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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-8 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to Applicant’s “Amendments/Remarks” filed 8/6/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: Suggest addition of the word “of” after “for application” for improved grammatical effect. “…for application of heat or cold…”
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: Suggest removal of “an” before “electromechanical stimulator” for improved grammatical effect. “…at least one [[an] electromechanical stimulator”.
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: Suggest addition of the bold/underlined portion: “wherein the coefficient of friction of skin of the body part” The “coefficient of skin” in isolation does not make sense in context.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0240685 to Burwick et al. (hereinafter Burwick) in view of U.S. Patent 5,279,237 to Alivizatos.
Regarding claim 1, Burwick teaches: A pillow for offloading stress on a body part in need thereof (see Abstract: leg pillow) comprising: a stress dissipating support (see Fig. 1, leg pillow 10 with body of resilient material, see para [0049]) with a void being a cutout extending there through (see Fig. 1, recessed space 24) configured to offload stress from the support (see para [0054]) and a cover (see para [0059]: “In one embodiment, leg pillow 10 has middle seam 40, which can include a zipper to remove a cover”).
Burwick does not explicitly teach: [a cover] material extending over the support and the void configured to offload stress to body part of interest, while also minimizing chafing or friction or stress concentrations at surfaces where the pillow meets skin of the body part.
Alivazatos teaches: a cover material extending over the support and the void (see Fig. 1-3, fabric envelope 16 including upper surface panel 22 and drain panel 14, which covers centralized void area, noting per col. 2, lines [67-68]: “Fabric envelope 16 is connected to drain panel 14, and as indicated in FIG. 3, may constitute a continuation of fabric envelope 16”) configured to offload stress to body part of interest, while also minimizing chafing or friction or stress concentrations at surfaces where the pillow meets skin of the body part (see col. 6, lines [56-65]: discusses materials forming the fabric envelope which would meet the requirements of the claim… e.g. “insulating and assist in thermal regulation”).
Burwick and Alivazatos are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of pillow support devices with central void/cutout features. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Burwick with these aforementioned teachings of Alivazatos in order to provide an improved cover as taught by Alivazatos in place of the generic cover of Burwick with a reasonable expectation of success to greatly assist in thermal regulation and providing a feeling a warmth and security to a user (see Alivazatos, col. 6, lines [56-69]).
Regarding claim 2, Burwick, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the stress comprises at least one of tension, pressure, torsion, or shear on the body part (see para [0053-0055]: exemplary passage: “high-density memory foam allows the leg pillow 10 to be molded to any particular user”).
Regarding claim 3, Burwick, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the support is configured with respect to the geometry and compliance of the body part to be offloaded (see Fig. 1-3, and para [0052] describing at least first and second leg support indentations 34/34a or 36/36a).
Regarding claim 4, Burwick, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: being self-stabilizing and free-of straps for maintenance of single position to remain in place (see para [0007]: “Thus, there is a need for a leg pillow that provides adequate support to restore proper body alignment and that is simple to use and does not require the use of straps and fasteners”).
Regarding claim 7, Burwick, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however, Burwick does not explicitly teach: wherein the cover material has a coefficient of friction matching the coefficient of friction of skin of the body part, wherein the coefficient of [friction of the] skin of the body part is in the range of 0.30 to 0.84.
Alivizatos teaches: wherein the cover material has a coefficient of friction matching the coefficient of friction of skin of the body part, wherein the coefficient of [friction of the] skin of the body part is in the range of 0.30 to 0.84 (see col. 6, lines [56-65]: discusses materials forming the fabric envelope, e.g. coated open-mesh polyester fabric, which would likely fall within the claimed range of frictional coefficients based on NPL reference: “Friction of Human Skin against different Fabrics for Medical Use” applied as an informational reference and attached to this Office Action. Figure 2 on page 3 of the NPL reference is reproduced below showing polyester on skin having an approximate COF range between 0.2 and 0.75, overlapping with the claimed range 0.30-0.84).
PNG
media_image1.png
344
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a fabric material having a similar coefficient of friction as the user’s skin since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a 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. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 8, Burwick, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the stress dissipating support includes round edges to distribute or dissipate stresses (see Fig. 1-4, leg pillow 10 is generally round in shape and further includes leg indentations 34/36).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0240685 to Burwick in view of U.S. Patent 5,279,237 to Alivizatos in further view of U.S. Patent 4,858,259 to Simmons et al. (hereinafter Simmons).
Regarding claim 5, Burwick, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however it does not teach the following: further comprising a filling configured to be cooled or warmed for application heat or cold as desired.
Simmons teaches: further comprising a filling configured to be cooled or warmed for application heat or cold as desired (see Fig. 1-3, flexible plastic container 38 filled with “temperature retaining material” such as gel or blue-ice).
Burwick, Alivizatos and Simmons are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of therapeutic support pillows/cushions for the body and/or head. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Burwick with these aforementioned teachings of Simmons in order to provide a filling/bag configured to be cooled for the application of cold as taught by Simmons and inserted to the existing device of Burwick with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a decrease in metabolism of the muscles and blood vessels in the area the pillow is in contact with (see Simmons, col. 3, lines [28-38]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0240685 to Burwick in view of U.S. Patent 5,279,237 to Alivizatos in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0092297 to Davis et al. (hereinafter Davis).
Regarding claim 6, Burwick, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however it does not teach the following: further comprising at least one an electromechanical stimulator or sensor for delivery of infrared and/or other wavelength energy.
Davis teaches: further comprising at least one an electromechanical stimulator or sensor for delivery of infrared and/or other wavelength energy (see Fig. 6, massaging system 150 and para [0030] or “temperature element” or “sound system”).
Burwick, Alivizatos and Davis are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of therapeutic support pillows/cushions for the body and/or head. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Burwick with these aforementioned teachings of Davis in order to provide a massaging system as taught by Davis and inserted to the existing device of Burwick with a reasonable expectation of success to produce vibrations to a person’s body for additional therapeutic effects (see Davis, claim [1] and para [0030]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/6/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 under Davis 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 Burwick and Alivazatos. Please review the updated rejections above for a reading of how the new grounds of rejection have been specifically applied.
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 DAVID R HARE whose telephone number is (571)272-4420. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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.
Sincerely,
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
8/26/2026
Prosecution Insights