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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 21 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 4 and 8 for the inclusion of the term “strip-shaped” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding the “strip-shaped” limitation has been withdrawn in view of the arguments and the definitions provided in the arguments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the combination of Revier and Rawls-Meehan have been considered. The Examiner disagrees that the combination of Revier and Rawls-Meehan would not be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art but because of the amendments to claims 1 and 5, the Examiner has replaced the teachings of Rawls-Meehan with JP 2004-511363 (hereinafter Ref. 2) as presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Revier (US 2025/0248546) in view of JP 2004-511363 (hereinafter Ref. 2).
Regarding Claim 1: Revier discloses a top bedding (pillowcase 10 of Revier) having a front surface (outer surface of outer case 12 of Revier – Fig. 1) and a back surface (inner surface of outer case 12 of Revier – Fig. 1) at least one of the front surface and the back surface having at least one anti-slip region (anti-slip structures 22-28 of Revier) […].
Revier does not disclose the anti-slip region having a coefficient of friction of 0.8 or more, wherein a fabric constituting the anti-slip region is a tricot knit fabric, a woven or knitted fabric whose surface has been subjected to an anti-slip treatment, or a brushed fabric, and the fabric constituting the anti-slip area has a thickness of 3 mm or less.
However, solving the same problem of preventing slipping between two surfaces (see the abstract of Ref 2), Ref 2 teaches an anti-slip region (non-slip surface of Ref. 2) having a coefficient of friction of 0.8 or more (paragraph [0030] of Ref. 2 – “The term "non-slip" refers to a surface that has been modified or treated to be substantially non-slip when used in contact with human skin or another layer of an absorbent article, or other surface (typically Is generally used herein to describe a liquid-impermeable, vapor-permeable composite structure of the present invention having a surface of the support layer (not facing the thermoplastic film). The coefficient of static friction of this surface is generally greater than 1, preferably greater than 1.3, more preferably greater than 1.5, and most preferably greater than 1.7.”), wherein a fabric constituting the anti-slip region is a tricot knit fabric, a woven (paragraph [0028] of Ref. 2 - “Preferred support layers for use herein include woven and nonwoven layers”) or knitted fabric whose surface has been subjected to an anti-slip treatment (paragraph [0013] of Ref. 2 – “Film or film on the support layer or substrate using typical coating conditions and equipment known in the art to coat the composition with the required thickness layer on the support layer or substrate.”), or a brushed fabric, and the fabric constituting the anti-slip area has a thickness of 3 mm or less (see paragraphs [0013] and [0026] of Ref 2 which describe the non-slip layer “are typically less than 200 microns, preferably less than 130 microns, more preferably less than 80 microns, more preferably 70-0.5 microns, and most preferably 55-2 microns. It has a thickness of microns” and “As used herein, the term two-dimensional planar layer refers to a layer having a depth of less than 1 mm, preferably less than 0.5 mm, the pores of the layer having a uniform average diameter along the length of the layer.” – note that the combination of the non-slip layer and woven layer are less than 3mm).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Revier (directed towards a pillow covering with non-slip regions) and Ref. 2 (directed towards a non-slip composite structure) with a reasonable expectation of success by replacing the non-slip material of Revier with the non-slip material of Ref. 2. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because the material has non-slip properties, vapor permeability and breathability (see the abstract and paragraph [0005] of Ref. 2) and reduces leakage and slipping (see paragraph [0006] of Ref. 2).
Regarding Claim 4: Revier in view of Ref 2 make obvious the top bedding according to claim 1, wherein the top bedding is rectangular in plan view (see Fig. 2 of Revier showing a rectangular bedding), and the anti-slip region is arranged based on any one of the following arrangements A to F: arrangement A: the anti-slip region is strip-shaped in plan view and is provided along a width direction of the top bedding at a center portion in a length direction of the top bedding and on both sides in the length direction, sandwiching the center portion with intervals; arrangement B: the anti-slip region is strip-shaped in plan view and is provided along the length direction of the top bedding at a center portion in the width direction of the top bedding and on both sides in the width direction, sandwiching the center portion with intervals; arrangement C: the anti-slip region is strip-shaped in plan view and is provided along the width direction of the top bedding on both sides in the length direction of the top bedding; arrangement D: the anti-slip region is strip-shaped in plan view and is provided along the length direction of the top bedding on both sides in the width direction of the top bedding; arrangement E: the anti-slip region is strip-shaped in plan view and is provided on peripheral edge portions of the top bedding; and arrangement F: the anti-slip region is rectangular in plan view and is provided at least at a region in which a center portion in the width direction and a center portion in the length direction overlap (see strips 20-28 being rectangular and positioned in a center portion of the bedding cover – see annotated copy of Fig. 3 of Revier and note that the box added via annotation is considered to cover a center portion in both the width and length directions).
PNG
media_image1.png
573
675
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5: Revier discloses a bedding cover (pillowcase 10 of Revier), the bedding cover being configured to contain a bedding (pillow 14 of Revier) inside, the bedding cover having a first inner surface and a second inner surface (see annotated copy of Fig. 5 of Revier), the bedding cover having at least one anti-slip region (anti-slip structures 20-28 of Revier) on at least one of the first inner surface and the second inner surface (see Fig. 5 of Revier showing structures 20 and 22 on the inner surfaces of pillowcase 10), the first inner surface and the second inner surface facing a front surface and a back surface of the bedding (see annotated copy of Fig. 5 of Revier and see that a front and back surface of the pillow 14 positioned within the cover respectively face first and second inner surfaces of the cover) […..].
Revier does not disclose the anti-slip region having a coefficient of friction of 0.8 or more, wherein a fabric constituting the anti-slip region is a tricot knit fabric, a woven or knitted fabric whose surface has been subjected to an anti-slip treatment, or a brushed fabric, and the fabric constituting the anti-slip area has a thickness of 3 mm or less.
However, solving the same problem of preventing slipping between two surfaces (see the abstract of Ref 2), Ref 2 teaches an anti-slip region (non-slip surface of Ref. 2) having a coefficient of friction of 0.8 or more (paragraph [0030] of Ref. 2 – “The term "non-slip" refers to a surface that has been modified or treated to be substantially non-slip when used in contact with human skin or another layer of an absorbent article, or other surface (typically Is generally used herein to describe a liquid-impermeable, vapor-permeable composite structure of the present invention having a surface of the support layer (not facing the thermoplastic film). The coefficient of static friction of this surface is generally greater than 1, preferably greater than 1.3, more preferably greater than 1.5, and most preferably greater than 1.7.”), wherein a fabric constituting the anti-slip region is a tricot knit fabric, a woven (paragraph [0028] of Ref. 2 - “Preferred support layers for use herein include woven and nonwoven layers”) or knitted fabric whose surface has been subjected to an anti-slip treatment (paragraph [0013] of Ref. 2 – “Film or film on the support layer or substrate using typical coating conditions and equipment known in the art to coat the composition with the required thickness layer on the support layer or substrate.”), or a brushed fabric, and the fabric constituting the anti-slip area has a thickness of 3 mm or less (see paragraphs [0013] and [0026] of Ref 2 which describe the non-slip layer “are typically less than 200 microns, preferably less than 130 microns, more preferably less than 80 microns, more preferably 70-0.5 microns, and most preferably 55-2 microns. It has a thickness of microns” and “As used herein, the term two-dimensional planar layer refers to a layer having a depth of less than 1 mm, preferably less than 0.5 mm, the pores of the layer having a uniform average diameter along the length of the layer.” – note that the combination of the non-slip layer and woven layer are less than 3mm).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Revier (directed towards a pillow covering with non-slip regions) and Ref. 2 (directed towards a non-slip composite structure) with a reasonable expectation of success by replacing the non-slip material of Revier with the non-slip material of Ref. 2. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because the material has non-slip properties, vapor permeability and breathability (see the abstract and paragraph [0005] of Ref. 2) and reduces leakage and slipping (see paragraph [0006] of Ref. 2).
Regarding Claim 8: Revier in view of Ref. 2 make obvious the bedding cover according to claim 5, wherein the bedding cover is rectangular in plan view, and the anti-slip region is arranged based on any one of the following arrangements A to F: arrangement A: the anti-slip region is strip-shaped in plan view and is provided along a width direction of the bedding cover at a center portion in a length direction of the bedding cover and on both sides in the length direction, sandwiching the center portion with intervals; arrangement B: the anti-slip region is strip-shaped in plan view and is provided along the length direction of the bedding cover at a center portion in the width direction of the bedding cover and on both sides in the width direction, sandwiching the center portion with intervals; arrangement C: the anti-slip region is strip-shaped in plan view and is provided along the width direction of the bedding cover on both sides in the length direction of the bedding cover; arrangement D: the anti-slip region is strip-shaped in plan view and is provided along the length direction of the bedding cover on both sides in the width direction of the bedding cover; arrangement E: the anti-slip region is strip-shaped in plan view and is provided on peripheral edge portions of the bedding cover; and arrangement F: the anti-slip region is rectangular in plan view and is provided at least at a region in which a center portion in the width direction and a center portion in the length direction overlap (see strips 20-28 being rectangular and positioned in a center portion of the bedding cover – see annotated copy of Fig. 3 of Revier and note that the box added via annotation is considered to cover a center portion in both the width and length directions).
PNG
media_image1.png
573
675
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2-3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Revier (US 2025/0248546) in view of JP 2004-511363 (hereinafter - Ref. 2) further in view of Nishikawa et al. (WO 2015159660 A1 – hereinafter Nishikawa).
Regarding Claim 2: Revier in view of Ref 2. make obvious the top bedding according to claim 1, but Revier and Ref 2. do not explicitly disclose or make obvious wherein the area of the anti-slip region accounts for 20% or more of the total area of the area of the front surface and the area of the back surface.
However, in the same field of endeavor (bedding comprising materials for increasing friction), Nishikawa teaches wherein the area of the anti-slip region accounts for 20% or more of the total area of the area of the front surface and the area of the back surface (Nishikawa - “Here, in the state in which the duvet cover is opened, the part is arranged on the back side of the duvet cover, and the area ratio of the part is 3% or more (preferably 3 to 40%) with respect to the surface area of the back side. This is preferable in order to make the futon in the futon cover difficult to slip.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Revier (drawn to a bedding with anti-slip features), Ref 2. (directed towards a non-slip composite structure) and Nishikawa (distribution of anti-slip region relative to a total area) with a reasonable expectation of success by making the anti-slip region be 20% or more of the total area of the area of the front surface and the area of the back surface. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make such a combination because this (ratio taught by Nishikawa) is preferable in order to make the futon in the futon cover difficult to slip (see the English translation of Nishikawa).
Regarding Claim 3: Revier in view of Ref 2. make obvious the top bedding according to claim 1, but Revier and Ref. 2 do not explicitly disclose or make obvious wherein the area of the anti-slip region accounts for 40% or more of the area of the front surface or the area of the back surface.
However, in the same field of endeavor (bedding comprising materials for increasing friction), Nishikawa teaches wherein the area of the anti-slip region accounts for 40% or more of the total area of the area of the front surface and the area of the back surface (Nishikawa - “Here, in the state in which the duvet cover is opened, the part is arranged on the back side of the duvet cover, and the area ratio of the part is 3% or more (preferably 3 to 40%) with respect to the surface area of the back side. This is preferable in order to make the futon in the futon cover difficult to slip.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Revier (drawn to a bedding with anti-slip features), Ref. 2 (directed towards a non-slip composite structure) and Nishikawa (directed toward distribution of anti-slip region relative to a total area) with a reasonable expectation of success by making the anti-slip region be 40% or more of the total area of the area of the front surface and the area of the back surface One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make such a combination because this (ratio taught by Nishikawa) is preferable in order to make the futon in the futon cover difficult to slip (see the English translation of Nishikawa).
Regarding Claim 6: Revier in view of Ref. 2 make obvious the bedding cover according to claim 5, but Revier and Ref. 2 do not disclose or make obvious wherein the area of the anti-slip region accounts for 20% or more of the total area of the area of the first inner surface and the area of the second inner surface.
However, in the same field of endeavor (bedding comprising materials for increasing friction), Nishikawa teaches wherein the area of the anti-slip region accounts for 20% or more of the total area of the area of the front surface and the area of the back surface (Nishikawa - “Here, in the state in which the duvet cover is opened, the part is arranged on the back side of the duvet cover, and the area ratio of the part is 3% or more (preferably 3 to 40%) with respect to the surface area of the back side. This is preferable in order to make the futon in the futon cover difficult to slip.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Revier (drawn to a bedding with anti-slip features), Ref. 2 (directed towards a non-slip composite structure) and Nishikawa (distribution of anti-slip region relative to a total area) with a reasonable expectation of success by making the anti-slip region be 20% or more of the total area of the area of the front surface and the area of the back surface. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make such a combination because this (ratio taught by Nishikawa) is preferable in order to make the futon in the futon cover difficult to slip (see the English translation of Nishikawa).
Regarding Claim 7: Revier in view of Ref. 2 make obvious the bedding cover according to claim 5, but Revier and Ref. 2 do not disclose or make obvious wherein the area of the anti-slip region accounts for 40% or more of the area of the first inner surface or the area of the second inner surface.
However, in the same field of endeavor (bedding comprising materials for increasing friction), Nishikawa teaches wherein the area of the anti-slip region accounts for 40% or more of the total area of the area of the front surface and the area of the back surface (Nishikawa - “Here, in the state in which the duvet cover is opened, the part is arranged on the back side of the duvet cover, and the area ratio of the part is 3% or more (preferably 3 to 40%) with respect to the surface area of the back side. This is preferable in order to make the futon in the futon cover difficult to slip.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Revier (drawn to a bedding with anti-slip features), Ref. 2 (directed towards a non-slip composite structure) and Nishikawa (distribution of anti-slip region relative to a total area) with a reasonable expectation of success by making the anti-slip region be 40% or more of the total area of the area of the front surface and the area of the back surface One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make such a combination because this (ratio taught by Nishikawa) is preferable in order to make the futon in the futon cover difficult to slip (see the English translation of Nishikawa).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG Pub. No. 2012/0186587 to Steffens et al. is cited for teaching a “warp knit tricot material that was brushed, napped, and/or sanded and treated with a hot melt adhesive as the high friction material 24.”
US Patent No. 11,849,847 to Heath et al. is cited for teaching three strips of high friction material arranged to prevent sliding of a mattress.
US Patent No. 5,740,567 to Mitchell is cited for teaching multiple frictional backing strips positioned along a width direction.
US PG Pub. No. 2017/0340133 to Scarleski is cited for teaching is cited for teaching a mattress encasement with a non-skid region positioned around outer peripheral edges.
US PG Pub. No. 2018/0125277 to Sustar et al. is cited for teaching a non-slip mat with a variety of different arrangements of the non-slip material positioned on a surface.
Note that although not currently applied, the teachings of any of Heath et al, Mitchell, Scarleski or Sustar et al. could reasonably be combined with Revier as modified to teach one or more of the configurations of claims 4 and 8.
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 AMANDA L BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/AMANDA L BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights