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 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: Please change “hook an loop fastener” to —hook-and-loop fastener—. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grimes (US 4,815,154).
Regarding Claim 21, Grimes discloses an inflatable pillow (see Fig. 1), comprising:
a cover (25 and 23);
a primary air bladder (21) located inside the cover;
a first air valve (29)connected to the primary air bladder for inflating the primary air bladder;
a pouch (39) having a pouch opening (37) that receives a plurality of weighted material (71); and
at least one band (43 or 45)located on the pouch, wherein the at least one band secures the pouch to the cover.
Regarding Claim 22, Grimes discloses wherein the at least one band is elastic (see Col. 2, Lines 37-39 and 63-65).
Regarding Claim 23, Grimes discloses wherein cover further comprises an attachment mechanism (51).
Regarding Claim 24, Grimes discloses wherein the at least one band is enabled to connect to the attachment mechanism (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 25, Grimes discloses wherein the attachment mechanism can be a button, a hooked clasp, or a hook an loop fastener (see Col. 4, Lines 6-9).
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) 12-13, 15-20, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimes (US 4,815,154) in view of Logan, Jr (US 6,212,716).
Regarding Claim 12, Grimes discloses an inflatable pillow (see Fig. 1), comprising:
a main body structure (23 and 25);
a primary air bladder (21) located inside main body structure;
a first air valve (29) connected to the primary air bladder and accessible from the main body structure;
a pouch (39) attached to the main body structure;
the pouch having a pouch opening (37) for receiving a plurality of weighted material.
Grimes fails to disclose the pouch including a closing mechanism, wherein the closing of the closing mechanism secures the weighted material inside the pouch. Logan, Jr. discloses
a closing mechanism (14). Grimes and Logan, Jr. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. pillows. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Grimes with the closing mechanism of Logan, Jr. , since it would be considered obvious to try given the number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. The claimed closure mechanism is known and using it to close the pouch opening of Grimes would provide the predictable solution of a closeable pouch that secures the weighted material inside the pouch . The benefits of a closeable pouch are known to be preventing items within the pouch from falling out.
Regarding Claim 13, Grimes as modified teaches wherein the pouch opening further comprises at least one rigid member (Logan, Jr.: rib 14) at the distal end of the pouch opening.
Regarding Claim 15, Grimes modified teaches wherein the closing mechanism and the pouch are a single, integrated object (Logan, Jr.: see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claims 16-17, Examiner takes Official Notice that the claimed closing mechanisms (magnets or zippers) are well known within the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the interlocking groove and rib of Logan, Jr. with the magnetic bands or zipper as claimed in claims 16 and 17, since this would be simply substituting one known item (interlocking rib and groove) for another (magnetic bands or zipper) to obtain predictable results (providing a closure mechanism). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding Claim 18, Grimes as modified teaches wherein the closing mechanism is enabled to prevent the plurality of weighted material inside the pouch from spilling out (Logan, Jr.: see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Grimes discloses an internal sleeve (33) enabled to store a pack, the pack enabled to regulate temperature. The internal sleeve only requires the ability to store a temperature-regulating pack, and Grimes sleeve 33 is capable of storing a pack.
Regarding Claim 20, since parent claim 19 only requires the functional ability to store a pack, and not the pack itself, the recitations towards the pack in claim 20 are merely functional. Furthermore, cooling or heating packs are well known within the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to place a cooling pack in the pocket of Grimes. The motivation would be to cool a user's head while using the pillow on the beach.
Regarding Claim 26, Grimes as modified teaches an inflatable pillow (Grimes: see Fig. 1), comprising:
a main body structure (Grimes: 25 and 23);
a primary air bladder (Grimes: 21( located inside main body structure;
a first air valve (Grimes: 29) connected to the primary air bladder and accessible from the main body structure;
a pouch (Grimes: 39) attached to the main body structure; the pouch having a pouch opening for receiving a weighted material, and
the pouch opening (Grimes: 37) including a closing mechanism (Logan, Jr.: 14);
a first band (Grimes: 43 or 45) located on the pouch, wherein the first band is configured to attach to the main body structure and secure the pouch in contact with a surface of the main body (Grimes: see Figs 1 and 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Grimes, fails to disclose wherein the at least one rigid member at the distal end of the pouch opening is enabled to scoop up the plurality of weighted material. The rigid member taught by Logan, Jr. would not be rigid enough to adequately scoop up the sand as required by Grimes. Further modifying Logan, Jr., as required by Claim 14, would require impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 12-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,973,345. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent require all of the particulars of the application’s claims in addition to other structures. Therefore, the claims of the application are not patentably distinct form the patent’s claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC J KURILLA whose telephone number is (571)270-7294. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7AM-6PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/ERIC J KURILLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619