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 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) 1-9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB Pat. No. 2,482,871 to Hodgson in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0173757 to Rensink et al.
Claims 1 and 11, Hodgson discloses a pillow comprising a cushion material (18a,18b) defining a recess within an outer surface of the cushion material, the recess surrounded by a perimeter formed by the cushion material (fig. 6); a coil panel defined by a pillow core 10 positioned within the recess of the cushion material, the coil panel defined by a plurality of pocketed springs wherein the pocket casing includes an upper and lower fabric layer joined between the spring coils and along peripheral edges of the spring coils (fig. 1-4 & 7-8) wherein the inner material is secured to one another about a perimeter of the coil panel. Hodgson is silent to a gel layer. Rensink discloses a positioning a gel layer over a coil panel [0005]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the gel layer disclosed in Rensink with the coil panel of Hodgson with a reasonable expectation of success because adding the gel layer would have provided an additional comfort layer that feels soft. With regards to the Applicant's recitation "the gel layer is molded on one side of the coil panel to form a gel molded spring array", determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, such as the gel layer is molded on one side of the coil panel. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Hodgson further discloses that pillows made from foam are well known (pg. 1 lines 6-9), but is silent to the inner material comprising foam. Selecting from a plethora of known materials is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select foam for the inner material of Hodgson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative material for the pillow of Hodgson.
Claim 4, Hodgson, as modified, discloses the pillow wherein the molded foam of the cushion material encloses the spring array.
Claim 5, Hodgson, as modified, discloses the pillow wherein the gel layer extends from within the recess of the cushion material.
Claim 6, Hodgson discloses the pillow wherein the coil panel is fully encapsulated between the gel layer and inner foam material of the cushion material.
Claim 7, Hodgson, as modified, discloses the pillow wherein a first gel side of the pillow has a first softer feel and a second side of the pillow has a second feel that differs from the first feel.
Claim 8, Hodgson, as modified, discloses the pillow wherein the gel side of the spring array defines a first surface of the hybrid pillow and the inner foam material without the gel layer defines a second surface of the hybrid pillow; and wherein the first gel layer side of the pillow has a first softer feel and the second side of the pillow has a second feel that differs from the first softer feel from the gel layer.
Claims 9 and 15, Hodgson discloses the pillow wherein the upper fabric layer and the lower fabric layer defined by the pocketed encasement is formed of a non-woven material (pg 4-5 32 and 1-2).
Claim 12, Hodgson discloses the pillow, but is silent to the plurality of springs having an encased height of less than three inches and a diameter of less than two inches. Selecting the encased height and diameter of the plurality of springs is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select the encased height and diameter as stated above for the plurality of springs of Hodgson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative encased height and diameter for the pillow of Hodgson.
Claims 13-14, Hodgson, as modified, discloses the pillow wherein the inner material layer extends outwardly beyond an outermost row of the plurality of springs, but is silent to the gel layer extending outwardly beyond an outermost row of the plurality of springs or the upper fabric layer and the lower fabric layer extending outwardly beyond the gel layer. Selecting the how much the gel layer extends beyond the outermost row of springs or how much the upper and lower fabric of the pocket casing extends beyond the gel layer is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select the extension for the gel layer or pocket casing as stated above for the pillow of Hodgson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative length for the gel layer and the pocket casing of Hodgson.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. PRINCIPLES OF LAW "Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when 'the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.'" KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007). "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." Id. at 1740. With regards to the Applicant’s argument that the pillow is “the structural result of a particular forming process in which a liquid gel is initially dispensed in a mold”, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, such as the gel layer is molded on one side of the coil panel. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Hodgson discloses a pillow comprising a cushion material (18a,18b) defining a recess; a coil panel defined by a pillow core 10 having a plurality of pocketed springs wherein the pocket casing includes an upper and lower fabric layer joined between the spring coils and along peripheral edges of the spring coils (fig. 1-4 & 7-8) wherein the inner material is secured about a perimeter of the coil panel. Rensink discloses a positioning a gel layer over a coil panel [0005]. One having ordinary skill in the art would have not found it novel or invention to merely add an additional layer of gel disclosed in Rensink with coil panel of Hodgson that would yield predictable results such that the gel layer would have provided an additional comfort layer that feels soft.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 2019/0343294 to DeMoss et al. discloses a mattress having a layer of material over a spring coil layer.
JP H11206517 to Murakami discloses a pillow having a layer of material over a spring coil layer.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FREDRICK C CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached on (571) 270-3654. 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.
/FREDRICK C CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
