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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1 and 16, recite “compressing the cushion to collapse the plurality of hollow columns such that adjacent buckling walls of the plurality of intersecting buckling walls are at least partly pressed together” and “compressing the cushion via a guide into a defined shape to collapse the plurality of hollow columns”. The specification as originally filed describes the cushioning element may be placed in a jig before cutting, the cushioning element may be compressed in the jig, but the specification fails to describe in what manner the jig is compressing the cushion to collapse the hollow columns and how the shape of the jig exactly influences the shape of the cushioning element. It is unclear where or how the cushioning element is fed into the jig, and the manner in which the jig, frame, support, guide or templet compression collapses the buckling walls to be pressed together. It is also uncertain how the cushioning element is cut after the cushioning element is fed into the jig and compressed since the specification merely recites known cutting processes. Therefore, since the entire manufacturing process, the complete apparatus used to feed the cushioning element into the jigs, the manner in which the cushion element is compressed by the jigs, and the manner in which the compressed cushion element is cut after being compressed was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention the claims fail to comply with the enablement requirement.
Claims 2-15 are rejected based upon dependance of rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,458 to Pearce in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0167308 to Van Lear, U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0100606 to An, U.S. Pat. No. 5,970,547 to Cavazos, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 3,009,848 to Simon.
Claim 1, 7-12, and 14-16, Pearce, as best understood, discloses a method of forming a cushion, comprising forming elastomeric cushion comprising plurality of intersecting buckling walls defining a defining hollow columns wherein the cushion is formed by a gelatinous elastomer being divided into multiple individual and equally sized cushioning units having the same thickness in adie or mold to form the cushion without connecting the individual cushions to one another as clearly disclosed and illustrated in figure 22 (col. 13 lines 30-44)[Abstract]. Pearce further discloses that it is well known to cut cushions with a reciprocal saw in order to form a mattress core (col. 79 lines 30-45)(fig. 22 & 48- 44), but silent to cutting a foam gel perpendicular to the top surface. Van Lear discloses cutting a foam gel roll transverse/perpendicular to the top surface to a desired length [0037][0038]. Selecting from a plethora of known materials or employing an alternative means to produce individual units 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 form separate individual pieces by perpendicularly cutting a foam gel roll along a transverse dimension with the cushion of Pearce with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative means to produce the individual pieces to a desired size for the mattress of Pearce. Pearce is silent to inserting at least one individual separate units into a receptacle of a cushion base. An discloses a mattress frame 10 having an enclosing wall 11 and base 33 made from elastic urethane foam and inserting separate individual cushion elements in mounting spaces therein [0036](fig. 2,5,7). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the mattress frame in An with the cushion of Pearce with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a means to replace parts for easy maintenance of the mattress for a prolonged period of time [0007]-[0010]. Pearce is silent to constructing the mattress in a king, queen, twin, or full size. Cavozos discloses forming a king, queen, twin, or full size from individual sized modules of a mattress core [col. 1 lines 15-20]. Selecting a range of known mattress sizes to construct a cushion is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the mattress, as explicitly taught by Cavozos, from individual sized modules of a mattress core yielding predictable results that make up a mattress in any desired size to suit the needs of the individual user such as into a king, queen, twin, or full size. Pearce is silent to the process of compressing cushion prior to cutting. Simon discloses compressing an elastic block of foam that is cut in a compressed state (col. 1 lines 30-33) and positioning a cushioning element within a guide defined by rollers 33 of an apparatus to compress the elastic block of foam into a compressed shape. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the compression process in Simon with the cushion of Pearce with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a means to cut slabs of elastic foam in a large-scale production.
Claim 2, Pearce as modified, discloses the method, wherein Pearce '302 further discloses forming the elastomeric cushion comprises molding [0073]-[0077].
Claims 3-6, Pearce, as modified, discloses the method, but is silent to the cushion having a length between 80 inches and 84 inches, a width between 76 inches and 82 inches, the cushioning inserts having a width between 22 inches and 27 inches and a length between 54 inches and 59 inches. As previously stated above, selecting a range of known mattress sizes to construct a cushion or insert is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to construct a mattress with the dimensions as stated above yielding predictable results that provide an equivalent and alternative cushion to suit the needs of the individual user.
Claim 13, Pearce, as stated above, further discloses cutting foam with a reciprocal saw is well known (col. 79 lines 30-45), but is silent to using a wet saw. Selecting from a plethora of known saws is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to select a wet saw yielding predictable results that provides an equivalent and alternative means to cut the elastomeric cushion into several pieces to form a mattress core as taught by Pearce.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As stated above, it is unclear where or how the cushioning element is fed into the jig, and the manner in which the jig, frame, support, guide or templet compression collapses the buckling walls to be pressed together. It is also uncertain how the cushioning element is cut after the cushioning element is fed into the jig and compressed since the specification merely recites known cutting processes. Therefore, since the entire manufacturing process, the complete apparatus used to feed the cushioning element into the jigs, the manner in which the cushion element is compressed by the jigs, and the manner in which the compressed cushion element is cut after being compressed was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention claims 1 and 16 fail to comply with the enablement requirement. Claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. Therefore, the words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning. Contrary to the Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner reads Simon’s teachings of compressing an elastic block of foam that is cut in a compressed state (col. 1 lines 30-33) and positioning a cushioning element within a guide defined by rollers 33 of an apparatus to compress the elastic block of foam into a compressed shape on the Applicant’s broad limitations since the function of compressing the foam block is performed by an equivalent means. The combination of references as a whole would have yielded predictable results that provided a means to cut slabs of elastic foam in a large-scale production. It appears that the Applicant continues to rely on broad language that fails to clearly distinguish the present invention over the prior art of record and does not preclude the Examiner from interpreting the claims as stated above.
Once again, the entire manufacturing process, the complete apparatus used to feed the cushioning element into the jigs, the manner in which the cushion element is compressed by the jigs, and the manner in which the compressed cushion element is cut after being compressed was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,129,295 to Geffros et al. discloses a process and apparatus for cutting compressed materials.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,694,719 to Levene et al. discloses a compression and cutting apparatus for cutting foam.
Conclusion
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