DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The Amendments filed December 4th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 4-8 and 21-39 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the chassis being simultaneously present with the base alongside the comfort layer and the cover and particularly the zippers/fasteners that demonstrate both a first zipper coupled between the comfort layer and the chassis alongside a second zipper coupled between the cover and the chassis and directly coupled to the base (of claims 1 and 27) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 4-8, and 21-39 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claims 1 and 27 the limitations “a chassis positioned over the base and defining a cavity; a support assembly positioned within the cavity, the support assembly comprising an encasement” “a comfort layer positioned over the encasement and attached to the chassis by a first zipper” and “a cover positioned over the comfort layer and attached to the chassis by a second zipper, the cover being directly coupled to the base by fasteners” Are recited. Notably there appears to be newly claimed subject matter that draws in to question possession of the claimed subject matter as applicant’s disclosure notes embodiments with a chassis, and with a base, and the cover/comfort layers attached to the chassis or separately to the base, but not to both the base and the chassis simultaneously. Where more particularly the orientation of components respectfully appears to be unachievable as set forth, necessitating that first the chassis is position over the base, (the chassis atop the base), the chassis comprising a cavity with a support assembly therein comprising an encasement now and wherein the comfort layer is over the encasement and attached by first zipper to the chassis, and thereafter there is a cover that is positioned over the comfort layer (presumably above the encasement/chassis), but the cover is now both being explicitly claimed to attach by a second zipper to the chassis (considered to be a direct attachment), but simultaneously the same cover is directly coupled to the base by fasteners as well. In the original reading of the claim previously received on June 23rd, 2025, a base could be understood previously as the chassis which applicant had support for in [00109], [0040], and [00121], that only define connection to the chassis or a base, but the claim now necessitates both a chassis atop a base, and seemingly combinations of embodiments applicant respectfully has not disclosed as combinable, nor do there appear to be any figures correspondent the claims features further seeming to establish a lack of possession of the claimed invention and combination/features thereof.
Additionally claims 4-8, 21-26, and 28-39 are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 first paragraph as being dependent on a rejected antecedent claim.
Clarity and explanation are otherwise respectfully requested as it’s unclear where support for the claimed invention is being draw from as applicant’s only indicate ‘support for the amendments to claims 1 and 27 can be found throughout applicant’s disclosure’. The subject matter otherwise may appear to constitute new matter and should respectfully be cancelled if not respectfully and adequately explained where support for such elements or combinations thereof are identified and demonstrated/illustrated.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, and 21-39 are 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.
As previously stated, there is confusion as to attribution of the claimed features of the invention in light of applicant’s amendments, as applicant claims that the chassis is atop/over the base, the comfort layer is over the encasement (that is over the encasement of the support assembly, which is presumably within the cavity of the chassis, wherein such interior located support assembly/encasement within the recess of the chassis somehow has both a comfort layer positioned over the encasement and attached to the chassis by a first zipper. However, there is conflictingly newly stated that the cover now is over the comfort layer and attached simultaneously to both the chassis by a second zipper and the cover being directly coupled to the base, which seems to be impossible to achieve given that to be ‘over’ the comfort layer, the comfort layer that is within the cavity and attached to the chassis (presumably interior due to the conditions of the comfort layer/support layer and encasement thereof (the encasement of which is located inside the recess of the chassis. It’s unclear where the connections could feasibly occur and becomes considerably convoluting and no matter the interpretation, application necessitating both a chassis with the base and arrangements thereof becomes increasingly confusing. There is both a lack of depiction in the figures and a lack of explanation in the specification where [0040]/[00109]/[00120] only note the cover/comfort engaging solely with the chassis or the base. While a figure would be respectfully required that demonstrates the attachments in use for a feature that may lend to potential allowability prospectively.
However, as there is neither explanation by disclosure or by depiction examiner is uncertain of applicant’s intention of the claimed subject matter and the features almost seem to concern the colliding of two separate embodiments and constituent considerations of each that operate separately but convolute in combination. Further clarity and explanation are respectfully requested and otherwise amendment is necessitated. There is consideration that if applicant can overcome and explain and demonstrate the claimed features, such feature may constitute allowable subject matter. However, due to the convolution of matters and the difficulty of determining applicant’s intention across multiple embodiment the claims are precluded from further search at the present time.
Additionally claims 4-8, 21-26, and 28-39 are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 second paragraph as being dependent on a rejected antecedent claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-8, and 21-39 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Particularly, in light of applicant’s amendments, rejections of 112a and 112b are necessitated as the claimed features appear to lack both possession, and present considerable confusion that necessitates considerable explanation and citation to applicant’s disclosure both where support is found and explanation is exacted. It is considered that if applicant should overcome the matters 112a/112b recited previously, the claims may be in condition for allowance, it is considered respectfully that merely claiming support is found throughout applicant’s disclosure will not be sufficient to overcome such deficiency and examiner is respectfully requesting citations to applicant’s explanations.
Allowable Subject Matter
It has been previously recited and for convenience of the record, the subject matter of Claims 5 and 26 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (particular to at least the claims received June 23rd, 2025). And would likely necessitate at a minimum some degree of impermissible hindsight bias to further modify features within the encasement that are directly engaging the tambour (claim 26), and the pressure generators being disposed beneath the legs of the platform of the spacer within the encasement (Claim 5). Additionally, although the subject matter brings to question both matters of 112a, and 112b, alongside drawing objections drawn thereof, if explanation and possession and support for such features can be provided the claims 1 and 27 would likely be in condition for allowance.
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.
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-5pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673