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 .
Claims 15-21, 26-33 are pending in the application. No newly canceled claims. Claims 32 and 33 are newly added.
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) 15-21 and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent document JP 5665289 U hereinafter referred to as JP in view of US Patent 5,305,705 hereinafter referred to as Gagliano.
Re- claim 15
JP discloses a spring module (see fig.2) for a furniture cushion (seat see title), comprising: a conical spring 24 fig.2 having a large diameter end 24A fig.2 and a small diameter end 24B fig.2; a flexible strap 26, the flexible strap comprising: a strap-like main body part 26 having a first end 28b fig.2 secured onto the large diameter end of the conical spring and a second end 30B, 30C fig.2 secured onto the small diameter end of the conical spring; wherein at least one of the first and second ends is secured to the conical spring via a hook 28, 30B, 30C fig.2; and wherein the flexible strap extends from the large diameter end located at one end of the spring to the small diameter end located at the other end of the spring.
However does not discloses at least three flexible straps, each flexible strap comprising a main body, a first end and a second end.
Gagliano teaches a spring module 10 fig.1, the spring module comprising: a spring 16 fig.4; at least three flexible straps [column 5 lines 50-55 “Referring now to FIG. 1, the objective of increasing visibility by the easy mounting of additional reflective members is achieved by providing a plurality of elongate reflective members 54 which are woven in and out of laterally spaced segments of spiral arm 16 for easy mounting.” (Examiner notes the prior art of Gagliano disclose at least two flexible straps in figure 1 and also disclose in column 5 lines 50-55 that additional straps can be includes clearly providing support for three or more flexible straps.)], each flexible strap comprising a main body, a first end and a second end (see fig.1(Examiner notes the prior art of Gagliano discloses it is known that a plurality of individual flexible straps attached to opposite ends of a spring can be utilized)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the spring module of JP and a spring module having individual flexible straps as taught by Gagliano and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a spring module with a plurality of individual flexible straps. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177,179.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the spring module of JP and at least three flexible straps as taught by Gagliano and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a spring module with at least three individual flexible straps. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Re-Claim 16
JP as modified by Gagliano above discloses,
wherein the flexible straps are positioned outside the conical spring, and wherein the hook is 30B, 30C JP on the second end of the main body securing it onto the small diameter end of the spring (see fig. 2 JP).
Re-Claim 17
JP as modified by Gagliano above discloses,
wherein lengths of the plurality of flexible straps are configured such that the conical spring has a predetermined initial compression force (“In a seat of a vehicle such as an automobile, a height restricting tool is attached to a compression coil spring for cushions, and the compression coil spring is incorporated by the height restricting tool in a state lower than a free height.” JP).
Re-Claim 18
JP as modified by Gagliano above discloses,
wherein each flexible strap is a one-piece member formed integrally (“The belt 26 is a woven fabric made of synthetic resin fibers,” JP/see 54 fig.1 Gagliano).
Re-Claim 19
JP as modified by Gagliano above discloses,
wherein each flexible strap is made of plastic (“The belt 26 is a woven fabric made of synthetic resin fibers,” JP).
Re-Claim 20
JP as modified by Gagliano above discloses,
wherein the main body of each flexible strap is made of woven fabric plastic (“The belt 26 is a woven fabric made of synthetic resin fibers,” JP).c, and the first end of the main body is secured to large diameter end of the spring by a second hook 28 JP.
Re-Claim 21
JP as modified by Gagliano above discloses the claimed apparatus. However does not discloses wherein a width and/or thickness of the main body of each flexible strap gradually decreases or increases along the length direction of the flexible strap from the first end to the second end.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the shape of the flexible strap to be wider at one end (trapezoid), because there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1956). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the claimed shape, because applicant has not disclosed that having such a shape itself solves any stated problem, the claimed shape does not provide any unexpected result, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well where the flexible strap is of another shape, such as a rectangle having a consistent width and/or thickness. Overall, applicant has not established any criticality of the claimed shape, and thus selecting the claimed shape would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Re-Claim 32
JP discloses a spring module (see fig.2) for a furniture (seat see title), comprising: a conical spring 24 fig.2 having a large diameter end 24A fig.2 and a small diameter end 24B fig.2; a flexible strap 26, the flexible strap having main body part 26 between a first end 28B fig.2 and a second end fig.30B, 30C fig.2, the first end secured onto the large diameter end and the second end secured onto the small diameter end, at least one of the first and second ends secured to the spring via a hook 28, 30B, 30C fig.2; and wherein the flexible strap extends from the large diameter end located at one end of the spring to the small diameter end, and the main body is not attached to the conical spring.
However does not discloses at least three flexible straps, each flexible strap having a main body between a first end and a second end or wherein each flexible strap extends only from the larger diameter end to the smaller diameter end.
Gagliano teaches a spring module 10 fig.1, the spring module comprising: a spring 16 fig.4; at least three flexible straps [column 5 lines 50-55 “Referring now to FIG. 1, the objective of increasing visibility by the easy mounting of additional reflective members is achieved by providing a plurality of elongate reflective members 54 which are woven in and out of laterally spaced segments of spiral arm 16 for easy mounting.” (Examiner notes the prior art of Gagliano disclose at least two flexible straps in figure 1 and also disclose in column 5 lines 50-55 that additional straps can be includes clearly providing support for three or more flexible straps.)], each flexible strap comprising a main body, a first end and a second end (see fig.1(Examiner notes the prior art of Gagliano discloses it is known that a plurality of individual flexible straps attached to opposite ends of a spring can be utilized)) and wherein each flexible strap extends only from the larger diameter end to the smaller diameter end (see fig.1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the spring module of JP and a spring module having individual flexible straps as taught by Gagliano and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a spring module with a plurality of individual flexible straps. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177,179.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the spring module of JP and at least three flexible straps as taught by Gagliano and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a spring module with at least three individual flexible straps. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Re-Claim 33
JP as modified by Gagliano above discloses,
wherein the main body is not attached to the conical spring (see fig.2 JP).
Claim(s) 26 & 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP as modified by Gagliano further in view of US Patent Publication US 2018/0199728A1 hereinafter referred to as Leng and in view of US Patent Publication US2016/0316927A1 hereinafter referred to as Thomas.
Re-Claim 26
JP as modified by Gagliano above discloses the claimed apparatus however does not discloses a first sponge pad having a plurality of holes, and each hole is configured to allow a portion of a corresponding a spring module to pass through; a second sponge pad laid on one or more of the first sponge pads; and an outer cover covering the second sponge pad, thereby wrapping the spring modules, the first sponge pad and the second sponge pad.
Leng teaches a spring cushion 130 fig.22A used for furniture, the spring cushion comprising: a plurality of the spring modules 134 fig.23; a first sponge pad 136 fig.37A having a plurality of holes 222 fig.37B, and each hole is configured to allow a portion of a corresponding a spring module to pass through; and an outer cover covering 140 fig.37A thereby wrapping the spring modules and the first sponge pad.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the spring module for furniture of JP as modified by Gagliano and the spring cushion furniture of Leng having cushion structures and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a spring module with a covering forming the spring cushion furniture and sponge pad. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of providing a structure to hold the spring module together as a cushion furniture and provide a decorative/protective cover to the cushion furniture as taught in Leng [0196 and 0199] and for positioning the spring modules in the recesses to further prevent inadvertent displacement of the spring modules as taught in Leng [0220].
Thomas teaches a spring cushion used for furniture 10 fig.1 310 fig.4, the spring cushion comprising: a plurality of the spring modules 20 fig.1; a first sponge pad 40 fig.1, 340 fig.4 having a plurality of holes [0033] “Accordingly, the cushioning layer 340 extends below the upper end convolution 323 of each coil spring 320 only in the intermediate recesses 354 between each of the coil springs 320 and not into the interior cavity 328 of the coil springs 320.”, and each hole is configured to allow a portion of a corresponding a spring module 20 to pass through; a second sponge pad 60 fig.1 [0029] “Furthermore, the upper body supporting layer 60 can also be comprised of multiple layers of material configured to improve the comfort or support of the upper body supporting layer 60.” laid on one or more of the first sponge pads.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the spring module for furniture of JP as modified by Gagliano and the spring module of Thomas with one or more pad layers and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a spring module with one or more pad layers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of having multiple layers of material configured to improve the comfort or support of the upper layer of the furniture as taught in Thomas [0029].
Re-Claim 28
JP as modified by Gagliano, Leng and Thomas above discloses,
Leng teaches wherein the spring cushion further comprises a fixing net 60 fig.27c arranged below the first sponge pad, the fixing net having a plurality of ring parts 61 fig.27c, each ring part being configured to allow a portion 64 fig.27c of a corresponding a spring module 134 to pass through [0207] “The spring 134 is then attached to the webbing 60. The spring 134 is removed using the reverse sequence, providing a quick and easy way to assemble a spring core. With the springs removed, the webbing 60 may be rolled or folded into a compact form. FIG. 27D shows several springs for use with the webbing 60 with a pattern of pockets or channels 61 as shown in FIG. 27 C are stacked together.”.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP as modified by Gagliano, Leng and Thomas further in view of US Patent Publication US2015/0296993A1 hereinafter referred to as Boyd.
JP as modified by Gagliano, Leng and Thomas disclose wherein the first sponge pad comprises a plurality of separate parts 310 fig.49 Leng arranged side by side. However does not disclose each separate part having a different hardness and a different color, respectively.
Boyd teaches a first sponge pad 38 fig.2 comprises a plurality of separate parts 38 arranged side by side, wherein each separate part having a different hardness and a different color, respectively [0036] “Each of these support elements 38 has at least first and a second faces 40 and 42 of different firmness. These support elements 38 can be arranged in the recess 36 with selected faces 40,42, oriented upwardly to form an upper mattress surface having a plurality of zones of different surface firmness. The user can quickly and easily make a less firm zone firmer, or a more firm zone softer simply by turning one or more of the support elements 38 to expose a different face. To facilitate this, at least first and second faces 40 and 42 of the elongate support elements are marked to distinguish between the relatively firmer and relatively softer faces. This marking to distinguish between the relatively firmer and relatively softer faces preferably comprises color (first face 42 being shown in the Figures as being lighter than second face 44).”.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the spring module for furniture of JP as modified above and the sponge pad of Boyd having different hardness and a different color and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a spring module sponge pads of different firmness indicated by different colors. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of customizing the feel of the sponge pad to the users preferences and providing a color coded system to indicate the firmness of the sponge pad as taught in Boyd [0036].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-31 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
JP as modified by Gagliano, Leng and Thomas and the prior art of record does not disclose the claimed apparatus. Regarding claim 29 the prior at does not disclose the claimed spring cushion “wherein when the fixing net is arranged on the spring modules, a vertical distance between the ring part and a top of the spring module is about 1/3 of an overall height of the spring module”. Regarding claim 30 and 31 the claimed spring cushion wherein the spring cushion further comprises a fixing net assembly comprising: a flexible sheet having a plurality of caps, wherein the cap is configured to receive a top of the spring module. For at least these reasons the claim as considered allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15-21 and 26-33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFEOLU A ADEBOYEJO whose telephone number is (571)270-3072. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10AM-5PM EST.
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.
/IFEOLU A ADEBOYEJO/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673