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 22nd, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 5-10, and 19-20 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 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.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “low frequencies and intensities configured to be varied to reach acupuncture points of the pet associated with at least one of restoring energy, relaxing the nerves, reducing stress, and encouraging relation to sleep” is recited. There is confusion as to the scope of the limitation as the limitation appears to be directed at an object that is considerably variable (a pet of arbitrary size, species, age, etc.). A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. That is, where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite. See, e.g., Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). In Brummer, the Board held that a limitation in a claim to a bicycle that recited "said front and rear wheels so spaced as to give a wheelbase that is between 58 percent and 75 percent of the height of the rider that the bicycle was designed for" was indefinite because the relationship of parts was not based on any known standard for sizing a bicycle to a rider, but on a rider of unspecified build. Brummer, 12 USPQ2d at 1655. Analogously, applicant is respectfully seeming to claim frequencies that are predicated on the acupuncture points of an arbitrary pet or animal, with no seeming constraint on size, build, weight, age, or even species that leaves open the entire effective animal kingdom as long as it could be defined a pet. For instance, would a ferret possess the same physiological structure and response as applicant is seeking to claim as a dog? Would a pet alligator possess the same as a cat? More narrowly, would an infant Pekingese possess the same as an elder bull mastiff? There respectfully does not seem to be a standard by which to ascertain the constraint of applicant’s limitation that examiner can reasonably make a determination of the bounds of applicant’s invention. Unless the cited paragraph is merely narrative in nature, the claim is respectfully unsearchable in its current form and with a lack of standard that a person of ordinary skill in the art could ascertain the bounds of the limitation. Further clarity and explanation are respectfully requested and otherwise amendment is necessary. For the purposes of examination, the cited limitation is construed as either cancelled or narrative and otherwise holds no patentable weight. Elsewise the claim will respectfully require preclusion from any further search.
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, 5-6, 8-10, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda (U.S. Pat. No. 5138730) in view of Cogliata et al. (Italian Pub. No. IT1094302B); hereafter “Cogliata”, De Bock (U.S. Pub. No. 20100229302) and Krim et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0119169); hereafter “Krim”; and Becker (U.S. Pub. No. 20050182287); with Krim used as a teaching reference.
Regarding claim 1, Masuda discloses (FIGS. 1-5) a therapeutic orthopedic mattress (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5) for pets comprising: a top cover (2; FIG. 1 and 5); a first layer (6/11; FIGS. 1-5) having a first end and an opposing second end (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5), the first layer having a convoluted top surface having a plurality of peaks and valleys (as illustrated in FIG. 1, 3, and 5) and covered by the top cover (as illustrated in FIG. 1 and 5); a second layer (12/4/3; FIG. 2) underlying the first layer (as illustrated in FIG. 2). In regards for being in use ‘for a pet’ it has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
However, Masuda does not explicitly disclose wherein the first layer comprises natural latex foam.
Regardless, De Bock teaches (FIGS. 1-3) a mattress with a plurality of layers (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3) that can be produced of natural latex (paragraph 0046: “natural latex”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the natural latex material of De Bock (paragraph 0046) into Masuda’s layers (15/14, below 14/11, 12, and 10; FIGS. 2, 4, and Modified FIG. 2). Where De Bock formally acknowledges “material of the support layers can be any suitable material known in the art. Suitable … natural latex… rubber latex foams… In principle foams with any hardness can be used. The hardness and/or elasticity of the foamed materials used can be chosen according to the desired personal comfort levels. Hardness and/or elasticity can be chosen according to principles, well known to the person skilled in the art. It is for instance possible to vary hardness and/or elasticity by choosing a particular material for the foam, or by choosing the specific construction of the foam” (Paragraph 0046: emphasis added). Whereby De Bock is clearly establishing that a multi-tiered mattress would be known to utilize natural latex and latex foam materials for the respective layers by one of ordinary skill in the art. It is further considered that Krim demonstrates a plurality of mattress layers (as illustrated in FIG. 3) wherein Krim further discloses that such layers may be made of latex foam (paragraph 0062: “the first layer 310 may be latex or latex like foam. The second…third… fourth… and fifth layer 330 may be any of the following: i) latex foam; ii) latex-like foam”. Therefore, the results would have been predictable as Krim presents a plurality of mattress layers that may all be produced of latex foam or latex-like foam, and further may have different densities therebetween (paragraph 0062, demonstrated in claim 20).
It would have been simple substitution to have replaced the arbitrary foam layers of Masuda (As illustrated in FIGS. 2, 4, and Modified FIG. 2) with the natural latexes of De Bock (paragraph 0046). Where De Bock establishes that the material was known to the art of beds/mattresses with different layers, and where further the results would have been predictable as Krim demonstrates a mattress made of latex foams of different layers and different densities therein (paragraph 0062), where De Bock elaborates that the material may be elected to the comfort of the user (paragraph 0046).
However, Masuda still does not explicitly disclose wherein the second layer comprises a plurality of polyethylene interwoven fibers.
Regardless, De Bock further teaches (FIGS. 1-3) a mattress with a plurality of layers (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3) that can be produced of polyethylene fibres ([0071]: “Preferred organic fibres 8 include… polyethylene”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the polyethylene fibers material of De Bock (paragraph 0071) into Masuda’s layers (15/14, below 14/11, 12, and 10; FIGS. 2, 4, and Modified FIG. 2). Where De Bock formally acknowledges “material of the support layers can be any suitable material known in the art….The hardness and/or elasticity… can be chosen according to the desired personal comfort levels. Hardness and/or elasticity can be chosen according to principles, well known to the person skilled in the art. It is for instance possible to vary hardness and/or elasticity by choosing a particular material for the foam, or by choosing the specific construction of the foam” (Paragraph 0046: emphasis added). And further “Organic fibres 8 are preferably used since interference with electromagnetic waves is negligible” Whereby De Bock is clearly establishing that a multi-tiered mattress would be known to utilize polyethylene fibres for the respective layers by one of ordinary skill in the art. It is further considered that Krim demonstrates a plurality of mattress layers (as illustrated in FIG. 3) wherein Krim further discloses that such layers may be made of latex foam (paragraph 0062: “the first layer 310 may be latex or latex like foam. The second…third… fourth… and fifth layer 330 may be any of the following:… iv) polyethylene”. Therefore, the results would have been predictable as Krim presents a plurality of mattress layers that may all be produced of a combination of latex foam and polyethylene fibres.
It would have been simple substitution to have replaced the arbitrary foam layer of Masuda (As illustrated in FIGS. 2, 4, and Modified FIG. 2) with the polyethylene fibre layer of De Bock (paragraph 0071). Where De Bock establishes that the material was known to the art of beds/mattresses with different layers, and where further the results would have been predictable as Krim demonstrates a mattress made of latex and polyethylene (paragraph 0062), where De Bock elaborates that the material may be elected to the comfort of the user (paragraph 0046) and further that “Organic fibres 8 are preferably used since interference with electromagnetic waves is negligible” thereby leaving any operation of the electromagnetic pulses unimpeded.
However, Masuda still does not explicitly disclose an antennae comprising an elongated wire having a first end positioned proximate the first end of the first natural latex foam layer and a second end longitudinally spaced apart from the first end towards the second opposing end of the first natural latex foam layer, the antennae spread out between the first natural latex foam layer and the top cover; and a {processor} coupled to the first end of the antennae and configured to distribute a plurality of sequences of intermittent electrical signals along the antennae to the second end.
Regardless, Cogliata teaches (FIGS. 2) a bed (as illustrated in FIG. 2 and clarified in pages 4-6) comprising an antennae (3 and 4; FIG. 1) comprising an elongated wire (correspondent to 3 and 4; clarified on page 6 “irradiation antennas can be provided indifferently to a single antenna or several antennas connected thereto; gate to the electromagnetic wave generator”) having a first end positioned proximate the first end of the first layer and a second end longitudinally spaced apart from the first end proximate the second opposing end of the first layer, the antennae spread out between the first layer and the top cover (as illustrated in FIG. 2); and a {processor} (as clarified on page 6 “the electromagnetic wave generator”) coupled to the first end of the antennae and configured to distribute a plurality of sequences of intermittent electrical signals along the antennae to the second end (as clarified on page 6 “the electromagnetic wave generator” “the frequency of electromagnetic waves.sup.: | antistressants is included in the band from 5 to 300 pulsed waves per second”). Where notably, Cogliata elucidates that the ‘antenna can be provided indifferently to a single antenna or several antennas connected thereto gate to the electromagnetic generator’, wherein in a count of several, as illustrated such several span the longitudinal length of the bed, wherein a wire therebetween will transmit signals therealong analogously to applicant’s invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the antenna of Cogliata (as illustrated in FIG. 2, clarified on page 6) into the bed assembly of Masuda (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5). Where the results would have been obvious as both Masuda and Cogliata are concerned with bedding assemblies that improve human health, and where Cogliata advantageously acknowledges “it is easily deducible that with the arrangement of the antennas, provided in the aforementioned way, it is certainly possible to immerse the user in a field of antistressante treatment with electromagnetic waves” (page 4), whereby the incorporation into Masuda will likewise promote the same field of antistress treatment through/with electromagnetic waves.
However, while Masuda (in view of Cogliata) provides a processor (of arbitrary construction through Cogliata’s processor elements and pulsed processed signals therefrom), Masuda (in view of Cogliata) still does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is particularly a microprocessor.
Regardless, Becker teaches (FIGS. 1-2) a pulsed electromagnetic frequency (PEMF) generator assembly for a bed ([Abstract]: “the driving circuit is effective to produce a pulsed DC output having a frequency in the range of about 0-45 Hz” and [0012]: “a power supply which produces a pulsed DC output, and a magnetic field generating coil coupled to the output of the circuit which is effective to produce a time varying magnetic field”), wherein the processor may particularly be a microprocessor ([0014]: “a microprocessor is incorporated in the circuitry which is programmable to sequentially vary the output frequency of the circuit to selected frequencies in the range of 0.5 to 45 Hz]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated and substituted the processor of Masuda (in view of Cogliata) for a microprocessor as Becker acknowledges ([0014]). Where the results would have been predictable as Masuda (and Cogliata) are concerned with magnetic sleep therapies (Masuda: [3:38-45]: “magnets 16 are intended to obtain a certain defined magnetic therapeutical effect.”; Cogliata: [page 4]: “distributed electromagnetic field in such a manner as to make the user immersed in this anti-stress treatment field “), and Becker: [0011]: “It is therefore among the objectives of this invention to provide a method and apparatus for the treatment of physical and mental disorders with electromagnetic therapy “). Where Becker acknowledges both a processor and microprocessor approach: “The control knob 24 may be adjusted manually to selected frequency settings, represented by the radial lines 28 on the control panel 16, or, alternatively, to an "automatic" setting in which a programmable microprocessor 30 within the circuit 20 is activated to sequentially vary the output frequency of the circuit 20”) alongside a permanent magnet approach [0005]: “Magnetic fields have long been used for the treatment of physical injuries and chronic pain. Early magnetic therapy involved the use of static magnetic fields produced by permanent magnets incorporated into items such as… mattress pads and mattresses”, where Masuda considers a permanent magnet approach [3:37-45] and where Cogliata discusses a processor approach [pages 4-5]: “the treatment time can be chosen freely by the user, and since the proposed anti-stress electromagnetic wave treatment does not require any medical control, a simple switch without any timing means is provided in the power supply circuit of the generator 2”.
It is particularly considered that because Becker contemplates both permanent magnets and processors and thereafter considers substitution of a microprocessor that Becker would be reasonably predictable to consider in Masuda even in combination with Cogliata in providing known approaches to magnetic therapies such as in Masuda and pulsed magnetic therapies such as those in Cogliata would be a reasonably ordinary substitution in the art. Where it is considered that the bed of Masuda would continue to avail magnetic therapies as desired analogous to those provided in Becker, and the magnetic therapies of Cogliata would continue to be availed by pulsed frequency and simple more autonomous operation analogous to Becker, and the microprocessor of Becker would continue to facilitate pulsed electromagnetic frequency for a bedding article as Cogliata provides. Where further advantageously, the use of an integrated circuit over a radio generator (of vacuum tube operation as Cogliata ascribes [page 3]: “According to the invention, which generator is provided a generator similar to a radio generator”) would improve the sturdiness of the circuit as vacuum tubes are considerably more fragile than modern solid state electronics, and would therefore improve the longevity and reduce the necessity of repair or replacement.
Regarding claim 5, Masuda in view of Cogliata, De bock, Becker and Krim discloses (FIGS. 5) the therapeutic orthopedic mattress of Claim 1, further comprising a plurality of magnetic discs (16; FIG. 5) dispersed over a top surface of the first natural latex foam layer (as illustrated in FIGS. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Masuda in view of Cogliata, De bock, Becker and Krim discloses (FIGS. 5) the therapeutic orthopedic mattress of Claim 5, wherein each magnet discs of the plurality of magnetic discs comprises a positive pole surface and an opposing negative pole surface (as is illustrated in FIG. 5, the magnets are discs and magnets possess a positive and negative surface and poles thereof) with the negative pole surface facing towards the top cover. As the magnets are located in the valleys of the first layer (i.e., somewhere intermediate the topmost and bottom most surfaces as illustrated in FIG. 5) and furthermore encased in the top cover (2; FIG. 5), regardless of the magnet’s orientation, the magnet’s negative pole will always ‘face towards’ the top cover as the pole projects the magnetic force away from the first layer as claimed and outward intercepting the outer/top cover.
Regarding claim 8, Masuda in view of Cogliata, De bock, Becker and Krim discloses the therapeutic orthopedic mattress of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of sequences of intermittent electrical signals comprise pulsed low- frequency electromagnetic waves. Where Cogliata acknowledges (Abstract) a pulse frequency as low as 5 (“The frequency of the electromagnetic waves is contained within a range of 5 to 300 put pref. 30 to 160”).
Regarding claim 9, Masuda in view of Cogliata, De bock, Becker and Krim discloses the therapeutic orthopedic mattress of Claim 8, wherein the pulsed low-frequency electromagnetic waves comprise low frequencies and intensities. Where Cogliata acknowledges (Abstract) “The frequency of the electromagnetic waves is contained within a range of 5 to 300 put pref. 30 to 160” “or an output of up to 500 microwatts, pref. between 80 and 380 microwatts” which is both differing frequencies and intensities. Where as considered in the 112b section of the instant action, the limitation “configured to be varied to reach acupuncture points of the pet associated with at least one of restoring energy, relaxing the nerves, reducing stress, and encouraging relation to sleep” is construed to be cancelled as the claim is otherwise unbounded in scope without a standard that a person of ordinary skill in the art might ascertain the bounds.
Regarding claim 10, Masuda in view of Cogliata, De bock, Becker and Krim discloses (Cogliata: FIG. 2) the therapeutic orthopedic mattress of Claim 1, further comprising a controller (Abstract: “an electromagnetic generator”) and a power source (5; FIG. 2; Abstract: “The power can be supplied from the mains or from batteries” “a power supply (5)”) coupled to the microprocessor (per Becker’s consideration in claim 1 prior: [0014] and [0038]).
Regarding claim 19, Masuda discloses (FIGS. 1-5) a method of fabricating a therapeutic orthopedic mattress (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5) for a pet, the method comprising: providing a first layer (6/11; FIGS. 1-5) having a first end and an opposing second end (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5), the first layer having a convoluted top surface having a plurality of peaks and valleys (as illustrated in FIG. 1, 3, and 5); placing a top cover over the first layer (as illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 5); adhering a second layer under the first layer (as illustrated in FIG. 3, where adhering can be understood to mean “to hold fast or stick by or as if by gluing, suction, grasping, or fusing” (emphasis added); Merriam Webster: “adhere”, first definition; where such adhering by grasping is achieved by the outer/top cover grasping and enveloping the layers together thereby held fast). In regards for being in use ‘for a pet’ it has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
However, Masuda does not explicitly disclose wherein the first layer comprises natural latex foam.
Regardless, De Bock teaches (FIGS. 1-3) a mattress with a plurality of layers (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3) that can be produced of natural latex (paragraph 0046: “natural latex”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the natural latex material of De Bock (paragraph 0046) into Masuda’s layers (15/14, below 14/11, 12, and 10; FIGS. 2, 4, and Modified FIG. 2). Where De Bock formally acknowledges “material of the support layers can be any suitable material known in the art. Suitable … natural latex… rubber latex foams… In principle foams with any hardness can be used. The hardness and/or elasticity of the foamed materials used can be chosen according to the desired personal comfort levels. Hardness and/or elasticity can be chosen according to principles, well known to the person skilled in the art. It is for instance possible to vary hardness and/or elasticity by choosing a particular material for the foam, or by choosing the specific construction of the foam” (Paragraph 0046: emphasis added). Whereby De Bock is clearly establishing that a multi-tiered mattress would be known to utilize natural latex and latex foam materials for the respective layers by one of ordinary skill in the art. It is further considered that Krim demonstrates a plurality of mattress layers (as illustrated in FIG. 3) wherein Krim further discloses that such layers may be made of latex foam (paragraph 0062: “the first layer 310 may be latex or latex like foam. The second…third… fourth… and fifth layer 330 may be any of the following: i) latex foam; ii) latex-like foam”. Therefore, the results would have been predictable as Krim presents a plurality of mattress layers that may all be produced of latex foam or latex-like foam, and further may have different densities therebetween (paragraph 0062, demonstrated in claim 20).
It would have been simple substitution to have replaced the arbitrary foam layers of Masuda (As illustrated in FIGS. 2, 4, and Modified FIG. 2) with the natural latexes of De Bock (paragraph 0046). Where De Bock establishes that the material was known to the art of beds/mattresses with different layers, and where further the results would have been predictable as Krim demonstrates a mattress made of latex foams of different layers and different densities therein (paragraph 0062), where De Bock elaborates that the material may be elected to the comfort of the user (paragraph 0046).
However, Masuda still does not explicitly disclose wherein the second layer comprises a plurality of polyethylene interwoven fibers.
Regardless, De Bock further teaches (FIGS. 1-3) a mattress with a plurality of layers (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3) that can be produced of polyethylene fibres ([0071]: “Preferred organic fibres 8 include… polyethylene”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the polyethylene fibers material of De Bock (paragraph 0071) into Masuda’s layers (15/14, below 14/11, 12, and 10; FIGS. 2, 4, and Modified FIG. 2). Where De Bock formally acknowledges “material of the support layers can be any suitable material known in the art….The hardness and/or elasticity… can be chosen according to the desired personal comfort levels. Hardness and/or elasticity can be chosen according to principles, well known to the person skilled in the art. It is for instance possible to vary hardness and/or elasticity by choosing a particular material for the foam, or by choosing the specific construction of the foam” (Paragraph 0046: emphasis added). And further “Organic fibres 8 are preferably used since interference with electromagnetic waves is negligible” Whereby De Bock is clearly establishing that a multi-tiered mattress would be known to utilize polyethylene fibres for the respective layers by one of ordinary skill in the art. It is further considered that Krim demonstrates a plurality of mattress layers (as illustrated in FIG. 3) wherein Krim further discloses that such layers may be made of latex foam (paragraph 0062: “the first layer 310 may be latex or latex like foam. The second…third… fourth… and fifth layer 330 may be any of the following:… iv) polyethylene”. Therefore, the results would have been predictable as Krim presents a plurality of mattress layers that may all be produced of a combination of latex foam and polyethylene fibres.
It would have been simple substitution to have replaced the arbitrary foam layer of Masuda (As illustrated in FIGS. 2, 4, and Modified FIG. 2) with the polyethylene fibre layer of De Bock (paragraph 0071). Where De Bock establishes that the material was known to the art of beds/mattresses with different layers, and where further the results would have been predictable as Krim demonstrates a mattress made of latex and polyethylene (paragraph 0062), where De Bock elaborates that the material may be elected to the comfort of the user (paragraph 0046) and further that “Organic fibres 8 are preferably used since interference with electromagnetic waves is negligible” thereby leaving the operation of the electromagnetic pulses of the combination of Masuda in view of Cogliata unimpeded.
However, Masuda still does not explicitly disclose positioning an antennae comprising an elongated wire having a first end proximate the first end of the first layer and positioning a second end longitudinally spaced apart from the first end proximate the second opposing end of the first layer, wherein the antennae is spread out between the first layer and the top cover; and coupling a {processor} to the first end of the antennae, wherein the {processor} is configured to distribute a plurality of sequences of intermittent electrical signals along the antennae to the second end.
Regardless, Cogliata teaches (FIGS. 2) a bed (as illustrated in FIG. 2) comprising positioning an antennae (3 and 4; FIG. 1) comprising an elongated wire (correspondent to 3 and 4; clarified on page 6 “irradiation antennas can be provided indifferently to a single antenna or several antennas connected thereto; gate to the electromagnetic wave generator”) having a first end positioned proximate the first end of the first natural latex foam layer and a second end longitudinally spaced apart from the first end proximate the second opposing end of the first natural latex foam layer, the antennae spread out between the first layer and the top cover (as illustrated in FIG. 2); and coupling a {processor} (as clarified on page 6 “the electromagnetic wave generator” and page 3: “radio generator”) to the first end of the antennae where the {processor} is configured to distribute a plurality of sequences of intermittent electrical signals along the antennae to the second end (as clarified on page 6 “the electromagnetic wave generator” “the frequency of electromagnetic waves.sup.: | antistressants is included in the band from 5 to 300 pulsed waves per second”). Where notably, Cogliata elucidates that the ‘antenna can be provided indifferently to a single antenna or several antennas connected thereto gate to the electromagnetic generator’, wherein in a count of several, as illustrated such several span the longitudinal length of the bed, wherein a wire therebetween will transmit signals therealong analogously to applicant’s invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the antenna of Cogliata (as illustrated in FIG. 2, clarified on page 6) into the bed assembly of Masuda (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5). Where the results would have been obvious as both Masuda and Cogliata are concerned with bedding assemblies that improve human health, and where Cogliata advantageously acknowledges “it is easily deducible that with the arrangement of the antennas, provided in the aforementioned way, it is certainly possible to immerse the user in a field of antistressante treatment with electromagnetic waves” (page 4), whereby the incorporation into Masuda will likewise promote the same field of antistress treatment through/with electromagnetic waves.
However, while Masuda (in view of Cogliata) provides a processor (of arbitrary construction through Cogliata’s processor elements and pulsed processed signals therefrom), Masuda (in view of Cogliata) still does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is particularly a microprocessor.
Regardless, Becker teaches (FIGS. 1-2) a pulsed electromagnetic frequency (PEMF) generator assembly for a bed ([Abstract]: “the driving circuit is effective to produce a pulsed DC output having a frequency in the range of about 0-45 Hz” and [0012]: “a power supply which produces a pulsed DC output, and a magnetic field generating coil coupled to the output of the circuit which is effective to produce a time varying magnetic field”), wherein the processor may particularly be a microprocessor ([0014]: “a microprocessor is incorporated in the circuitry which is programmable to sequentially vary the output frequency of the circuit to selected frequencies in the range of 0.5 to 45 Hz]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated and substituted the processor of Masuda (in view of Cogliata) for a microprocessor as Becker acknowledges ([0014]). Where the results would have been predictable as Masuda (and Cogliata) are concerned with magnetic sleep therapies (Masuda: [3:38-45]: “magnets 16 are intended to obtain a certain defined magnetic therapeutical effect.”; Cogliata: [page 4]: “distributed electromagnetic field in such a manner as to make the user immersed in this anti-stress treatment field “), and Becker: [0011]: “It is therefore among the objectives of this invention to provide a method and apparatus for the treatment of physical and mental disorders with electromagnetic therapy “). Where Becker acknowledges both a processor and microprocessor approach: “The control knob 24 may be adjusted manually to selected frequency settings, represented by the radial lines 28 on the control panel 16, or, alternatively, to an "automatic" setting in which a programmable microprocessor 30 within the circuit 20 is activated to sequentially vary the output frequency of the circuit 20”) alongside a permanent magnet approach [0005]: “Magnetic fields have long been used for the treatment of physical injuries and chronic pain. Early magnetic therapy involved the use of static magnetic fields produced by permanent magnets incorporated into items such as… mattress pads and mattresses”, where Masuda considers a permanent magnet approach [3:37-45] and where Cogliata discusses a processor approach [pages 4-5]: “the treatment time can be chosen freely by the user, and since the proposed anti-stress electromagnetic wave treatment does not require any medical control, a simple switch without any timing means is provided in the power supply circuit of the generator 2”.
It is particularly considered that because Becker contemplates both permanent magnets and processors and thereafter considers substitution of a microprocessor that Becker would be reasonably predictable to consider in Masuda even in combination with Cogliata in providing known approaches to magnetic therapies such as in Masuda and pulsed magnetic therapies such as those in Cogliata would be a reasonably ordinary substitution in the art. Where it is considered that the bed of Masuda would continue to avail magnetic therapies as desired analogous to those provided in Becker, and the magnetic therapies of Cogliata would continue to be availed by pulsed frequency and simple more autonomous operation analogous to Becker, and the microprocessor of Becker would continue to facilitate pulsed electromagnetic frequency for a bedding article as Cogliata provides. Where further advantageously, the use of an integrated circuit over a radio generator (of vacuum tube operation as Cogliata ascribes [page 3]: “According to the invention, which generator is provided a generator similar to a radio generator”) would improve the sturdiness of the circuit as vacuum tubes are considerably more fragile than modern solid state electronics, and would therefore improve the longevity and reduce the necessity of repair or replacement.
Claim(s) 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda in view of Cogliata, De Bock and Krim in further view of Yubao (Chinese Pub. No. CN102920212B).
Regarding claim 7, Masuda in view of Cogliata, De Bock and Krim discloses the therapeutic orthopedic mattress of Claim 1.
However, Masuda does not explicitly disclose further comprising a plurality of far infrared radiation (FIR) discs dispersed over a top surface of the first layer.
Regardless, Yubao teaches in FIG. 1, a mattress comprising a plurality of layers, wherein the first layer includes magnets (4) and far infrared elements disposed thereon (3: tourmaline).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have modified and incorporated the far infrared elements of Yubao (3; FIG. 1) into the first layer of Masuda as Modified (15) to provide a mattress with both infrared and magnetic elements proximate the user. Where Yubao acknowledges (page 6, final paragraph to page 7 first paragraph) that the infrared element (tourmaline) emits negative ions and makes the environment analogous to the environment of Changmao Village, which is known for its longevity/health. It is further acknowledged in FIG. 1 of Yubao that the magnets are located planar coincident with the infrared elements and would not interfere with those present in Masuda (in view of Cogliata). Where the results would be predictable as Yubao provides magnets (4; FIG. 1) alongside the infrared elements (3; FIG. 1) for a bedding arrangement analogous to Masuda and is concerned with the occupants health as both Masuda and Cogliata are. Where advantageously the infrared elements bolster the longevity of the user as acknowledged by Yubao (page 6-final paragraph to page 7-first paragraph).
Regarding claim 20, Masuda in view of Cogliata, De Bock, Becker and Krim discloses (Masuda: FIG. 5) the method of Claim 19, further comprising: positioning a plurality of magnetic discs (Cogliata: 16; FIG. 2) over a top surface of the first layer (Cogliata: FIG. 2).
However, Masuda does not explicitly disclose further positioning a plurality of far infrared radiation (FIR) discs over a top surface of the first layer.
Regardless, Yubao teaches in FIG. 1, a mattress comprising a plurality of layers, wherein the first layer includes magnets (4) and far infrared elements positioned thereon (3: tourmaline).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have modified and incorporated positioning the far infrared elements of Yubao (3; FIG. 1) into the first layer of Masuda as Modified (15) to provide a mattress with both infrared and magnetic elements proximate the user. Where Yubao acknowledges (page 6, final paragraph to page 7 first paragraph) that the infrared element (tourmaline) emits negative ions and makes the environment analogous to the environment of Changmao Village, which is known for its longevity/health. It is further acknowledged in FIG. 1 of Yubao that the magnets are located planar coincident with the infrared elements and would not interfere with those present in Masuda (in view of Cogliata). Where the results would be predictable as Yubao provides magnets (4; FIG. 1) alongside the infrared elements (3; FIG. 1) for a bedding arrangement analogous to Masuda and is concerned with the occupants health as both Masuda and Cogliata are. And where advantageously the infrared elements bolster the longevity of the user as acknowledged by Yubao (page 6-final paragraph to page 7-first paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22nd, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Particularly, Applicants allege (Remarks: pages 8-15), that the plurality of references individually do not possess the combined features of applicants invention. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furtheremore, Applicants allege that Masuda does not possess a convoluted top surface with a plurality of peaks and valleys. However, this is respectfully incorrect as Masuda clearly indicates a convoluted top surface to specifically hold and house the magnets in the valleys therein as eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 1-5.
Furthermore, with regards to applicant’s allegation that Masuda does not use metal components, further reading respectfully elucidates “The present invention relates to a mattress. Particularly, it relates to a mattress wherein metal component parts such as coiled springs are not incorporated…. Conventionally, the mattress has a structure wherein multiple coiled springs are fixed on the metal frames to both upper and lower sides, and sheeting materials are laid over it, then enclosing the entire body with a covering cloth.”, clearly indicating that large metal components such as coil springs, and metal frames are not employed, but there is clearly a metal used in the device by the very incorporation of permanent magnets (16; FIGS. 1-5), which are made of metal necessitating being made of ferromagnetic material (iron, nickel, cobalt, etc). Therefore the consideration that Masuda cannot have any metal therein is considered unpersuasive.
Similar considerations are posed for applicant’s allegations directed to de Bock, Krim, and others, where applicant respectfully appears to assess the reference by piecemeal analysis and not the combination of the references and the cited rationales provided.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). However, Examiner respectfully provides rationales for combinations of all references cited, such as Cogliata’s noted stress relief and ease of combination/incorporation as but one example. While other references are indicated for their ease of substitution like De Bock’s polyethylene fibers being indicated to be known to the art and incorporable/substituting into Masuda which has a plurality of layers thereof.
Furthermore, In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). There are a considerable number of components in the invention and the references of Masuda and others, therefore there may be a reasonable yet considerable number of references modifying Masuda, where there are even caveats in several of the references that identify where the interference will not be an issue; such as Masuda’s with Debock’s consideration that organic fibers negligibly interfere with electromagnetic waves, and would therefore further improve Cogliata’s contributions to the combination even further.
Therefore Examiner is respectfully not persuaded at the present time that Masuda in combination with De Bock, Cogliata, Krim and others would fail to avail the claimed features of applicant’s invention and the rejections of record are respectfully maintained for rationale’s previously set forth.
Furthermore with regards to claim 9, applicant alleges that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know what “low frequences and intensities configured”. Examiner would respectfully disagree as applicant’s do not set forth a standard for such low frequencies, how many Hertz would such frequency comprise? What’s the period of pulse? These questions are respectfully not answered by applicant’s disclosure. And furthermore is considerably more indefinite for the fact the frequency is configured “to be varied to reach acupuncture points of the pet associated with at least one of restoring energy, relaxing the nerves, reducing stress, and encouraging relation to sleep”. With all due respect, what would the scope of such a limitation even consist of? What pets are within the scope of the claim. Examiner previously set forth the high variability of pets, and pets of varying sizes have varying builds and bodies and densities that would vastly, perhaps infinitely vary their acupuncture points. Applicants have not provided a standard that a person of ordinary skill in the art can be apprised of the metes and bounds of applicant’s invention by not even providing one example of the frequencies and what consistutes a ‘low frequency’. Notably the only instance of any frequency is attributed solely to the FIR disks [0022], not the pemf aspect of the invention. Respectfully, examiner cannot consider the claim is definite or searchable in its current form as there is neither the most exemplary of a single example of what a “low frequency” comprises and convolutes any understanding thereof further by relating such variable to a pet of unknown size, shape, genus, age, etc, rendering the claim indefinite and unsearchable. Therefore, Examiner respectfully maintains the 112(b) rejection of claim 9 for reasons and rationales of record.
Therefore claims 1, 5-10, and 19-20 remain rejected for reasons and rationale of record and those expounded upon previously in the immediate section.
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.
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 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 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.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673