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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/10/2025 has been entered.
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) 1-2 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 1,528,066 to McEntire in view of U.S. Pat. No. 3,534,417 to Boyles.
Claims 1-2, McEntire discloses a mattress comprising a body having side walls to define an external perimeter defined by a casing of the mattress; a plurality of sections 15 configured to be contained within the external perimeter of said casing, and extending laterally across the body so as to support different regions of the individual's body of the individual wherein the at least two sections are arranged within the mattress such that they are separated from each other and operate independently along a top and side surface thereof and each of the at least two sections comprise a top surface of the mattress upon which the individual is supported, wherein the top cover of each section does not extend across other sections and a flexible wrap material defined by casing portions (11,12) is provided about the external perimeter of the mattress to provide a continuous external wall within which each of the at least two sections are contained (fig. 1). McEntire is silent to a section having a different predetermined elasticity/firmness setting to another section. Boyles discloses a plurality of sections with layers of support material each having a different elasticity/firmness setting to another section (col. 1-2 lines 10-68 & 1-16). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the plurality of sections having different degrees firmness settings in Boyles in the mattress of McEntire with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed the user to provide a selectable degree of firmness to either a horizontal surface area, the intermediate portions, or midportions of the plurality of sections in McEntire (col. 1 lines 41-65).
Claim 4, McEntire discloses the mattress wherein the top cover for each of the at least two sections are separated from each other by way of a gap that extends therebetween (fig. 1).
Claim 5, McEntire discloses the mattress wherein the mattress comprises three sections, a top section, a middle section and a lower section capable of supporting the various parts of a person’s body (fig. 1).
Claims 6-7, McEntire discloses the mattress, but is silent to a top cover formed from fabric or a quilted panel. Selecting from a plethora of known fabric materials is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a quilted fabric material for the top cover with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative fabric material for the cover of the cushion elements of McEntire (fig. 1 & 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to the Applicant’s argument that Skeffington individually does not require sections to have different firmness levels, 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). As stated above, Skeffington discloses a mattress (B,B1,C,C1) comprising a body having side walls to define an external perimeter of the mattress; at least two sections defined by cushion elements C configured to be contained within the external perimeter of said body, and extending laterally across the body so as to support different regions of the individual's body of the individual (fig. 1) wherein the at least two sections are arranged within the mattress such that they are separated from each other and operate independently along a top and side surface thereof and each of the at least two sections comprise a top surface of the mattress upon which the individual is supported, wherein the top cover of each section does not extend across other sections (fig. 1). Boyles discloses a mattress having a plurality of sections with layers of support material each having a different elasticity/firmness setting to another section (col. 1-2 lines 10-68 & 1-16). The combination of references as a whole would have provided the user with a selectable degree of firmness to either a horizontal surface area, the intermediate portions, or midportions of the plurality of sections as explicitly taught in Skeffington (col. 1 lines 41-65).
Contrary to the Applicant’s arguments, the Applicant has provided no evidence that they were the first to discover a section having a different predetermined elasticity/firmness setting to another section therefore providing a plurality of sections within a mattress with each section having a different elasticity/firmness setting to another section is neither novel nor inventive or beyond the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Once again, the Examiner has set forth reasons for combining the references, and the reasons articulated by the Examiner have rational underpinnings.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 9,131,782 to Baker discloses a cushion having a plurality of independent sections.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,513,402 to Schwartz discloses a cushion having a plurality of internal independent sections.
Conclusion
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, Justin C. 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.
/FREDRICK C CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673