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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. This communication is the first action on its merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites the limitation, “the top decorative layer”. There is no prior mention of a top decorative layer within claim 9 and therefore lacks proper antecedent basis. However, there is prior mention of a top layer. Examiner suggests correcting this limitation to recite, “the top . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dobin (US 20110239369 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Dobin discloses a tri-layer bed cover, comprising: a top layer (third layer 3); a middle layer disposed between the top layer and a bottom layer (See Fig. 3, second layer 2 disposed between layer 3 and first layer 1), the middle layer including a fill material (batting 10); a perimeter stich securing each of the top layer, the middle layer, and the bottom layer substantially about an outer periphery thereof (See Fig. 3, binding 15 securing together layers 1, 2, 3); and a stitch pattern further securing the bottom layer to the middle layer in a manner dividing the fill material in the middle layer into at least two subdivisions (See Fig. 1-3, stitching 11 securing layers 1 and 2 together while diving batting 10), wherein the fill material in one of the subdivisions is unable to cross the stich pattern into the other of the subdivisions (See Fig. 3, batting 10 cannot cross over stitching 11).
Regarding Claim 3, Dobin discloses the tri-layer bed cover of claim 1, wherein the fill material comprises at least one of a polyester batting (“batting layer is a lyocell blend, such as polyester and lyocell”; [0015]), a down material, a feather material, a wool material, a cotton material, or a synthetic fiber fill.
Regarding Claim 4, Dobin discloses the tri-layer bed cover of claim 1, wherein the bottom layer comprises a soft plain weave fabric comprising a cotton material, a cotton-polyester blend material, or a polyester microfiber material; (“The fabrics that form the coverlet according to the invention are made up of various textiles that include but are not limited to: 100% Cotton 100% Polyester”; [0043]).
Regarding Claim 5, Dobin discloses the tri-layer bed cover of claim 1, wherein at least 80% of a surface area of the top layer has no stitching (See Fig. 1, stitching 11 covering minimal surface area of layer 3 as layer 3 is placed above the stitching 11).
Regarding Claim 6, Dobin discloses the tri-layer bed cover of claim 1, wherein the perimeter stitch comprises a width less than 1 inch (“a binding, preferably between ½ inch and 1 inch in width”; [abstract]).
Regarding Claim 7, Dobin discloses the tri-layer bed cover of claim 1, wherein the stitch pattern comprises a grid, a box, a weave, or a channel pattern (See Fig. 1, stitching 11 comprising a grid, box, quilted pattern).
Regarding Claim 18, Dobin discloses a tri-layer bed cover, comprising: a top layer (third layer 3); a middle layer disposed between the top layer and a bottom layer (See Fig. 3, second layer 2 disposed between layer 3 and first layer 1), the middle layer including a fill material (batting 10); a perimeter stich securing the top layer and at least one of the middle layer or the bottom layer substantially along a peripheral edge thereof (See Fig. 3, binding 15 securing together layers 1, 2, 3); and a stitch pattern further securing the bottom layer and the middle layer to form a least two subdivisions in the middle layer separating the fill material (See Fig. 1-3, stitching 11 securing layers 1 and 2 together while diving batting 10), wherein the fill material in one of the subdivisions is unable to cross the stich pattern into the other of the subdivisions (See Fig. 3, batting 10 cannot cross over stitching 11).
Regarding Claim 19, Dobin discloses the tri-layer bed cover of claim 18, wherein the perimeter stitch comprises a width less than 1 inch (“a binding, preferably between ½ inch and 1 inch in width”; [abstract]).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobin (US 20110239369 A1) in view of Jain (US 20200256011 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Dobin discloses the tri-layer bed cover of claim 1.
Dobin fails to explicitly disclose wherein an upper surface of the top layer includes at least one decorative element comprising a woven design, a visible texture, or a printed design.
However, Jain teaches wherein an upper surface of the top layer includes at least one decorative element comprising a woven design, a visible texture, or a printed design (See Fig. 5, front fabric 21 showing a printed pattern).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Dobin by adding the printed pattern taught by Jain. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the look is substantially improved”; (Jain, [0062]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobin (US 20110239369 A1) in view of Tang (US 4775575 A).
Regarding Claim 8, Dobin discloses the tri-layer bed cover of claim 1.
Dobin fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the subdivisions comprises an area less than 100 square inches.
However, Tang teaches wherein each of the subdivisions comprises an area less than 100 square inches (“unsecured sections 32 define areas in a range between 16-256 square inches”; [Col. 3, Lines 28-29]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Dobin by adding the sized sections as taught by Tang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to prevent complete separation of the upper intermediate and lower layers without substantially reducing the thermal insulative qualities”; (Tang, [Col. 3, Lines 39-32]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 20, Dobin, as modified, teaches the tri-layer bed cover of claim 19.
Dobin fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the subdivisions comprises an area less than 100 square inches.
However, Tang teaches wherein each of the subdivisions comprises an area less than 100 square inches (“unsecured sections 32 define areas in a range between 16-256 square inches”; [Col. 3, Lines 28-29]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Dobin by adding the sized sections as taught by Tang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to prevent complete separation of the upper intermediate and lower layers without substantially reducing the thermal insulative qualities”; (Tang, [Col. 3, Lines 39-32]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 9-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobin (US 20110239369 A1) in view of Accad (US 20110099715 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Dobin discloses a tri-layer bed cover, comprising: a core portion having an area approximately the same as an area of a mattress (See Fig. 1-3, layers 1+2+3 and batting 10), the core portion including: a top layer (third layer of fabric 3); a middle layer disposed between the top layer and a bottom layer (See Fig. 3, second layer of fabric 2 + batting 10), the middle layer including a fill material (batting 10); a perimeter stitch securing each of the top decorative layer, the middle layer, and the bottom layer substantially about an outer periphery thereof (See Fig. 3, binding 15); and a stitch pattern further securing the bottom layer to the middle layer in a manner dividing the fill material in the middle layer into at least two subdivisions (See Fig. 1 and 3, stitching 11 quilting layers 1 and 2 together dividing the batting 10), wherein the fill material in one of the subdivisions is unable to cross the stich pattern into the other of the subdivisions (See Fig. 1 and 3, batting 10 unable to cross between stitching 11); and a border portion comprising two fabric layers sewn together along their respective outer edges (See Fig. 3, stitching 15 conjoining layers 1, 2, 3).
Dobin fails to explicitly disclose the border portion permanently closed to the core portion along two sides of the core portion and a foot end portion of the core portion, wherein the border portion has no fill therein.
However, Accad teaches the border portion permanently closed to the core portion along two sides of the core portion and a foot end portion of the core portion, wherein the border portion has no fill therein (See Fig. 1-2, peripheral stitch pattern 11 conjoins layers 14 and 16 while holding in the fill material 18 disposed within the shell 12 while there is an outer periphery 12a of shell 12 conjoining layers 14 and 16 all the way around).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Dobin by adding the space between the outer stitch and outer edge as taught by Accad. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to couple the first and second fabric layers”; (Accad, [0009]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 10, Dobin, as modified, teaches the tri layer bed cover of claim 9, wherein each of the top layer, the bottom layer, and the middle layer secure about an outer periphery (See Fig. 3, stitching 15 conjoining layers 1, 2, 3).
Dobin fails to explicitly teach the border portion comprises two fabric layers closed to the core portion along their respective inner edges.
However, Accad teaches the border portion comprises two fabric layers closed to the core portion along their respective inner edges (See Fig. 1-2, peripheral stitch pattern 11 conjoins layers 14 and 16 while holding in the fill material 18 disposed within the shell 12 while there is an outer periphery 12a of shell 12 conjoining layers 14 and 16 all the way around).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Dobin by adding the space between the outer stitch and outer edge as taught by Accad. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to couple the first and second fabric layers”; (Accad, [0009]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 12, Dobin, as modified, teaches the tri layer bed cover of claim 9, wherein the fill material comprises at least one of a polyester batting (“batting layer is a lyocell blend, such as polyester and lyocell”; [0015]), a down material, a feather material, a wool material, a cotton material, or a synthetic fiber fill.
Regarding Claim 13, Dobin, as modified, teaches the tri layer bed cover of claim 9, wherein the bottom layer comprises a soft plain weave fabric comprising a cotton material, a cotton-polyester blend material, or a polyester microfiber material (“The fabrics that form the coverlet according to the invention are made up of various textiles that include but are not limited to: 100% Cotton 100% Polyester”; [0043]).
Regarding Claim 14, Dobin, as modified, teaches the tri layer bed cover of claim 9, wherein at least 80% of a surface area of the top layer includes no stitching (See Fig. 1, stitching 11 covering minimal surface area of layer 3 as layer 3 is placed above the stitching 11).
Regarding Claim 15, Dobin, as modified, teaches the tri-layer bed cover of claim 9, wherein the perimeter stitch comprises a width less than 1 inch (“a binding, preferably between ½ inch and 1 inch in width”; [abstract]).
Regarding Claim 16, Dobin, as modified, teaches the tri-layer bed cover of claim 9, wherein the stitch pattern comprises a grid, a box, a weave, or a channel pattern (See Fig. 1, stitching 11 comprising a grid, box, quilted pattern).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobin (US 20110239369 A1) in view of Accad (US 20110099715 A1), further in view of Jain (US 20200256011 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Dobin, as modified, teaches the tri layer bed cover of claim 9.
Dobin in view of Accad fails to explicitly teach wherein an upper surface of the top layer includes at least one decorative element comprising a woven design, a visible texture, or a printed design.
However, Jain teaches wherein an upper surface of the top layer includes at least one decorative element comprising a woven design, a visible texture, or a printed design (See Fig. 5, front fabric 21 showing a printed pattern).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Dobin in view of Accad by adding the printed pattern taught by Jain. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the look is substantially improved”; (Jain, [0062]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobin (US 20110239369 A1) in view of Accad (US 20110099715 A1), further in view of Tang (US 4775575 A).
Regarding Claim 17, Dobin, as modified, teaches the tri-layer bed cover of claim 9.
Dobin in view of Accad fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the subdivisions comprises an area less than 100 square inches.
However, Tang teaches wherein each of the subdivisions comprises an area less than 100 square inches (“unsecured sections 32 define areas in a range between 16-256 square inches”; [Col. 3, Lines 28-29]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Dobin in view of Accad by adding the sized sections as taught by Tang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to prevent complete separation of the upper intermediate and lower layers without substantially reducing the thermal insulative qualities”; (Tang, [Col. 3, Lines 39-32]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20070199155 A1: Thygsen discloses a mattress cover comprising an upper layer a padding ladder and a backing layer fastened at a hem.
US 20190150541 A1: Man discloses an article with a first layer and a scond layer stitched together with a fill layer between the two layers separated into subdivisions.
US 3801420 A: Anderson discloses a quilted bedspread with a top layer, a padding layer, and a third layer stitched on the exterior and having continuous stitches separating the padding layer while conjoining the top and third layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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 SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673