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 November 26th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 10-12, and 14-16 remain pending in the application. Applicant' s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every Specification Objection, new matter issues thereof, alongside each and every 112a Rejection and 112b Rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 27th, 2025 and are hereby withdrawn in light of their correction.
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, 5-6, 10, 12, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacot (U.S. Pub. No. 20200323355) in view of itself, Demoss (U.S. Pub. No. 20090183314), Boyd (U.S. Pat. No. 9314386) and Rose et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20190254438); hereafter “Rose”, with Rose used as a teaching reference.
Regarding claim 1, Jacot discloses (FIGS. 1, 17, and 18, 24/25 and 36) a mattress (as illustrated in FIG. 1) system for an underlying adjustable foundation configured to accommodate two mattresses (as illustrated in FIG. 36) in a side-by-side relationship thereon, the mattress system comprising: a first mattress (N1, left; FIG. 36) comprising a comfort zone (58; FIG. 1, 17-18, and 24) having a first firmness level ([0019]: “In an embodiment, the breathable, open-cell polyurethane foam layer or layers comprises an interior portion having a twenty five percent (25%) indentation force-deflection (IFD) of from about six (6) pounds-force to about thirty (30) pounds-force”) comprising a head end (as illustrated in FIG. 1); a foot end (as illustrated in FIG. 1, 17-18, and 24); a first exterior-facing lateral side (correspondent 60; FIG. 1, 17-18, and 24) extending from the head end to the foot end (as illustrated in FIG. 1, 17-18, and 24); a second interior lateral side (correspondent 58; FIG. 1, 17-18, and 24) extending from the head end to the foot end (as illustrated in FIG. 1, 17-18, and 24); and an edge zone (60; FIG. 1, 17-18, and 24) having a second firmness level ([0019]: “at least some of the edge portion comprises one (N) or more layers N.sub.X of polyurethane foam layers having a twenty five percent (25%) indentation force-deflection of from about thirty five (35) pounds-force to about fifty (50) pounds-force”) that is greater than the first firmness level of the comfort zone (as set forth in [0019]), wherein the edge zone only extends about a perimeter of the first exterior facing lateral side of the first mattress, the head end, and the foot end of the first mattress (as illustrated in FIG. 1, 17-18, and 24); and a second mattress (N1, right side; FIG. 1 and 36; 58, FIGS 17, 18, and 24) comprising a comfort zone (58; FIGS. 1, 17, and 18) having the first firmness level (as illustrated in FIGS. 1, 17, 18, 24, and 36); a head end (as illustrated in FIG. 1, 17-18, and 24); a foot end (as illustrated in FIG. 1, 17-18, and 24); a first exterior-facing lateral side (correspondent 60; FIG. 1, 17-18, and 24, and 36) extending from the head end to the foot end (as illustrated in FIG. 1); a second interior-facing lateral side (correspondent 658; FIG. 1, 17-18, and 24) extending from the head end to the foot end (as illustrated in FIG. 1, 17-18, and 24); and an edge zone (60; FIG. 1) having a second firmness level ([0019]: “at least some of the edge portion comprises one (N) or more layers N.sub.X of polyurethane foam layers having a twenty five percent (25%) indentation force-deflection of from about thirty five (35) pounds-force to about fifty (50) pounds-force”) that is greater than the first firmness level of the comfort zone (as set forth in [0019]), wherein the edge zone extends about a perimeter of the first exterior-facing lateral side, the head end and the foot end of the second mattress (as illustrated in FIG. 1, 17, 18, 24, and 36), wherein when the two mattresses are placed in the side-by-side relationship (As illustrated in FIGS. 25 and 36), the second interior-facing lateral sides of the first mattress and the second mattress abut one another (as illustrated in FIG. 36 and correspondent FIG. 1); and wherein the comfort zones of the first and second mattresses define a primary sleeping surface for the mattress system (as illustrated in FIG. 36). It is additionally considered Jacot demonstrates both filleted edges or butterfly like configurations (like in FIG. 36 and 1), but also demonstrates fully abutting edge zone embodiments such as those of FIG. 25, remarked in [0053] and [0085] to also be a foam core embodiment that is synonymously encased in a single cover as FIG. 36 portrays.
However, while Jacot does provide two mattresses (correspondent N1/N2; FIGS. 25/36) with no edge zone provided to the center, Jacot does not explicitly disclose wherein the edge zone is both along the lateral edge and both the head end and the foot end but not the interior-facing lateral sides being devoid of an edge zone to form a perimeter thereat (only marginally extending along the ends in their entireties) of both beds to peripherally and continuously surround the two mattresses.
Regardless, Demoss teaches (FIG. 2) a mattress system that has a firmer edge portion (221) that surrounds a comfort portion used for resting (correspondent to elements I/C FIG. 2) and that demonstrates an embodiment that can cover both the head end and foot end with separate ‘halves’ (as illustrated in FIG. 2) that cover the perimeter of their outer perimeter halves of the bed entirely and peripherally and continuously.
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the edge portions of the head and/or foot ends as Demoss demonstrates (FIG. 2) into the edge portions of Jacot (as illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 36 particularly) to further cover the head and foot ends as Demoss demonstrates (FIG. 2). Where the results would have been predictable as both Jacot and Demoss are concerned with combinate bedding assemblies with edge portions thereof and both comprise a comfort portion and an edge portion of at least the lateral outer edge. Where Demoss acknowledge that such configuration of features “The edge region of a mattress, i.e., the horizontal support area proximate to the vertical side walls, is a critical area of construction in order to prevent roll-off or the tendency for the support surface to taper downward toward the edge, and to withstand seating pressure” [0003] and “that provides a stronger, more supportive seating edge” [0004]. Therefore, utilizing the edge of the head and/or foot end would similarly prevent roll-off and withstand seating pressure at the head ends and foot ends of the bed. It should be understood that the combination does not discard Jacot’s lack of edge zone at the center of the combinate bedding structure of FIGS. 25 and 36, but grants to the whole bed assembly an edge zone to each half of the bed that maintains the overall configuration and results in a structure analogous to Demoss; where notably Demoss does not possess a centered edge zone, and neither does the combination particular to FIGS. 25 and 36 that also concern a bedding assembly with both edge zones on opposite sides and no edge zone at the center for the express benefit of preventing rolloff/tapering and to withstand seating at the head and foot ends, an occupant would not ‘fall off’ at the center of the bedding assembly in Jacot and there is no reason for applying for the rationale provided. Thereby providing the edge zone of the first mattress and the edge zone of the second mattress abut one another to peripherally and continuously surround the two mattresses.
However, Jacot still does not explicitly disclose wherein the comfort zones of the first and second mattresses {comprises} foam, coil springs, {or} combinations thereof.
Regardless, Jacot discloses the claimed invention except for the mattress comprising of foam, springs, {or} combinations thereof. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have produced the mattress comprising of foam, springs, and combinations thereof, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Where there is a lack of criticality associated by applicant to the particular materials of the invention, even noting such constructions as a well-known industry standard as the “Marshall Construction” (paragraph 0026), and where the results would have been predictable as particularly Demoss already avails ready demonstration of foam and springs, and a combination thereof used in the same mattress (FIG. 2-3, citation to [0003] of equivalents known to the art).
However, Jacot does not explicitly disclose wherein the underlying adjustable foundation comprises one or more articulable sections for independent and selective articulation of the first and second mattresses.
However, Jacot does not explicitly disclose an adjustable base foundation, wherein each mattress is independently articulated and the mattress system comprising an adjustable foundation dimensioned to accommodate two mattresses thereon and configured to independently adjust one or more articulatable sections corresponding to each of the two mattresses, and two mattresses disposed on the adjustable base foundation.
Regardless, Boyd teaches (FIG. 10, 12, 13, and 17) a mattress system comprising an adjustable base foundation (as illustrated in FIGS. 10, 12-13, and 17), wherein each mattress (as illustrated in FIG. 17) is independently articulated ([8; 53-67]: “each frame is supporting a separate mattress to allow for independent adjustment of each side of the bed”) and the mattress system comprising an adjustable foundation (as illustrated between FIGS. 10, 12, 13, and 17) dimensioned to accommodate two mattresses thereon (As illustrated in FIGS. 10, 12, 13, and 17, and further elucidated in [8; 53-67]) and configured to independently adjust one or more articulatable sections ([8; 53-67]) corresponding to each of the two mattresses ([8; 53-67]), and two mattresses disposed on the adjustable base foundation ([8; 53-67]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated and combined the adjustable base of Boyd (as illustrated in FIGS. 10, 12, 13, and 17) with the mattress of Jacot. Where the results would have been predictable as Rose demonstrates a mattress of centered construction where each side is independently articulated (As illustrated in FIGS. 8 and 9). And wherein Jacot would continue to facilitate the functions of a mattress in combination with Boyd, and Boyd would continue to facilitate the functions of an adjustable frame in combination with the mattress of Boyd. Where advantageously, “This would allow the user to incline the head portion and/or leg portion independently or simultaneously.” ([9: 25-38]), and would avail greater utility of the apparatus of the combination by availing a plurality of positions to the user to their comfort level.
Regarding claim 5, Jacot in view of itself, Demoss, Boyd, and Rose discloses (Jacot: FIGS. 1) the mattress system of claim 1, wherein the first firmness level of the comfort zone in the first and second mattresses is 20 to 35 pounds-force and the second first firmness level of the edge zone in the first and second mattresses is 45 to 90 pounds-force. Notably, Jacot establishes a first firmness of the comfort zone (58) of 6-30 pounds-force, and a second firmness of the edge zone (60) of 35-50 pounds-force. Where notably the apparatus of Jacot is operable to alter the firmness between these ranges, where particularly one such end value is within applicant’s claimed range. "[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962))” (MPEP 2131.03 is relevant). Notably, Jacot avails a specific upper end point (30 and 50) that are eminently within the claimed ranges of applicant’s and would be expectable to be achieved by the invention of Jacot in the event of a user desiring a firm mattress. Therefore, Jacot anticipates applicant’s claimed invention by prescribing a value within applicant’s claimed range of values.
Regarding claim 6, Jacot in view of itself, Demoss, Boyd, and Rose discloses (Jacot: FIGS. 1) the mattress system of claim 1, wherein the edge zone in the first and second mattresses has a width from 2 inches to 10 inches. Where Jacot acknowledges “In an embodiment, the edge portion 60 may extend inwardly along the first side 100 or along the second side 102 for a distance E of at least three (3) inches. In an embodiment the edge portion 60 may extend inwardly for a distance E in the range of from about three (3) inches to about five (5) inches” [0078], where Jacot clearly provides a range with particular specificity clearly within applicant’s claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, Jacot in view of itself, Demoss, Boyd, and Rose discloses (Jacot: FIGS. 1) the mattress system of claim 1, wherein the edge zone in the first and second mattresses comprises a fill material comprising foam, coil springs or a combination thereof. As set forth in [0019] “polyurethane foam layers”
Regarding claim 12, Jacot discloses (FIG. 1) a mattress system (As illustrated in FIG. 1, 25, and 36) configured to accommodate two mattresses (as eminently demonstrated in FIG. 25/36) in a side-by-side relationship (as illustrated in FIG. 36) dimensioned to accommodate two mattresses thereon; and two mattresses disposed in a side-by-side relationship, wherein each of the two mattresses comprises a comfort zone (correspondent N1; FIG. 36/58; FIG. 1) having a first firmness ([0019]) and an edge zone (60; FIG. 1 and 36) having a second firmness ([0019]) that is different than the first firmness of the comfort zone (as set forth in [0019]), the edge zone extending only along exterior facing lateral sides, head ends and foot ends of the two mattresses in the side-by- side relationship (as eminently demonstrated in FIG. 36); wherein one of the two mattresses includes an interior-facing lateral side devoid of an edge zone {that} has a firmness greater than the comfort zone, and the other of the two mattresses includes an interior-facing lateral side devoid of {the} edge zone {that} has the second firmness greater than the comfort zone (As previously set forth in the 112a and 112b section prior the limitation is considered to be redundant as being established by the previous cited limitations and is eminently demonstrated in FIG. 25/36 by an edge zone of higher firmness than the interior comfort zone); and wherein when the two mattresses are placed in the side-by-side relationship (As illustrated in FIGS. 25 and 36), the first mattress and second mattress abut one another (as illustrated in FIG. 25/36 and correspondent FIG. 1).
However, Jacot does not explicitly disclose wherein the edge zone is both only along the lateral edge and a selected one of or both the head end and the foot end in their entireties and when placed together the edge zones of the first and second mattress abut one another continuously and peripherally.
Regardless, Demoss teaches (FIGS. 2) a mattress system that has a firmer edge portion (221) that surrounds a comfort portion (correspondent to elements I/C FIG. 2) and that demonstrates an embodiment that can cover either or head end and foot end with separate ‘halves’ (as illustrated in FIG. 2) that cover the perimeter of their halves of the bed continuously and peripherally.
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the edge portions of the head and foot ends as Demoss demonstrates (FIG. 2, with two halves clearly delineated) into the edge portions of Jacot (as illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 36 particularly). Where the results would have been predictable as both Jacot and Demoss are concerned with combinate bedding assemblies with edge portions thereof and both comprise a comfort portion and an edge portion of at least the lateral outer edge. Where Demoss acknowledge that such configuration of features “The edge region of a mattress, i.e., the horizontal support area proximate to the vertical side walls, is a critical area of construction in order to prevent roll-off or the tendency for the support surface to taper downward toward the edge, and to withstand seating pressure” [0003] and “that provides a stronger, more supportive seating edge” [0004]. Therefore, utilizing the edge of the head and/or foot end would similarly prevent roll-off and withstand seating pressure at the head ends and foot ends of the bed. It should be understood that the combination does not discard Jacot’s lack of edge zone at the center of the combinate bedding structure of FIGS. 25 and 36, but grants to the whole bed assembly an edge zone to each half of the bed that maintains the overall configuration and results in a structure analogous to Demoss; where notably Demoss does not possess a centered edge zone, and neither does the combination particular to FIGS. 25 and 36 that also concern a bedding assembly with both edge zones on opposite sides and no edge zone at the center for the express benefit of preventing rolloff/tapering and to withstand seating at the head and foot ends, an occupant would not ‘fall off’ at the center of the bedding assembly in Jacot and there is no reason for applying for the rationale provided. Thereby providing the edge zone of the first mattress and the edge zone of the second mattress abut one another to peripherally and continuously surround the two mattresses.
However, Jacot still does not explicitly disclose an adjustable base foundation, wherein each mattress is independently articulated and the mattress system comprising an adjustable foundation dimensioned to accommodate two mattresses thereon and configured to independently adjust one or more articulatable sections corresponding to each of the two mattresses, and two mattresses disposed on the adjustable base foundation.
Regardless, Boyd teaches (FIG. 10, 12, 13, and 17) a mattress system comprising an adjustable base foundation (as illustrated in FIGS. 10, 12-13, and 17), wherein each mattress (as illustrated in FIG. 17) is independently articulated ([8; 53-67]: “each frame is supporting a separate mattress to allow for independent adjustment of each side of the bed”) and the mattress system comprising an adjustable foundation (as illustrated between FIGS. 10, 12, 13, and 17) dimensioned to accommodate two mattresses thereon (As illustrated in FIGS. 10, 12, 13, and 17, and further elucidated in [8; 53-67]) and configured to independently adjust one or more articulatable sections ([8; 53-67]) corresponding to each of the two mattresses ([8; 53-67]), and two mattresses disposed on the adjustable base foundation ([8; 53-67]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated and combined the adjustable base of Boyd (as illustrated in FIGS. 10, 12, 13, and 17) with the mattress of Jacot. Where the results would have been predictable as Rose demonstrates a mattress of centered construction where each side is independently articulated (As illustrated in FIGS. 8 and 9). And wherein Jacot would continue to facilitate the functions of a mattress in combination with Boyd, and Boyd would continue to facilitate the functions of an adjustable frame in combination with the mattress of Boyd. Where advantageously, “This would allow the user to incline the head portion and/or leg portion independently or simultaneously.” ([9: 25-38]), and would avail greater utility of the apparatus of the combination by availing a plurality of positions to the user to their comfort level.
However, Jacot still does not explicitly disclose wherein the mattress {comprises} foam, coil springs, {or} combinations thereof.
Regardless, Jacot discloses the claimed invention except for the mattress comprising of foam, springs, or combinations thereof. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have produced the mattress comprising of foam, springs, or combinations thereof, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Where there is a lack of criticality associated by applicant to the particular materials of the invention, even noting such constructions as a well-known industry standard as the “Marshall Construction” (paragraph 0026), and where the results would have been predictable as particularly Demoss already avails ready demonstration of foam and springs, and a combination thereof used in the same mattress (FIG. 2-3 and citation to [0003] of equivalents known to the art).
Regarding claim 15, Jacot in view of itself, Demoss, Boyd and Rose discloses (Boyd: FIGS. 10, 12, 13) the mattress system of claim 12, wherein the adjustable base foundation comprises two adjustable base foundations coupled to each together. As conveyed through Boyd’s adjustable base foundation, clearly comprises two separate adjustable base foundations coupled together (as illustrated in FIGS. 12 and 13) through the clip assembly illustrated in FIG. 10, as further elucidated in [5: 31-41] “Clips 200, as shown in FIG. 10, may be used to secure the two frames together and prevent the frames from being slid apart until desired”.
Regarding claim 16, Jacot in view of itself, Demoss, Boyd and Rose discloses (Jacot: FIG. 1) the mattress of claim 12, wherein the first firmness level of the comfort zone for the two mattresses is 20 to 35 pounds-force and the second first firmness level of the edge zone have the second {{ firmness of 45 to 90 pounds-force. Notably, Jacot establishes a first firmness of the comfort zone (58) of 6-30 pounds-force, and a second firmness of the edge zone (60) of 35-50 pounds-force. Where notably the apparatus of Jacot is operable to alter the firmness between these ranges, where particularly one such end value is within applicant’s claimed range. "[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962))” (MPEP 2131.03 is relevant). Notably, Jacot avails a specific upper end point (30 and 50) that are eminently within the claimed ranges of applicant’s and would be expectable to be achieved by the invention of Jacot in the event of a user desiring a firm mattress. Therefore, Jacot anticipates applicant’s claimed invention by prescribing a value within applicant’s claimed range of values.
Claim(s) 2, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacot in view of itself, Demoss, Boyd, and Rose in further view of Borino (U.S. Pub. No. 20070022533).
Regarding claim 2, Jacot in view of itself, Demoss, Boyd, and Rose discloses the mattress system of claim 1.
However, Jacot does not explicitly disclose further comprising a retention system extending from a bottom surface of the first and second mattresses configured to fixedly attach the first and second mattresses to the underlying adjustable base foundation.
Regardless, Borino teaches (FIG. 1a and 1b), a mattress, further comprising a retention system (15; FIG. 1b) extending from a bottom surface thereof (as illustrated in FIG. 1b) configured to fixedly attach the mattress to an underlying adjustable base foundation (As illustrated between FIGS. 1a-1b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the retention system of Borino (15; FIG. 1b), into the bottom of the mattress of Jacot (As illustrated in FIG. 1). Where the results would have been predictable as both Jacot and Borino are directed to bedding assemblies. And where advantageously, the use of a retention system such as Borino’s would arrest lateral movement of the bedding assembly, reducing frictional forces thereon and wearing down the bottom of the mattress prematurely, thereby extending the longevity of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 11, in view of itself, Demoss, Boyd, Rose, and Borino discloses (Borino: FIG. 4b) the mattress of claim 2, wherein the retention system in the first and second mattresses is configured to couple each of the first and second mattresses to a non-articulable section of the underlying adjustable base foundation (FIG. 4b).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacot in view of itself, Demoss, Boyd, and Rose, in further view of Heeke.
Regarding claim 14, Jacot in view of itself, Demoss Boyd and Rose discloses the mattress system of claim 12.
However, Jacot and Boyd do not explicitly disclose wherein each of the two mattresses further comprises a retention system extending from a respective bottom surface thereof configured to fixedly attach each of the two mattresses to the adjustable foundation and prevent separation of the two mattresses during use thereof.
Regardless, Heeke teaches (FIG. 1 and 2), a mattress (14; FIG. 1) coupled with an articulating base (16; FIGS. 1 and 2), further comprising a retention system (26; FIG. 1 and 2) extending from a bottom surface thereof (as illustrated in FIG. 1, the retention system extends from a bottom of the mattress that is located thereover) configured to fixedly attach the mattress to an underlying base foundation (As illustrated between FIGS. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the retention system of Heeke (26; FIG. 1 and 2), into the bottom of the mattress of Jacot (As illustrated in FIG. 1) and the articulating bed of Boyd (as illustrated in FIGS. 12 and 13). Where the results would have been predictable as both Jacot, Boyd, and Heeke are all directed to bedding assemblies. And where advantageously, the use of a retention system such as Heeke’s would “prevent a mattress from moving on the base of an automated bed during articulation” [0003] and arrest lateral movement of the bedding assembly, reducing frictional forces thereon and wearing down the bottom of the mattress prematurely, thereby extending the longevity of the mattress of Jacot. It is additionally considered that because Heeke and Boyd/Rose both concern articulated bedding systems, the combination would be obvious and unimpeded to use some form of fastening/securement system of a moving/articulated bedding section with the corresponding mattress segment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (page 6), filed November 26th, 2025, with respect to Specification Objections, alongside 112a and 112b Rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Specification Objections, alongside 112a and 112b Rejections of August 27th, 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed November 26th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Particularly, applicant alleges (Remarks: pages 6-9) that Jacot and Demoss would produce an embodiment of applicant’s choosing/consideration, particularly that the outer perimeter of Demoss would be incorporated into the center of Jacot. However, examiner respectfully disagrees with this consideration, and considers applicant’s proposed combination to be a bodily incorporation of Demoss into Jacot. In response to applicant's argument that the entirety of Demoss would be substituted or incorporated into Jacot, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Respectfully, in the instant prior art, Jacot provides both a single mattress embodiment (FIG. 1) and a combinate mattress embodiment, that forms a composite and whole mattress from two mattress, with two edge zones at the outer lateral edges (As illustrated in FIGS. 25/36), and the body of Demoss illustrates in both a single mattress (FIG. 2) and a much wider queen size mattress (FIG. 3). Where further the benefit of Demoss is ascribed as “to prevent roll-off or the tendency for the support surface to taper downward toward the edge, and to withstand seating pressure” [0003], and “provides a stronger, more supportive seating edge which will contribute to the overall comfort and support of the entire mattress” [0004]. Jacot already provides for an outer later edge of both bed halves formed into a single composite bedding structure, for analogous reasons for sitting thereon and preventing taper off/falling therefrom [0096]/[0013]. It is considered that the combinate bedding structure of FIGS. 25/36 of Jacot would not invoke any falling off or be sat upon in the center of the single composite bedding structure of two bed halves as Jacot provides in FIGS. 25/36, and would therefore lack a rational to apply the teaching of Demoss (providing a firmer edge to prevent falling off) to the center, and would instead be considerably more obvious to provide to the perimeter of the composite bedding structure through two halves, even demonstrating expediently in Demoss that both ‘halves’ of Demoss’ edges are cut in half down the middle. Examiner provides an annotated FIG. 2 of Demoss for convenience hereafter.
PNG
media_image1.png
819
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 2
Applicant’s proposed combination of duplicating Demoss into two beds respectfully lacks to account for Jacot as the primary reference and furthermore respectfully appears to lack consideration to the teaching of Demoss as a whole (providing a perimeter to the entire bedding assembly to make sitting on the edge more comfortable and prevent fall off), incorporating into the perimeter of Jacot’s single combinate bedding structure (as illustrated in FIGS. 25 and 36). And further lacks to account that Jacot already provides a homogenous comfort zone at its center (as illustrated in FIGS. 20/25/36) and such would be preserved in any combination with Demoss due to the consideration the center of the bed is not a location that tapers off or is sat upon with concerns of falling off, and would in fact be countenanced due to Demoss splitting its outer perimeter into four quadrant segments, availing at least that the head and foot ends are split but combinate to be abutting continuously and peripherally between two separable halves; while Jacot already provides an edge zone at the outer lateral sides, thereby maintaining the functions, features and teachings of both Jacot and Demoss as a whole.
Therefore examiner respectfully is not persuaded at the present time that Jacot in view of Demoss and others fails to anticipate or make obvious the claimed features of applicants invention and the 103 Rejections under Jacot in view of Demoss and others are maintained for reasons of record and those further explained herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached 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