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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “On pages 6-7 of the Office Action, the Examiner alleges that Gladney teaches the "upper insert" and the "lower insert" of the claims by analogizing the flexible component 42 of Gladney to the "upper insert" and the "lower insert" of the claims. Gladney relates to "the manufacture of bedding products." (See Gladney, para. [0002]). According to Gladney, "a mattress for an adjustable bed may have a foam edge that has a break or a flexible component 42 that is disposed somewhat midway along both long edges of the mattress." (See Gladney, para. [0037]). Additionally, Gladney discloses that "in this way, the adjustable bed will be more capable of pivoting around a central axis as the flexible portion built in the foam edge readily allows the mattress to pivot and bend." (Id.). While Gladney is cited for disclosing an "insert," Gladney fails to disclose, teach, or suggest "an upper insert adhesively coupled to and substantially filling the upper recess, the upper insert comprising a second material," "a lower insert adhesively coupled to and substantially filling the lower recess, the lower insert comprising a third material," and that "the second material and the third material are relatively less rigid and more compressible than the first material," as in amended independent claim 1 (emphasis added).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Gladney does not explicitly disclose the exact properties of the insert 42, the relative properties are obvious based on the functionality of the flexible component. Paragraph [0037] of Gladney discloses “For example, a mattress for an adjustable bed may have a foam edge that has a break or a flexible component 42 that is disposed somewhat midway along both long edges of the mattress. In this way, the adjustable bed will be more capable of pivoting around a central axis as the flexible portion built in the foam edge readily allows the mattress to pivot and bend.” The flexible component 42 of Gladney would not function as desired if the material was not less rigid and more compressible than the first material forming the siderails of Gladney.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “First, the flexible component 42 is not disclosed as being "adhesively coupled to and substantially filling the upper recess" or "the lower recess," as recited in amended claim 1. Rather, Gladney fails to disclose how the support layer 14 and flexible component 42 are held together. Second, Gladney merely describes the flexible component 42 as flexible. Gladney does not disclose, teach, or suggest how the flexibility of the flexible component 42 is in relation to another component. Thus, Gladney does not disclose, teach, or suggest that "the second material [of the upper insert] and the third material [of the lower insert] are relatively less rigid and more compressible than the first material [of the singular main body]," like in amended claim 1,” the Examiner points to MPEP section 2113 I. which states “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer. The process of making the developer was allowed.” Gladney teaches that the “foam edge[…] has a break or a flexible component that is disposed […] along both edges of the mattress.”
Applicant argues that “Third and finally, Gladney does not disclose, teach, or suggest "wherein at least one of the plurality of upper recesses and at least one of the plurality of lower recesses remains open and does not receive a respective insert," as recited in amended claim 1. For at least these reasons, amended independent claim 1 is patentable over Gladney. The other references are not cited as disclosing the "upper insert" and "lower insert" of claim 1. Therefore, it follows, the other cited references do not cure the above-mentioned deficiencies of Gladney. In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits independent claim 1 is allowable over any proper combination of the cited references. Independent claims 14 and 20 recite similar features as claim 1 and are allowable for at least the same reason. Claims 2-12, 15, 16, 18, and 19 depend from claims 1, 14, and 20, respectively, and are allowable at least in view of their dependency. See 35 U.S.C. § 112(d).” The Examiner points to the rejection of claim 1 below which makes obvious filling only some of the inserts of Chang with an insert since Chang teaches a plurality of open recesses and Gladney teaches the concept of filling a recess with a flexible insert.
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.
Claims 1-12, 14-16, and 18-20 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.
The term “relatively” in claims 1, 14 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Examiner suggests removing the term “relatively” from the claims since the limitation “and wherein the second material and the third material are less rigid and more compressible than the first material” comprises a clear relative comparison between the materials and does not need the term “relatively.”
Claims 2-12 depend on claim 1 and claims 15-16 and 18-19 depend on claim 14 and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) accordingly.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, 14-16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US PG. Pub. 2018/0133079 - hereinafter Chang) in view of Gladney (US PG. Pub. 2004/0261186).
Regarding Claim 1: Chang discloses a side rail (fall prevention structures 50 of Change – Fig. 1) for a mattress (patient support structure 1 of Chang) for an adjustable bed (paragraph [0102] of Chang discloses “For example, when there is a need to bend the patient support structure 1, such as when the first supporting part 10 and a part of the third supporting part 30 are bent upward to sit the patient up, the first notches 51 and the second notches 52 may serve as the fulcrum during the bending operation”), a singular main body (fall prevention structures 50 of Change – Fig. 1) comprising a first material having a first rigidity (the rails providing support in Chang’s invention and therefore have a level of rigidity) and a first compressibility (not explicitly disclose but implied that there is a certain compressibility since the rails are capable of bending as discussed in paragraph [0102] of Chang), a plurality of upper recesses (see the plurality of recesses 51 extending into a top of the rail 50 of Chang) and a plurality of lower recesses (lower recesses 51 of Chang), an upper recess of the plurality of upper recesses extending into a first top edge of the singular main body (as shown in Fig. 1 of Chang), partially into a height of the singular main body (as shown in Fig. 1 of Chang), and across an entirety of a width of the singular main body (as shown in Fig. 1 of Chang), the upper recess including: a base adjacent to but spaced apart from a first bottom edge of the singular main body (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Chang); a first head surface (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Chang) extending at a first non-perpendicular angle relative to the first top edge, to the base and toward a foot end of the singular main body (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Chang); and a first foot surface extending at a second non-perpendicular angle relative to the first top edge, to the base and toward a head end of the singular main body; a lower recess of the plurality of lower recesses extending into the first bottom edge of the singular main body (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Chang), partially into the height of the singular main body, and across the entirety of the width of the singular main body (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Chang), the lower recess including: a first top adjacent to but spaced apart from the first top edge of the singular main body (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Chang); a second head surface extending at a third non-perpendicular angle relative to a bottom surface of the singular main body to the first top (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Chang); and a second foot surface extending at a fourth non-perpendicular angle relative to the bottom surface of the singular main body to the first top (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Chang); [….].
PNG
media_image1.png
609
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chang does not disclose an upper insert adhesively coupled to and substantially filling the upper recess, the upper insert comprising a second material and including a second top edge substantially coplanar with the first top edge of the singular main body when coupled to the singular main body in the upper recess; a lower insert adhesively coupled to and substantially filling the lower recess, the lower insert comprising a third material and including a second bottom edge substantially coplanar with the first bottom edge of the singular main body when coupled to the singular main body in the lower recess, a second top adjacent to the first top of the lower recess, a third head surface adjacent to the second head surface of the lower recess, and a third foot surface adjacent to the second foot surface of the lower recess, and wherein the upper insert and the lower insert have a substantially triangular cross-sectional shape in a substantially flat orientation of the singular main body, and wherein the second material and the third material are relatively less rigid and more compressive than the first material, and wherein at least one of the plurality of upper recesses and at least one of the plurality of lower recesses remains open and does not receive a respective insert.
In the same field of endeavor, mattresses (see the abstract of Gladney), Gladney teaches an upper insert adhesively (flexible component 42 of Gladney) coupled to and substantially filling the upper recess (see paragraph [0037] and Fig. 4 of Gladney), the upper insert comprising a second material (see paragraph [0037] of Gladney which teaches “a mattress for an adjustable bed may have a foam edge that has a break or a flexible component 42 that is disposed somewhat midway along both edges of the mattress. In this way the adjustable bed will be more capable of pivoting around a central axis as the flexible portion built in the foam edge readily allows the mattress to pivot and bend”) and including a second top edge substantially coplanar with the first top edge of the singular main body when coupled to the singular main body in the upper recess (as shown in Fig. 4 of Gladney); […..] and wherein the upper insert […] has a substantially triangular cross-sectional shape in a substantially flat orientation of the singular main body (see Fig. 4 of Gladney which shows a triangular insert and Fig. 1 of Chang which show triangular recesses) and wherein the second material […] [is] relatively less rigid and more compressive than the first material (see the paragraph [0037] of Gladney which talks about the flexible member which is less rigid and obviously more compressible since the triangular shape would compress during flexing/bending as described and presented by Gladney).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Chang (mattress with recessed siderails) and Gladney (mattress with sides with flexible members for enabling articulation of the mattress) by utilizing a flexible member inserted into recesses of Chang as selected by a user. One would have been motivated to make such a combination since Gladney teaches that a flexible member is an alternative to a break and Chang includes breaks (i.e. recesses) and also because the adjustable mattress will be more capable of pivoting around a central axis as the flexible portion built in the foam edge readily allows the mattress to pivot and bend.
Gladney only shows one “break or flexible member” in the mattress sidewalls. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to duplicate the flexible member of Gladney and apply it to the lower recess of Chang since Gladney teaches that a flexible member is an alternative to a break and Chang includes breaks (i.e. recesses) on both top and bottom edges of the side rails. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination since Gladney teaches that a flexible member is an alternative to a break and Chang includes breaks (i.e. recesses). Additionally, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. Since Gladney teaches the flexible member filling the recess and since Chang teaches the lower recess having the claimed shape that corresponds to the shape of the insert as claimed, the combination of Chang and Gladney would result in the a lower insert […] coupled to and substantially filling the lower recess, the lower insert comprising a third material and including a second bottom edge substantially coplanar with the first bottom edge of the singular main body when coupled to the singular main body in the lower recess, a second top adjacent to the first top of the lower recess, a third head surface adjacent to the second head surface of the lower recess, and a third foot surface adjacent to the second foot surface of the lower recess by filling a recess of Chang with an insert as taught by Gladney.
Gladney only teaches a singular break or flexible member on the side rails but Chang teaches a plurality of recesses in both the top and bottom surfaces of the side rails. Since, Gladney teaches the alternative to the breaks being a flexible member, and Chang includes a plurality of recesses, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to fill all or some of the recesses with flexible members as desired by the user/manufacturer. Selectively filling some of the recesses of Chang with an upper and lower insert would result in a side rail wherein at least one of the plurality of upper recesses and at least one of the plurality of lower recesses remains open and does not receive a respective insert.
Finally, Gladney does not explicitly teach how the flexible member is formed as part of the side rail (i.e the insert adhesively coupled to the recess in claim 1). However, MPEP 2113 I. states “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Chang in view of Gladney regardless of the method of forming the flexible member to the siderail of Gladney.
Regarding Claim 2: Chang in view of Gladney make obvious the side rail of claim 1, wherein upper recess is positioned at a first location of an upper surface of the mattress, the first location positioned over a concavely bending joint of a support surface (see paragraph [0102] of Chang discloses “For example, when there is a need to bend the patient support structure 1, such as when the first supporting part 10 and a part of the third supporting part 30 are bent upward to sit the patient up, the first notches 51 and the second notches 52 may serve as the fulcrum during the bending operation”).
Regarding Claim 3: Chang in view of Gladney make obvious the side rail of claim 2, wherein the lower recess is positioned at a second location of the upper surface of the mattress, the second location positioned over a convexly bending joint of the support surface (paragraph [0102] of Chang which discloses “For example, when there is a need to bend the patient support structure 1, such as when the first supporting part 10 and a part of the third supporting part 30 are bent upward to sit the patient up, the first notches 51 and the second notches 52 may serve as the fulcrum during the bending operation”).
Regarding Claim 4: Chang in view of Gladney make obvious the side rail of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of upper inserts and a plurality of lower inserts (see Fig. 1 of Chang including multiple upper and lower recesses capable of being filled with flexible members as taught by Gladney).
Regarding Claim 5: Chang in view of Gladney make obvious the side rail of claim 4, wherein the plurality of upper recesses and the plurality of upper inserts are grouped together (see Fig. 1 of Chang and the rejection of claim 4).
Regarding Claim 6: Chang in view of Gladney make obvious the side rail of claim 4, wherein the plurality of lower recesses and the plurality of lower inserts are grouped together (see Fig. 1 of Chang and the rejection of claim 4).
Regarding Claim 7: Chang in view of Gladney make obvious the side rail of claim 1, wherein the base of the upper recess is defined by a junction between the first head surface and the first foot surface of the upper recess (see Fig. 1 of Chang showing the base being a junction of the two slanted surfaces).
Regarding Claim 10: Chang in view of Gladney make obvious the side rail of claim 1, wherein the first top of the lower recess is defined by a junction between the second head surface and the second foot surface of the lower recess (see the shape of the recesses in Fig. 1 of Chang).
Regarding Claim 14: Chang discloses a mattress (patient support structure 1 of Chang) for an adjustable bed (paragraph [0102] of Chang discloses “For example, when there is a need to bend the patient support structure 1, such as when the first supporting part 10 and a part of the third supporting part 30 are bent upward to sit the patient up, the first notches 51 and the second notches 52 may serve as the fulcrum during the bending operation”), comprising: a foundation including a base (40 of Chang), a head rail (10 of Chang), a foot rail (20 of Chang), and a pair of side rails (50 of Chang) defining a receptacle (see Figs. 1-2 of Chang including a section 30 received in the receptacle formed by elements 10, 20, 40, and 50 of Chang), each side rail including: a singular main body (rail 50 formed of one elongate piece of material) formed from a first compressible material (not explicitly disclosed but implied that there is a certain compressibility since the rails are capable of bending as discussed in paragraph [0102] of Chang) and including a top edge with a plurality of upper recesses (upper recesses 51 of Chang) therein and a bottom edge with a plurality of lower recesses therein (lower recesses 51 of Chang); [….] a cushioning element (third supporting part 30 of Chang) within the receptacle defined by the foundation (see Fig. 2 of Chang); [….].
Chang does not explicitly disclose an upper insert formed from a second compressible material and secured within an upper recess of the plurality of upper recesses; a lower insert formed from a third compressible material secured within a lower recess of the plurality of lower recesses, wherein the at least one upper insert and the at least one lower insert each have a substantially triangular cross-sectional shape in a substantially flat orientation of the singular main body, wherein the second compressible material and the third compressible material are relatively less rigid and more compressible than the first compressible material, and wherein at least one of the plurality of upper recesses and at least one of the plurality of lower recesses remains open and does not receive a respective insert in use.
However, in the same field of endeavor, mattresses (see the abstract of Gladney), Gladney teaches an upper insert (flexible component 42 of Gladney) formed from a second compressible material (see paragraph [0037] of Gladney which teaches “a mattress for an adjustable bed may have a foam edge that has a break or a flexible component 42 that is disposed somewhat midway along both edges of the mattress. In this way the adjustable bed will be more capable of pivoting around a central axis as the flexible portion built in the foam edge readily allows the mattress to pivot and bend”) and secured within an upper recess of the plurality of upper recesses (see Fig. 4 of Gladney) […] wherein upper insert [….] [has] a substantially triangular cross-sectional shape in a substantially flat orientation of the singular main body (see Fig. 4 of Gladney which shows a triangular insert and Fig. 1 of Chang which show triangular recesses) wherein the second compressible material and the [is] relatively less rigid and more compressible than the first compressible material (see the paragraph [0037] of Gladney which talks about the flexible member which is less rigid and obviously more compressible since the triangular shape would compress during flexing/bending as described and presented by Gladney).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Chang (mattress with recessed siderails) and Gladney (mattress with sides with flexible members for enabling articulation of the mattress) by utilizing a flexible member inserted into a selected number of recesses of Chang. One would have been motivated to make such a combination since Gladney teaches that a flexible member is an alternative to a break and Chang includes breaks (i.e. recesses). Gladney only shows one “break or flexible member” in the mattress sidewalls. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to duplicate the flexible member of Gladney and apply it to the lower recess of Chang since Gladney teaches that a flexible member is an alternative to a break and Chang includes breaks (i.e. recesses) on both top and bottom edges of the side rails. Additionally, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination since Gladney teaches that a flexible member is an alternative to a break and Chang includes breaks (i.e. recesses). Since Gladney teaches the flexible member filling the recess and since Chang teaches the lower recess having the claimed shape that corresponds to the shape of the insert as claimed, the combination of Chang and Gladney would result in upper and lower triangular inserts and wherein the second compressible material and the third compressible material are relatively less rigid and more compressible than the first compressible material.
Gladney only teaches a singular break or flexible member on the side rails but Chang teaches a plurality of recesses in both the top and bottom surfaces of the side rails. Since, Gladney teaches the alternative to the breaks being a flexible member, and Chang includes a plurality of recesses, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to fill all or some of the recesses with flexible members as desired by the user/manufacturer. Selectively filling some of the recesses of Chang with an upper and lower insert would result in a side rail wherein at least one of the plurality of upper recesses and at least one of the plurality of lower recesses remains open and does not receive a respective insert and wherein the second compressible material and the third compressible material are relatively less rigid and more compressible than the first compressible material.
Regarding Claim 15: Chang in view of Gladney make obvious the mattress of claim 14, wherein the upper recess of the plurality of upper recesses comprises the substantially triangular cross-sectional shape (see Fig. 1 of Chang).
Regarding Claim 16: Chang in view of Gladney make obvious mattress of claim 15, wherein the lower recess of the plurality of lower recesses comprises the substantially triangular cross-sectional shape (see Fig. 1 of Chang).
Regarding Claim 19: Chang in view of Gladney make obvious mattress of claim 14, wherein the cushioning element comprises an array of coils and/or at least one pressurizable bladder (air cells forming section 30 of Chang).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US PG. Pub. 2018/0133079 - hereinafter Chang) in view of Gladney (US PG. Pub. 2004/0261186) further in view of Flick (US Patent No. 7,441,290 – hereinafter Flick).
Regarding Claim 8: Chang in view of Gladney make obvious the side rail of claim 1. Chang and Gladney do not disclose or make obvious wherein the base of the upper recess is elongated. However, Flick teaches wherein the base of the upper recess is elongated (see Fig. 14 of Flick showing an elongated base between head and foot surfaces of the upper recess as applied to the embodiment of Fig. 5 of Flick).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to change the shape of Chang’s slits as modified by Gladney to be elongated as taught by Flick as being an alternative to a triangular slit. One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the predictable results of changing the amount of flex in the mattress rail or the final shape of the articulated mattress.
Regarding Claim 9: Chang in view of Gladney and Flick make obvious the side rail of claim 8 wherein the base of the upper recess is substantially parallel to the bottom edge of the main body (see Fig. 14 of Flick showing an elongated base between head and foot surfaces of the upper recess as applied to the embodiment of Fig. 5 of Flick).
Regarding Claim 11: Chang in view of Gladney make obvious the side rail of claim 1, but do not disclose or make obvious wherein the top of the lower recess is elongated.
However, Flick teaches wherein the top of the lower recess is elongated (see Fig. 14 of Flick showing an elongated base between head and foot surfaces of the upper recess as applied to the embodiment of Fig. 5 of Flick).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to change the shape of Chang’s slits as modified by Gladney to be elongated as taught by Flick as being an alternative to a triangular slit. One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the predictable results of changing the amount of flex in the mattress rail or the final shape of the articulated mattress.
Regarding Claim 12: Chang in view of Gladney in view of Flick make obvious the side rail of claim 11, wherein the top of the lower recess is substantially parallel to the top edge of the main body (see Fig. 14 of Flick showing an elongated base between head and foot surfaces of the upper recess as applied to the embodiment of Fig. 5 of Flick).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US PG. Pub. 2018/0133079 - hereinafter Chang) in view of Gladney (US PG. Pub. 2004/0261186) further in view of Whatcott (US Patent No. 10,807,811).
Regarding Claim 18: Chang in view of Gladney make obvious the mattress of claim 14, but do not disclose further comprising: a gel cushion over the cushioning element and comprising interconnected walls formed from an elastomeric material and defining an array of columnar voids.
In the same field of endeavor, mattresses (see the abstract of Whatcott), Whatcott teaches a gel cushion (deformable support layer 202 of Whatcott) over [a] cushioning element (mattress 302 of Whatcott – Fig. 3) and comprising interconnected walls formed from an elastomeric material and defining an array of columnar voids (as described in Col. 5, lines 18-32 of Whatcott – “In some embodiments, the deformable support layer 202 material may include a hyper-elastic polymer. For example, the deformable support layer 202 may be formed entirely from a gel, or the deformable support layer 202 may have a composition comprising a gel and one or more additional non-gel materials. Such gels and gel compositions are described in, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,749,111 titled “Gelatinous Cushions with Buckling Columns” and issued on May 12, 1998, U.S. Pat. No. 6,026,527 titled “Gelatinous Cushions with Buckling Columns” issued Feb. 22, 2000, and U.S. Pat. No. 5,994,450 titled “Gelatinous Elastomer and Methods of Making and Using the Same and Articles Made Therefrom” issued on Nov. 30, 1999, each of which patents is incorporated in its entirety herein by this reference”).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Chang (mattress comprising recesses in side rails), Gladney (flexible members within recesses) and Whatcott (gel cushion) with a reasonable expectation of success by adding a gel cushion as taught by Whatcott to the invention of Chang as modified by Gladney. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make such a combination because the “The portions of the deformable support layer 202 that extend through the scrim fabric of the lower layer 102 may create a non-slip surface or reduced slip surface on a lower surface 204 of the lower layer 102 (e.g., surface that would contact a mattress) of the mattress topper 100. The non-slip surface or reduced slip surface created by the deformable support layer 202 may help the mattress topper 100 stay in place relative to a mattress when fitted to a mattress” (Col. 5, line 53-Col. 6, line 2 of Whatcott).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US PG. Pub. 2018/0133079 - hereinafter Chang) in view of Dinsmoor (US Patent No. 5,201,780) in view of Gladney (US PG. Pub. 2004/0261186).
Regarding Claim 20: Chang discloses […] and a mattress […] including: a foundation including a base(40 of Chang), a head rail (10 of Chang), a foot rail (20 of Chang), and a pair of side rails (50 of Chang) defining a receptacle (see Figs. 1-2 of Chang including a section 30 received in the receptacle formed by elements 10, 20, 40, and 50 of Chang), each side rail including: a singular main body (rail 50 formed of one elongate piece of material) [….] formed from a first compressible material (not explicitly disclose but implied that there is a certain compressibility since the rails are capable of bending as discussed in paragraph [0102] of Chang), and including a top edge with a plurality of upper recesses (upper recesses 51 of Chang) and a bottom edge a plurality of lower recesses therein (lower recesses 51 of Chang), [….] a cushioning element (third supporting part 30 of Chang) within the receptacle defined by the foundation (see Fig. 2 of Chang); [….].
Chang does not explicitly disclose an adjustable bed, comprising: an adjustable frame including: a support surface including a plurality of support elements; at least one concavely bending joint between a head support element and an intermediate support element of the plurality of support elements; and at least one convexly bending joint between the intermediate support element and a foot support element of the plurality of support elements; on the support surface of the adjustable frame and therein; at least one upper insert formed from a second compressible material secured within the at least one upper recess; at least one lower insert formed from a third compressible material secured within the at least one lower recess, each of the at least one upper insert and the at least one lower insert having a substantially triangular cross-sectional shape in a substantially flat orientation of the singular main body; and a cover over the cushioning element, the head rail, the foot rail, and the pair of side rails of the foundation wherein the second compressible material and the third compressible material are relatively less rigid and more compressible than the first compressible material, and wherein at least one of the plurality of upper recesses and at least one of the plurality of lower recesses remains open and does not receive a respective insert in.
Dinsmoor teaches an adjustable bed (bed of Dinsmoor – Fig. 12), comprising: an adjustable frame (bed frame 3 of Dinsmoor) including: a support surface (surfaces of the bed frame 3 supporting the mattress of Dinsmoor) including a plurality of support elements (see annotated copy of Fig. 12 of Dinsmoor); at least one concavely bending joint (see annotated copy of Fig. 12 of Dinsmoor) between a head support element and an intermediate support element of the plurality of support elements (see annotated copy of Fig. 12 of Dinsmoor); and at least one convexly bending joint between the intermediate support element and a foot support element of the plurality of support elements (see annotated copy of Fig. 12 of Dinsmoor); and a cover (upper and lower halves 5 and 7 of Dinsmoor) over the cushioning element, the head rail, the foot rail, and the pair of side rails of the foundation (see Fig. 4 of Dinsmoor).
PNG
media_image2.png
351
583
media_image2.png
Greyscale
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Chang (mattress with fall protection members configured for bending via the recesses) and Dinsmoor (articulating bed frame and cover) with a reasonable expectation of success by utilizing the mattress of Chang with an articulating bed as taught by Dinsmoor. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Chang teaches the mattress accommodating bending of the mattress to place the patient in different positions (see paragraph [0102] of Chang and Dinsmoor teaches a bed frame for articulating a mattress into different positions for the patient.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have added a mattress cover or casing as taught by Dinsmoor to the mattress of Chang and arrived at a mattress comprising an outer cover. 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 (e.g. adding a casing over the mattress of Chang) with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g. adding protection to the mattress by covering it with a casing or cover).
Chang and Dinsmoor do not disclose or teach an upper insert formed from a second compressible material secured within an upper recess of the plurality of recesses; a lower insert formed from a third compressible material secured within a lower recess of the plurality of lower recesses, each of the upper insert and the lower insert having a substantially triangular cross-sectional shape in a substantially flat orientation of the singular main body and wherein the second compressible material and the third compressible material are relatively less rigid and more compressible than the first compressible material and wherein at least one of the plurality of upper recesses and at least one of the plurality of lower recesses remains open and does not receive a respective insert in use.
In the same field of endeavor, mattresses (see the abstract of Gladney), Gladney teaches an upper insert (flexible component 42 of Gladney) secured within an upper recess of the plurality of recesses (see paragraph [0037] and Fig. 4 of Gladney) formed of a second compressible material (see paragraph [0037] of Gladney which teaches “a mattress for an adjustable bed may have a foam edge that has a break or a flexible component 42 that is disposed somewhat midway along both edges of the mattress. In this way the adjustable bed will be more capable of pivoting around a central axis as the flexible portion built in the foam edge readily allows the mattress to pivot and bend”) […..] and wherein the upper insert […] [has] a substantially triangular cross-sectional shape in a substantially flat orientation of the singular main body (see Fig. 4 of Gladney which shows a triangular insert and Fig. 1 of Chang which show triangular recesses).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Chang (mattress with recessed siderails), Dinsmoor (articulating bed frame), and Gladney (mattress with sides with flexible members for enabling articulation of the mattress) by utilizing a flexible member inserted into the recesses of Chang. One would have been motivated to make such a combination since Gladney teaches that a flexible member is an alternative to a break and Chang includes breaks (i.e. recesses). Gladney only shows one “break or flexible member” in the mattress sidewalls. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to duplicate the flexible member of Gladney and apply it to the lower recess of Chang since Gladney teaches that a flexible member is an alternative to a break and Chang includes breaks (i.e. recesses) on both top and bottom edges of the side rails. Additionally, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination since Gladney teaches that a flexible member is an alternative to a break and Chang includes breaks (i.e. recesses) and also because the adjustable mattress will be more capable of pivoting around a central axis as the flexible portion built in the foam edge readily allows the mattress to pivot and bend. Since Gladney teaches the flexible member filling the recess and since Chang teaches the lower recess having the claimed shape that corresponds to the shape of the insert as claimed, the combination of Chang and Gladney would result in a lower insert formed from a third compressible material secured within a lower recess of the plurality of recesses, and each of the at least one upper insert and the at least one lower insert having a substantially triangular cross-sectional shape in a substantially flat orientation of the singular main body by filling the recesses of Chang with inserts as taught by Gladney.
Gladney only teaches a singular break or flexible member on the side rails but Chang teaches a plurality of recesses in both the top and bottom surfaces of the side rails. Since, Gladney teaches the alternative to the breaks being a flexible member, and Chang includes a plurality of recesses, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to fill all or some of the recesses with flexible members as desired by the user/manufacturer. Selectively filling some of the recesses of Chang with an upper and lower insert would result in a side rail wherein at least one of the plurality of upper recesses and at least one of the plurality of lower recesses remains open and does not receive a respective insert.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. AT 200108032 A to Malzl is cited for teaching “Mattress having areas of variable firmness comprises chambers (2, 3) incorporated in any position in the mattress and accessible from the surface. Chambers can have any cross-sectional shape and size and are located inside the mattress or on the surface. An incision (1) providing access leads from the surface to each chamber. The chambers are empty or filled with any material of any firmness.”
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).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA L BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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 at (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.
/A.L.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
1/8/2026
Prosecution Insights