing pillow (at least [Abstract] “nursing pillow”) comprising:
an outer shell (at least Figs. 1-5 and [Col. 2 lines 60-65] “cushion case 115”.) having: a cavity formed therein (at least Fig. 4 and [Col. 3 lines 25-30] “cushion pocket 404”.), an opening formed in the outer shell to provide access to the cavity (at least Figs. 1-4 and [Col. 3 lines 35-40] “cushion case 115 includes an opening 406”.), a first top surface for receiving at least a head of an infant (at least Fig. 3); and
a group of inserts each capable of being inserted through the opening into the cavity to be disposed in the cavity (at least Fig. 4 and [Col. 2 lines 50-67] “number of cushions 400”.), the group inserts including a first insert (at least Figs. 4 and 9 element 416), a second insert (at least Figs. 4 and 9 element 414), and a third insert (at least Figs. 4 and 9 element 410);
a first thickness of the first insert being greater than a second thickness of the second insert and a third thickness of the third insert (at least Fig. 9 and [Col. 4 lines 27-45] “Cushion 416 has for example a height x7 of 1.5 inches” and [Col. 4 lines 27-45] “Cushion 414 has for example a height x6 of 1 inch” and [Col. 4 lines 27-45] “Cushion 410 has […] a height x2 of 0.5 inches”.).
Sanders does not explicitly teach:
having a concave depression on a second top surface of the third insert, the concave depression extending horizontally along the second top surface,
a first greatest thickness of the first insert being greater than both: a second greatest thickness of the second inserts and a third greatest thickness of the third insert.
However, Kummerfeld teaches:
having a concave depression on a second top surface of the third insert, the concave depression extending horizontally along the second top surface (at least Fig. 4 element 55 and [0069] “a recess 55 may be provided to form a recessed region in top surface”).
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 nursing pillow taught by Sanders with the different firmness taught by Kummerfeld with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results to arrive at a nursing pillow with different firmness inserts. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The recess provides a region in which the baby may rest when placed onto top surface” (Kummerfeld [0069]).
The combination of Sanders and Kummerfeld does not explicitly teach:
a first greatest thickness of the first insert being greater than both: a second greatest thickness of the second inserts and a third greatest thickness of the third insert.
However, Wootten teaches:
a first greatest thickness of the first insert being greater than both (at least Figs. 5-6 and [0157] “first insert 14 is 3 inches thick”): a second greatest thickness of the second inserts (at least Figs. 5-6 and [0157] “second insert 14 is 2 inches thick”) and a third greatest thickness of the third insert (at least Figs. 5-6 and [0157] “third insert 14 is 1 inch thick”).
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 nursing pillow taught by the combination of Sanders and Kummerfeld with the different thickness taught by Wootten with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results to arrive at a nursing pillow with different firmness inserts. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The combination of inserts 14 provides adjustability in equal increments from the minimum amount to a combined amount equal to the sum of the minimum amount, the maximum amount, and any intermediate amounts, with scaled adjustability based upon different desired sizes of pillows” (Wootten [0156]). Further, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Re Claim 2, the combination of Sanders, Kummerfeld, and Wooten teaches:
The nursing pillow of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Sanders further teaches:
are made of elastomeric foams (at least [Col. 3 lines 41-50] “foam”).
Sanders does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second insert and the third insert having different firmnesses.
However, Kummerfeld teaches:
wherein the second insert and the third insert having different firmnesses (at least [0050] “increased firmness at the top surface may be obtained by using a separate support member having a firmness that is greater than the resilient fill material […] replacing the support member with one of a different size, shape and/or firmness, the ability to use the pillow without the firmer surface, and the like” and [0066] “the IFD may be at least 20, and in some cases greater than about 30 and in other cases in the range from about 30 to about 45”.).
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 nursing pillow taught by Sanders with the different firmness taught by Kummerfeld with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results to arrive at a nursing pillow with different firmness inserts. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The bottom surface may be constructed to be somewhat firm, yet can have some "give" when resting on a user's lap. As such, the top surface may be more firm than the bottom surface. This helps to ensure that the user will feel comfortable when the pillow is resting on her lap […] This may depend on a variety of factors, including the mother's preference, the size and body shape of the mother or the baby, and the like” (Kummerfeld [0044]).
Re Claim 4, the combination of Sanders, Kummerfeld, and Wooten teaches:
The nursing pillow of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Kummerfeld further teaches:
wherein the first insert comprises a poly fill (at least [0062] “fill material 37 such as a hypoallergenic polyester filling”.) encased by a fabric shell (at least Figs. 1-9 and [0062] “the majority of cover 34 is constructed of a material that is compliant while generally not stretchable. Examples of such fabrics include cotton, polyesters, cotton/poly blends, or other pliant conforming fabrics. The fill material is firmly and tightly packed into cover 34, such that the core and cover 34 together provide a self-supporting pillow body”.).
Re Claim 5, the combination of Sanders, Kummerfeld, and Wooten teaches:
The nursing pillow of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Sanders further teaches:
wherein the outer shell, the first insert, the second insert, and the third insert are crescent shaped (at least Fig. 4).
Re Claim 6, the combination of Sanders, Kummerfeld, and Wooten teaches:
The nursing pillow of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Sanders further teaches:
wherein: each of the outer shell, the first insert, the second insert, and the third insert has a respective front surface and a respective rear surface; and a respective length of each front surface being less than a respective length of a corresponding rear surface (at least Fig. 4).
Re Claim 7, the combination of Sanders, Kummerfeld, and Wooten teaches:
The nursing pillow of claim 6 (detailed with respect to claim 6).
Sanders further teaches:
wherein the rear surface of the second insert includes a cutout for receiving a user's fingers (at least Figs. 1-2).
Re Claim 8, Sanders teaches:
A nursing pillow (at least [Abstract] “nursing pillow”) comprising:
an outer shell (at least Figs. 1-5 and [Col. 2 lines 60-65] “cushion case 115”.) having: a cavity formed therein (at least Fig. 4 and [Col. 3 lines 25-30] “cushion pocket 404”.), an opening formed in the outer shell to provide access to the cavity (at least Figs. 1-4 and [Col. 3 lines 35-40] “cushion case 115 includes an opening 406”.), a first top surface for receiving at least a head of an infant (at least Fig. 3); and
a group of inserts disposed within the cavity (at least Fig. 4 and [Col. 2 lines 50-67] “number of cushions 400”.), the group inserts including a first insert (at least Figs. 4 and 9 element 416), a second insert (at least Figs. 4 and 9 element 414), and a third insert (at least Figs. 4 and 9 element 410), a first thickness of the first insert being greater than a second thickness of the second insert and a third thickness of the third insert (at least Fig. 9 and [Col. 4 lines 27-45] “Cushion 416 has for example a height x7 of 1.5 inches” and [Col. 4 lines 27-45] “Cushion 414 has for example a height x6 of 1 inch” and [Col. 4 lines 27-45] “Cushion 410 has […] a height x2 of 0.5 inches”.).
Sanders does not explicitly teach:
having a concave depression on a second top surface of the third insert, the concave depression extending horizontally along the second top surface,
a first greatest thickness of the first insert being greater than both: a second greatest thickness of the second inserts and a third greatest thickness of the third insert.
However, Kummerfeld teaches:
having a concave depression on a second top surface of the third insert, the concave depression extending horizontally along the second top surface (at least Fig. 4 element 55 and [0069] “a recess 55 may be provided to form a recessed region in top surface”).
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 nursing pillow taught by Sanders with the different firmness taught by Kummerfeld with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results to arrive at a nursing pillow with different firmness inserts. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The recess provides a region in which the baby may rest when placed onto top surface” (Kummerfeld [0069]).
The combination of Sanders and Kummerfeld does not explicitly teach:
a first greatest thickness of the first insert being greater than both: a second greatest thickness of the second inserts and a third greatest thickness of the third insert.
However, Wootten teaches:
a first greatest thickness of the first insert being greater than both (at least Figs. 5-6 and [0157] “first insert 14 is 3 inches thick”): a second greatest thickness of the second inserts (at least Figs. 5-6 and [0157] “second insert 14 is 2 inches thick”) and a third greatest thickness of the third insert (at least Figs. 5-6 and [0157] “third insert 14 is 1 inch thick”).
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 nursing pillow taught by the combination of Sanders and Kummerfeld with the different thickness taught by Wootten with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results to arrive at a nursing pillow with different firmness inserts. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The combination of inserts 14 provides adjustability in equal increments from the minimum amount to a combined amount equal to the sum of the minimum amount, the maximum amount, and any intermediate amounts, with scaled adjustability based upon different desired sizes of pillows” (Wootten [0156]). Further, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Re Claim 9, the combination of Sanders, Kummerfeld, and Wooten teaches:
The nursing pillow of claim 8 (detailed with respect to claim 8).
Sanders further teaches:
wherein: the second insert is placed on top of the first insert; and the third insert is placed on top of the second insert (at least Figs. 1-4).
Re Claim 10, the combination of Sanders, Kummerfeld, and Wooten teaches:
The nursing pillow of claim 8 (detailed with respect to claim 8).
Sanders further teaches:
are made of elastomeric foams (at least [Col. 3 lines 41-50] “foam”).
Sanders does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second insert and the third insert having different firmnesses.
However, Kummerfeld teaches:
wherein the second insert and the third insert having different firmnesses (at least [0050] “increased firmness at the top surface may be obtained by using a separate support member having a firmness that is greater than the resilient fill material […] replacing the support member with one of a different size, shape and/or firmness, the ability to use the pillow without the firmer surface, and the like” and [0066] “the IFD may be at least 20, and in some cases greater than about 30 and in other cases in the range from about 30 to about 45”.).
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 nursing pillow taught by Sanders with the different firmness taught by Kummerfeld with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results to arrive at a nursing pillow with different firmness inserts. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The bottom surface may be constructed to be somewhat firm, yet can have some "give" when resting on a user's lap. As such, the top surface may be more firm than the bottom surface. This helps to ensure that the user will feel comfortable when the pillow is resting on her lap […] This may depend on a variety of factors, including the mother's preference, the size and body shape of the mother or the baby, and the like” (Kummerfeld [0044]).
Re Claim 12, the combination of Sanders, Kummerfeld, and Wooten teaches:
The nursing pillow of claim 8 (detailed with respect to claim 8).
Kummerfeld further teaches:
wherein the first insert comprises a poly fill (at least [0062] “fill material 37 such as a hypoallergenic polyester filling”.) encased by a fabric shell (at least Figs. 1-9 and [0062] “the majority of cover 34 is constructed of a material that is compliant while generally not stretchable. Examples of such fabrics include cotton, polyesters, cotton/poly blends, or other pliant conforming fabrics. The fill material is firmly and tightly packed into cover 34, such that the core and cover 34 together provide a self-supporting pillow body”.).
Re Claim 13, the combination of Sanders, Kummerfeld, and Wooten teaches:
The nursing pillow of claim 8 (detailed with respect to claim 8).
Sanders further teaches:
wherein the outer shell, the first insert, the second insert, and the third insert are crescent shaped (at least Fig. 4).
Re Claim 14, the combination of Sanders, Kummerfeld, and Wooten teaches:
The nursing pillow of claim 8 (detailed with respect to claim 8).
Sanders further teaches:
wherein: each of the outer shell, the first insert, the second insert, and the third insert has a respective front surface and a respective rear surface; and a respective length of each front surface being less than a respective length of a corresponding rear surface (at least Fig. 4).
Re Claim 15, Sanders teaches:
A method for nursing an infant via a nursing pillow (at least [Abstract] “nursing pillow”), comprising:
selecting one or more inserts of a group of inserts (at least Fig. 4 and [Col. 2 lines 50-67] “number of cushions 400”.) to place within an outer shell of the nursing pillow (at least Figs. 1-5 and [Col. 2 lines 60-65] “cushion case 115”.), the outer shell having a cavity formed therein (at least Fig. 4 and [Col. 3 lines 25-30] “cushion pocket 404”.), an opening formed in the outer shell to provide access to the cavity (at least Figs. 1-4 and [Col. 3 lines 35-40] “cushion case 115 includes an opening 406”.), and a first top surface for receiving at least a head of the infant (at least Fig. 3),
the group of inserts including a first insert (at least Figs. 4 and 9 element 416), a second insert (at least Figs. 4 and 9 element 414), and a third insert (at least Figs. 4 and 9 element 410), a first thickness of the first insert being greater than a second thickness of the second insert and a third thickness of the third insert (at least Fig. 9 and [Col. 4 lines 27-45] “Cushion 416 has for example a height x7 of 1.5 inches” and [Col. 4 lines 27-45] “Cushion 414 has for example a height x6 of 1 inch” and [Col. 4 lines 27-45] “Cushion 410 has […] a height x2 of 0.5 inches”.); placing the one or more inserts into the cavity via the opening (at least Fig. 4 and [Col. 2 lines 50-67] “number of cushions 400”.); and placing at least the head of the infant on the first top surface of the outer shell (at least Fig. 3).
Sanders does not explicitly teach:
having a concave depression on a second top surface of the third insert, the concave depression extending horizontally along the second top surface,
a first greatest thickness of the first insert being greater than both: a second greatest thickness of the second inserts and a third greatest thickness of the third insert.
However, Kummerfeld teaches:
having a concave depression on a second top surface of the third insert, the concave depression extending horizontally along the second top surface (at least Fig. 4 element 55 and [0069] “a recess 55 may be provided to form a recessed region in top surface”).
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 nursing pillow taught by Sanders with the different firmness taught by Kummerfeld with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results to arrive at a nursing pillow with different firmness inserts. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The recess provides a region in which the baby may rest when placed onto top surface” (Kummerfeld [0069]).
The combination of Sanders and Kummerfeld does not explicitly teach:
a first greatest thickness of the first insert being greater than both: a second greatest thickness of the second inserts and a third greatest thickness of the third insert.
However, Wootten teaches:
a first greatest thickness of the first insert being greater than both (at least Figs. 5-6 and [0157] “first insert 14 is 3 inches thick”): a second greatest thickness of the second inserts (at least Figs. 5-6 and [0157] “second insert 14 is 2 inches thick”) and a third greatest thickness of the third insert (at least Figs. 5-6 and [0157] “third insert 14 is 1 inch thick”).
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 nursing pillow taught by the combination of Sanders and Kummerfeld with the different thickness taught by Wootten with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results to arrive at a nursing pillow with different firmness inserts. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The combination of inserts 14 provides adjustability in equal increments from the minimum amount to a combined amount equal to the sum of the minimum amount, the maximum amount, and any intermediate amounts, with scaled adjustability based upon different desired sizes of pillows” (Wootten [0156]). Further, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Re Claim 16, the combination of Sanders, Kummerfeld, and Wooten teaches:
The method of claim 15 (detailed with respect to claim 15).
Sanders further teaches:
are made of elastomeric foams (at least [Col. 3 lines 41-50] “foam”).
Sanders does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second insert and the third insert having different firmnesses.
However, Kummerfeld teaches:
wherein the second insert and the third insert having different firmnesses (at least [0050] “increased firmness at the top surface may be obtained by using a separate support member having a firmness that is greater than the resilient fill material […] replacing the support member with one of a different size, shape and/or firmness, the ability to use the pillow without the firmer surface, and the like” and [0066] “the IFD may be at least 20, and in some cases greater than about 30 and in other cases in the range from about 30 to about 45”.).
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 nursing pillow taught by Sanders with the different firmness taught by Kummerfeld with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results to arrive at a nursing pillow with different firmness inserts. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The bottom surface may be constructed to be somewhat firm, yet can have some "give" when resting on a user's lap. As such, the top surface may be more firm than the bottom surface. This helps to ensure that the user will feel comfortable when the pillow is resting on her lap […] This may depend on a variety of factors, including the mother's preference, the size and body shape of the mother or the baby, and the like” (Kummerfeld [0044]).
Re Claim 18, the combination of Sanders, Kummerfeld, and Wooten teaches:
The method of claim 15 (detailed with respect to claim 15).
Kummerfeld further teaches:
wherein the first insert comprises a poly fill (at least [0062] “fill material 37 such as a hypoallergenic polyester filling”.) encased by a fabric shell (at least Figs. 1-9 and [0062] “the majority of cover 34 is constructed of a material that is compliant while generally not stretchable. Examples of such fabrics include cotton, polyesters, cotton/poly blends, or other pliant conforming fabrics. The fill material is firmly and tightly packed into cover 34, such that the core and cover 34 together provide a self-supporting pillow body”.).
Re Claim 19, the combination of Sanders, Kummerfeld, and Wooten teaches:
The method of claim 15 (detailed with respect to claim 15).
Sanders further teaches:
wherein the outer shell, the first insert, the second insert, and the third insert are crescent shaped (at least Fig. 4).
Re Claim 20, the combination of Sanders, Kummerfeld, and Wooten teaches:
The method of claim 15 (detailed with respect to claim 15).
Sanders further teaches:
wherein: each of the outer shell, the first insert, the second insert, and the third insert has a respective front surface and a respective rear surface; and a respective length of each front surface being less than a respective length of a corresponding rear surface (at least Fig. 4).
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 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
Prosecution Insights