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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1 – 10) and Species II as represented by Fig. 6 in the reply filed on 3/19/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-8 and 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/19/26.
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 9 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the elongated barrier comprises an elongated cylinder made of a porous foam plastic material.” It is unclear whether applicant is positively claiming the elongated barrier element. Claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, recites only an intended use / capability for use regarding the elongated barrier and does not positively recite it. Claim 1 recites: “wherein the open ends of the first and second pockets can be manually separated to provide a temporary opening into the elongated spaces of the first pocket and the second pocket sufficient to insert the respective ends of an elongated barrier, to retain the elongated barrier within the retaining sleeve.” Appropriate clarification / amendment is required.
Claim 9 is rejected below as best understood.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US Patent No. US 7904977 B1) either on its own or in view of Wilson (US Patent No. US 6848130 B1).
Re Claim 1
Singh discloses:
A fitted sheet for use on a mattress (see all figs., but see in particular fig. 7) comprising:
(i) a sheet fabric having an outward surface facing away from the mattress (sheet 81 having outward facing surface 83; regarding fabric, see below) , and
(ii) a retaining sleeve (95 or 103) attached to the outward surface (fig. 7, for example, but shown in additional figures as well), comprising a first pocket and a second pocket (first pocket being the interior of the sleeve as depicted and for the second pocket, see for example the description in C4 L1-24 which would be applicable to all embodiments and which describes that the other end may be closeable using flaps, snaps, ties, or other similar kinds of closures which would include modification so as to have another fabric pocket as claimed pursuant to the suggestions in the reference itself, see also C5 L19-48); see also the discussion regarding Wilson below), each pocket made of a pocket fabric (see below) having a length (the pockets inherently have a length, a first lateral edge and a second lateral edge opposite the first lateral edge (fig. 7), a closed first end (fig. 7 and C5 L19 – 48), and an open second end (fig. 7 and C5 L19 – 48), wherein the first and second opposed lateral edges are fixed along the length of the pocket fabric to the outward surface of the sheet fabric to provide an elongated space between the pocket fabric and the sheet fabric (fig. 7 and C5 L19 – 48),
wherein the first pocket and the second pocket are aligned along a common axis, the open end of the first pocket overlaps axially, or is overlapped axially by, the open end of the second pocket to form an enclosed elongated space within the retaining sleeve (fig. 7 and C5 L19 – 48; alternatively see in addition the Wilson modification below), and
wherein the open ends of the first and second pockets can be manually separated to provide a temporary opening into the elongated spaces of the first pocket and the second pocket sufficient to insert the respective ends of an elongated barrier, to retain the elongated barrier within the retaining sleeve (fig. 7 and C5 L19 – 48; alternatively see in addition the Wilson modification below).
Regarding the sheet and the pockets being fabric, Singh appears to be silent as to the material of the sheet and pockets. However, it is old and well known to have sheets be made of fabric, including fitted sheets / bedding / pockets / sleeves for supports, guards, and bolsters, etc., and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have the sheet and the pockets be fabric to provide a comfortable, washable material for the sheet. Alternatively, or in addition to the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have the sheet and the pockets be fabric, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding the pocket at issue above, while it is believed that the Singh disclosure is sufficient with its suggestion of closures, which would obviously include the second pocket as claimed, the Wilson reference nevertheless provides an example of what may alternatively be included via modification of Singh. Wilson teaches a second pocket via the folded flap configuration of the attachment closure in figs. 2-4 and including it as the second pocket via modification of Singh would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date for the purpose of preventing movement / preventing shifting. It is noted that the modification which includes the figures as described above includes “wherein the first pocket and the second pocket are aligned along a common axis, the open end of the first pocket overlaps axially, or is overlapped axially by, the open end of the second pocket to form an enclosed elongated space within the retaining sleeve and wherein the open ends of the first and second pockets can be manually separated to provide a temporary opening into the elongated spaces of the first pocket and the second pocket sufficient to insert the respective ends of an elongated barrier, to retain the elongated barrier within the retaining sleeve.” See figs. 2-4 of Wilson.
Re Claim 2
Singh as modified above discloses:
wherein the fixed first and second lateral edges of the pocket fabric are parallel and spaced apart, and fixed separately to the sheet fabric (fig. 7).
Re Claim 3
Singh as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the width of the pocket fabric between the lateral edges is at least 20% more than the width on the outward surface of the sheet fabric where the opposed lateral edges of the respective pocket are fixed to the outward surface of the sheet fabric.
Regarding the below, note that the abstract provides for variability in the size of the components as does the brief summary of the invention.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date to have the width of the pocket fabric between the lateral edges is at least 20% more than the width on the outward surface of the sheet fabric where the opposed lateral edges of the respective pocket are fixed to the outward surface of the sheet fabric, since 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to have the width of the pocket fabric between the lateral edges is at least 20% more than the width on the outward surface of the sheet fabric where the opposed lateral edges of the respective pocket are fixed to the outward surface of the sheet fabric, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955).
Re Claim 4
Singh as modified above without the Wilson reference discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the length of the second pocket is at least 1% and up to 33% of the length of the first pocket.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date to have the length of the second pocket is at least 1% and up to 33% of the length of the first pocket, since 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Singh as modified by Wilson discloses:
wherein the length of the second pocket is at least 1% and up to 33% of the length of the first pocket (see figs. 1-4).
Re Claim 5
Singh as modified above discloses:
wherein an affixment of the two elongated enclosable pockets to the outward surface of the sheet fabric comprises one or more of stitching, a glue, a bonding tape, a mechanical fastener, or a combination thereof (see fig. 7; see the summary of the invention: “The safety sheet may include pockets or sleeves along one or more sides which may be formed at the time the bed sheet is constructed or may be manufactured separately and attached to the bed sheet either prior to marketing or after-market by sewing, snaps, velcro, or some other means of attachment.”; see C5 L19 – 48; note also that the seams are described elsewhere with regard to figs. 1-2 and also applicable to other embodiments as follows: “Moreover, seams 41 and 43 may be sewn seams or seams which result from gluing, snapping, utilizing a hook and eye attachment, zipping, fusing or any other means of attachment which would result in longitudinally fixing sleeves 35 and 37 to the top of main surface 23 of safety sheet 21.”).
Re Claim 6
Singh as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the pocket fabrics and the sheet fabric comprise the same fabric type.
As described above, Singh is silent as to the material for these particular components. However, it would nevertheless have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have the pocket fabrics and the sheet fabric comprise the same fabric type so as to minimize cost, simplify manufacturing, and to present a comfortable and uniform surface for the user as is commonly known and as is old and well-known in the art.
Alternatively, or in addition to the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have the pocket fabrics and the sheet fabric comprise the same fabric type, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re Claim 9
Singh as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the elongated barrier comprises an elongated cylinder made of a porous foam plastic material.
Singh, however, disclose the elongated barrier comprises an elongated cylinder (see fig. 7, for example), but does not disclose the porous foam plastic material. Singh, however, does suggest similar materials to porous foam plastic material – “guard inserts which may be constructed of a material such as closed cell foam or any other similar material which is semi-soft to avoid injury or entanglement on contact but is not so highly compressible that it cannot be an effective barrier to lateral motion of a bed's occupant.” and “Also, a swim noodle or similar object could be substituted, as could a sleeve full of smaller objects such as packing beads or peanuts or other small foam or similar objects.” It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have it made of a porous foam plastic material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Such a modification would have been obvious for the purpose of selecting a material of the desired weight, resilience, comfort characteristics, and/or cost.
Re Claim 10
Singh as modified above discloses:
further including a second retaining sleeve, the retaining sleeve and the second retaining sleeve being fixed along opposite lateral edges of the sheet fabric (fig. 7 and C5 L19 – 48).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional safety sheets and safety devices including bolsters, side rails, side guards, infant guards, and the like are provided. The majority of the above have sleeved constructions and permit for a variety of open / closed end configurations and are therefore relevant to the claimed and/or disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SOSNOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7944. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM and 9 PM through 11:59 PM Monday through Friday, generally.
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.
/DAVID E. SOSNOWSKI/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673