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 April 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Syers does not teach a pillowcase for securing a pillow on a mattress of an articulating bed or an extension member configured to extend form a first side of a head section of a mattress on an articulating bed to a second side of the head section of the mattress on the articulating bed. It is worth pointing out that the amendments to claims 1 and 11 amount to functional language, not adding any structural limitations to the structure.
In response to applicant's argument that the structure is for securing a pillow on an articulating bed and that it is configured to extend form a first side of a head section of a mattress on an articulating bed to a second side of the head section of the mattress on the articulating bed, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant proposes that Bennett also fails to disclose the claimed pillowcase, but Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (Rodon Vinals), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-4, 6-11, 14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USP 5,147,110 (Syers hereinafter).
With regard to claim 1, Syers discloses a pillowcase for securing a pillow on a mattress of an articulating bed, the pillowcase comprising:
a loop (10) with at least one open end configured to accommodate a pillow (12);
an extension member (4) that extends from the loop (10),
wherein the extension member (4) is configured to extend from a first side of a head section of a mattress on an articulating bed to a second side of the head section of the mattress on the articulating bed to secure the pillowcase between a bed frame and the mattress of the articulating bed. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art.
With regard to claim 2, Syers discloses the pillowcase of claim 1, wherein a length of the extension member (4) is at least two times longer than a length of the loop (10).
With regard to claim 3, Syers discloses the pillowcase of claim 1, wherein the loop (10) comprises a first open end and a second open end opposite the first open end.
With regard to claim 4, Syers discloses the pillowcase of claim 1, wherein the loop (10) comprises a first open end and a second closed end (col. 5, lines 15-25).
With regard to claim 6, Syers discloses the pillowcase of claim 1, wherein the pillowcase is a single piece of material (col. 3 lines 8-15).
With regard to claim 7, Syers discloses the pillowcase of claim 6, wherein the single piece of material folds back on itself at a first longitudinal end of the material, and wherein the first longitudinal end is coupled to the material to form the loop (10) (col. 3 lines 8-15, Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 8, Syers discloses the pillowcase of claim 1, wherein the loop (10) and the extension member (4) are separate components that are coupled together (col. 3 lines 8-15).
With regard to claim 9, Syers discloses the pillowcase of claim 8, wherein the loop (10) and the extension member (4) are removably coupled together (col. 3 lines 8-15).
With regard to claim 10, Syers discloses the pillowcase of claim 1, wherein the pillowcase is fabricated from a disposable material.
With regard to claim 11, Syers discloses a pillowcase system for securing a pillow on a mattress of an articulating bed, the pillowcase system comprising:
a pillowcase configured to receive a pillow (12);
an extension member (4) that is attachable to the pillowcase;
wherein a longitudinal length of the extension member (4) extends in a direction substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal length of the pillowcase, and wherein the extension member is configured to extend from a first side of a head section of a mattress on an articulating bed to a second side of the head section of the mattress on the articulating bed to secure the pillowcase between a bed frame and the mattress of the articulating bed. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art.
With regard to claim 14, Syers discloses the pillowcase system of claim 11, wherein the extension member (4) comprises a single layer of material (col. 3 lines 8-15).
With regard to claim 16, Syers discloses the pillowcase system of claim 11, wherein the extension member (4) and the pillowcase are interchangeable. Because the extension piece of Syers also has an area capable of receiving a pillow, the extension piece and the pillowcase are interchangeable.
With regard to claim 17, Syers discloses the pillowcase system of claim 16, wherein the extension member (4) and the pillowcase each comprise one or more adhesive strips. These adhesive strips exist as a portion of the hook and loop strips that are used on both the pillowcase and the extension piece (col. 4, lines 1-22).
With regard to claim 18, Syers discloses the pillowcase system of claim 11, wherein the pillowcase and the extension member (4) are each fabricated from a disposable material.
Claim(s) 11, 15, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 14,561 (Bennett hereinafter).
With regard to claim 11, Bennett discloses a pillowcase system for securing a pillow on a mattress of an articulating bed, the pillowcase system comprising:
a pillowcase (left pillowcase and half of the connecting piece of fabric, Fig. 1) configured to receive a pillow;
an extension member (right pillowcase and other half of the connecting piece of fabric, Fig. 1) that is attachable to the pillowcase;
wherein a longitudinal length of the extension member extends in a direction substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal length of the pillowcase, and wherein the extension member is configured to extend from a first side of a head section of a mattress on an articulating bed to a second side of the head section of the mattress on the articulating bed to secure the pillowcase between a bed frame and the mattress of the articulating bed. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art.
With regard to claim 15, Bennett discloses the pillowcase system of claim 11, wherein the extension member and the pillowcase each comprise a rectangular shape (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 16, Bennett discloses the pillowcase system of claim 11, wherein the extension member and the pillowcase are interchangeable.
With regard to claim 18, Bennett discloses the pillowcase system of claim 11, wherein the pillowcase and the extension member are each fabricated from a disposable material.
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syers.
With regard to claim 12, Syers discloses all of the limitations but does not explicitly disclose wherein the extension member comprises an adhesive that extends along one of the lateral ends of the extension member. When using adhesive backed hook and loop strips to secure areas as shown at 30, 31, 38 and 40 in Fig.’s 3 and 6 will inherently result in adhesive that extends along one of the lateral ends of the extension member.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syers in view of USPAP 2021/0212416 (Rodon Vinals et al. hereinafter).
With regard to claim 13, the Syers modification with regard to claim 12 discloses all of the limitations except for wherein the adhesive comprises a release liner that covers the adhesive to prevent premature adhering of the extension member prior to attaching to the pillowcase.
Rodon Vinals et al. teaches a hook and loop fastener material wherein each of the hook and loop components are backed with a release liner (22, 24) prior to use.
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 Syers by providing a release liner as taught in Rodon Vinals et al. for the purposes of overing the adhesive surfaces (paragraph [0003] of Rodon Vinals et al.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syers in view of USPAP 2012/0186016 (Martin hereinafter).
With regard to claim 19, Syers discloses a method of forming a pillowcase for securing a pillow on a mattress of an articulating bed, comprising:
obtaining a pillowcase configured to receive a pillow (12);
obtaining an extension member (4) that is attachable to the pillowcase;
coupling a lateral end of the extension member (4) to the pillowcase such that a longitudinal length of the extension member (4) extends in a direction substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal length of the pillowcase.
Syers does not disclose adhering, via an adhesive strip, a lateral end of the extension member (4) to the pillowcase
Martin teaches that hook-and-loop and adhesive strips are equivalent when adhering pieces of cloth together with respect to pillows and bedding materials (paragraph [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the apparatus disclosed by Syers by replacing the hook-and-loop with an adhesive strip as taught by Martin for the purposes of decreasing the number of steps and number of components to accomplish adherence (going from placing a hook strip on one side of one component to be adhered and placing a loop strip on one side of the second component to be adhered to just placing one adhesive strip on one side of one of the two components).
With regard to claim 20, the Syers modification with regard to claim 19 discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the extension member (4) and the pillowcase are interchangeable, and wherein the extension member (4) and the pillowcase each comprise one or more adhesive strips.
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
Prosecution Insights