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 .
Application Status
Claims 1, 52-67, and 72-76 are pending in this application. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 7/22/2026.
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.
Claims 1, and 52-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 8584288 B2) in view of Frickey (US 7225489 B1), further in view of Larson (US 20090293197 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Shaw discloses a sleep system comprising: a mattress conversion device (10 mattress expander) to expand the width of a mattress (See Fig. 1, mattress M expands in width) comprising: a base layer (12 top pad); one or more side portions (16 side members); and a cavity (20 channel) defined by the base layer and the one or more side portions (“side members 16 extend downward relative to top pad 12 and are laterally spaced from each other to define a mattress receiving channel 20”; [Col. 3, Lines 5-7]); and a mattress (M mattress); wherein the mattress conversion device is configured to slidingly receive the mattress (See Fig. 1, mattress is tucked between top pad 12 and side portions 16).
Shaw fails to explicitly disclose a frame conversion device, wherein the frame conversion device is configured to provide expanded width support to the mattress conversion device and/or mattress, wherein the frame conversion device is configured to removably attach to a bed frame via one or more attachment assemblies comprising a strap.
However, Frickey teaches a frame conversion device (extensions 200), wherein the frame conversion device is configured to provide expanded width support to the mattress conversion device and/or mattress (See Fig. 7, “when the extensions 200 of the bed 170 are raised and the supports are put in place the bed deck offers an expanded width”; [Col. 4, Lines 49-51]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Shaw by adding the extensions taught by Frickey. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “offers an expanded width”; (Frickey, [Col. 4, Line 51]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Shaw in view of Frickey fails to explicitly teach wherein the frame conversion device is configured to removably attach to a bed frame via one or more attachment assemblies comprising a strap.
However, Larson teaches the frame conversion device is configured to removably attach to a bed frame via one or more attachment assemblies comprising a strap (See Fig. 2-3, width adjustment accessories 32 attached with removable quick release pins 44…a strap would be an obvious potential substitute for removable attachment, “It should be appreciated that fasteners other that quick release pins may be used, including threaded fasteners, clips, adhesives, welding, or other desired fasteners”; [0024]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Shaw in view of Frickey by adding the attachment assembly taught by Larson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “in order to provide desired configurations”; (Larson, [0023]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 52, Shaw, as modified, teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the mattress conversion device slidingly receives the mattress via the cavity (See Fig. 1 above, configuration of mattress expander 10 allows for the receiving channel 20 to receive the mattress M).
Regarding Claim 53, Shaw, as modified, teaches the system according to claim 52, wherein the mattress conversion device base layer (12) is proximate a first surface of the mattress (15 lower surface) and at least one mattress conversion device side portion (16) is proximate a second surface of the mattress (24 interior surface).
Regarding Claim 54, Shaw, as modified, teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the mattress conversion device base layer (12) comprises a length of at least 75 inches. (“Standard mattresses in care-giving settings typically are 80-84 inches long, 36 inches wide, and 6 inches in height. These dimensions are examples and should not be considered limiting...length of top pad 12 is sized to be the same as or close to the length of mattress M”; [Col. 2, Lines 26-29, 34-35], top pad 12 has a length of at least 75 inches, but not a width greater than 36 inches or a height greater than 6 inches.)
Shaw in view of Frickey in view of Larson fails to explicitly teach a width of at least 38 inches, and/or a depth of at least 7 inches. However, it has been held in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, there is no unexpected or significant result to having a width of at least 38 inches, and/or a depth of at least 7 inches.
Regarding Claim 55, Shaw, as modified, teaches the system according to claim 54, wherein the mattress conversion device base layer (12) comprises a length similar to a length of the mattress (“length of top pad 12 is sized to be the same as or close to the length of the mattress M”; [Col. 2, Lines 34-35]).
Regarding Claim 56, Shaw, as modified, teaches the system according to claim 54, wherein the mattress conversion device base layer (12) comprises a length greater than a length of the mattress (“greater length could be provided by mattress expander 10 by extending its length”; [38-40], mattress expander 10 comprises top pad 12).
Regarding Claim 57, Shaw, as modified, teaches the system according to claim 54, wherein the mattress conversion device base layer (12) comprises a width greater than a width of the mattress (“top pad 12 is wider than the standard mattress M”; [Col. 2, Lines 29-30]).
Regarding Claim 58, Shaw, as modified, teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein at least one mattress conversion device side portion (16) comprises a length of at least 75 inches (“Standard mattresses in care-giving settings typically are 80-84 inches long, 36 inches wide, and 6 inches in height. These dimensions are examples and should not be considered limiting…Side members 16 have a height similar to that of standard mattress M and may extend below the lower surface L of mattress M, as necessary. Side members 16 generally have the same lateral dimension as the overhanging portions 18 of top pad 12, and extend longitudinally to the same extent as top pad 12”; [Col. 2, Lines 26-29, 52-57]).
Shaw in view of Frickey in view of Larson fails to explicitly teach a width of at least 3 inches, and/or a depth of at least 7 inches. However, it has been held in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, there is no unexpected or significant result to having a width of at least 3 inches, and/or a depth of at least 7 inches.
Regarding Claim 59, Shaw, as modified, teaches the system according to claim 58, wherein two or more mattress conversion device side portions (16) comprise similar lengths, widths, and/or depths (“pair of side members”; [Col. 2, Line 49], Length, width, and depth of the side members are similar to each other being a pair.)
Regarding Claim 60, Shaw, as modified, teaches the system according to claim 58, wherein two or more mattress conversion device side portions (16) comprise dissimilar lengths, widths, and/or depths (“side members 16 do not have to have the same length and width as the top pad 12 and do not have to have the same width as overhanging portions 18. For example, the lateral and longitudinal dimensions of side members 16 may be smaller or larger than overhanging portions 18 of top pad 12”; [Col. 2, Lines 58-62]).
Regarding Claim 61, Shaw, as modified, teaches the system according to claim 58, wherein at least one mattress conversion device side portion (16) comprises a length similar to a length of the mattress (“The length of top pad 12 is sized to be the same as or close to the length of the mattress…extend longitudinally to the same extent as top pad 12”; [Col. 2, Lines 34-35, 56-57], side portions 16 are the same length as top pad 12 which is the same length as the mattress).
Regarding Claim 62, Shaw, as modified, teaches the system according to claim 58, wherein at least one mattress conversion device side portion (16) comprises a length greater than a length of the mattress (“side members 16 do not have to have the same length and width as the top pad 12”; [Col. 2, Lines 58-59], top pad 12 is the same length as the mattress).
Regarding Claim 63, Shaw, as modified, teaches the system according to claim 58, wherein at least one mattress conversion device side portion (16) comprises a depth similar to a depth of the mattress (“side members 16 have a height similar to that of standard mattress M”; [Col. 2, Lines 52-53]).
Regarding Claim 64, Shaw, as modified, teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the mattress (M) comprises a mattress (“Standard mattresses in care-giving settings typically are 80-84 inches long, 36 inches wide, and 6 inches in height. These dimensions are examples and should not be considered limiting”; [Col. 2, Lines 26-29]).
Shaw in view of Frickey in view of Larson fails to explicitly teach an extra-long twin mattress. However, it has been held in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, there is no unexpected or significant result to having an extra-long twin mattress.
Regarding Claim 65, Shaw, as modified, teaches the system according to claim 64, wherein the mattress conversion device (10 mattress expander) is configured to convert a mattress into a larger mattress.
Shaw in view of Frickey in view of Larson fails to explicitly teach converting an extra-long twin mattress into an extra-long full mattress. However, it has been held in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, there is no unexpected or significant result to converting an extra-long twin mattress into an extra-long full mattress.
Regarding Claim 66, Shaw, as modified, teaches the system according to claim [[65]] 64, wherein the mattress conversion device (10) is configured to increase a width of the mattress (“top pad 12 is wider than the standard mattress M”; [Col. 2, Lines 29-30]).
Shaw in view of Frickey in view of Larson fails to explicitly teach increasing the width of the extra-long twin mattress by at least 8 inches. However, it has been held in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, there is no unexpected or significant result to increasing the width of the extra-long twin mattress by at least 8 inches.
Regarding Claim 67, Shaw, as modified, teaches according to claim 1, wherein the mattress conversion device (10) comprises a material selected from the group consisting of foam; latex; polyester; polyester blend; wool; cotton; and combinations thereof (“Top pad 12 may be constructed of foam, as shown, or other suitable padding material including natural fiber, open or closed cell foam, synthetic fiber, air or other fluid containing bladders, among others…material used to construct the side members 16 may be selected from the same types of padding materials used to construct top pad 12”; [Col. 2, Lines 40-43, 63-65], mattress expander 10 includes top pad 12 and side members 16).
Claims 72-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 8584288 B2) in view of Frickey (US 7225489 B1), in view of Larson (US 20090293197 A1), further in view of Liu (CN 208150022 U).
Regarding Claim 72, Shaw, as modified, teaches the system according to claim 1.
Shaw in view of Frickey in view of Larson fails to explicitly teach a mattress storage device.
However, Liu teaches the system according to claim 1, further comprising a mattress storage device (1 bag body).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined the system of Shaw in view of Frickey in view of Larson and the mattress storage device of Liu and arrived at a sleep system with storing capabilities. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 73, Shaw, as modified, teaches the system according to claim 72.
Shaw in view of Frickey in view of Larson fails to explicitly teach the mattress storage device is configured to store the mattress conversion device or the mattress.
However, Liu teaches the system according to claim 72, wherein the mattress storage device (1) is configured to store at least one mattress conversion device or mattress (“a bag for accommodating an inflatable mattress is provided including a bag body 1”; [0018]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined the system of Shaw in view of Frickey in view of Larson and the mattress storage device configured to store a mattress conversion device or mattress of Liu and arrived at a sleep system with storing capabilities. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 74, Shaw, as modified, teaches the system according to claim 72.
Shaw in view of Frickey in view of Larson fails to explicitly teach the mattress storage device comprises an enclosure comprising one or more fluid exchange ports.
However, Liu teaches the system according to claim 72, wherein the mattress storage device (1) comprises an enclosure comprising one or more fluid exchange ports (9 air inflation port).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined the system of Shaw in view of Frickey in view of Bertolet and the mattress storage device comprising a fluid exchange port of Liu and arrived at a sleep system with storing capabilities. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 75 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 8584288 B2) in view of Frickey (US 7225489 B1), in view of Larson (US 20090293197 A1), further in view of Lobascio (US 6085370 A).
Regarding Claim 75, Shaw, as modified, teaches the system according to claim 1.
Shaw in view of Frickey in view of Larson fails to explicitly teach a mattress transport assembly.
However, Lobascio teaches the system according to claim 1, further comprising a mattress transport assembly (10 protective and supportive cover).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined the system of Shaw in view of Frickey in view of Larson and the mattress transport assembly of Lobascio and arrived at a transportable sleep system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 76 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 8584288 B2) in view of Frickey (US 7225489 B1), in view of Larson (US 20090293197 A1), in view of Lobascio (US 6085370 A), further in view of Schactman (US 20180229665 A1).
Regarding Claim 76, Shaw, as modified, teaches the system according to claim 75.
Shaw in view of Frickey in view of Larson in view of Lobascio fails to explicitly teach the mattress transport assembly is configured to secure the mattress conversion device or the mattress to a vehicle.
However, Schactman teaches the system according to claim 75, wherein the mattress transport assembly is configured to secure the mattress conversion device or the mattress to a vehicle (“any other oversized and/or irregular shaped items can be held in place using the clamps 10 and straps 54, such as Christmas trees, canoes, kayaks and mattresses”; [0038]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Shaw in view of Frickey in view of Larson in view of Lobascio by adding the straps and clamps taught by Schactman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to be held in place”; (Schactman, [0038]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-12, filed 7/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 52-66, and 72-74 (specific to claim 1) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly found art reference of Larson (US 20090293197 A1).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-13, filed 7/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 75-76 (specific to claim 76) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly found art reference of Schactman (US 20180229665 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/
Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
