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 December 15, 2025 have been fully considered and they are only persuasive in part.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first and second supporting portions separate from the first and second connections” (at least claimed in claim 28) and “a first flange extending upward…second flange extending downward” (claim 28 and then claim 36 referred to as upper and lower flanges) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. It does appear, possibly, that these elements might be shown in the figures, but they are not labeled nor pointed out in the specification accordingly. It also appears that one structure is shown, not two as required by the claim (see 112(b) discussion below).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 28, 37, and 48 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 28, lines 7-8 recite “of a conical spring” which appears to be a small typographical error. Examiner believes this should read --of the one or more conical springs-- as similarly recited in line 4 of the claim.
Claim 37 recites “of the connector are located on the same side of the intermediate wall form a slideway” which renders some grammatical clarity issues. Examiner believes this should read --of the connector, which are located..wall, form a slideway-- or --of the connector are located on the same side of the intermediate wall to form a slideway--.
Claim 48, line 14 recites “axis of the one or more springs”, and the examiner believes this should read as --axis of the one or more conical wire springs-- to ensure consistency in claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 28, 29, 33-39, and 48-50 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.
Claim 28 recites “first and second supporting portions…extending substantially vertically downward from a bottom surface of the base” which renders the claim indefinite. These features are not described in the specification, and, as noted above, are not shown in the drawings. What the examiner is assuming is the “supporting portions” appears to be a single element that may comprise two portions, but the drawings are not clear nor is this described in the specification. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret this as a supporting element comprising a first portion and a second portion, wherein the supporting element extends vertically downward from a bottom surface of the base.
Claims 29, 36-39, and 48-50 all recited and/or limit the elements called “flanges” which renders these claims indefinite. The specification and the drawings appear to show the “connector” (presumed to be (52) in the instant specification) and the “connections” (presumed to be elements (51) in the instant specification) as monolithic structures. It is unclear how a monolithic structure could contain multiple “flanges” or a “flat plate”. It is unclear how element (51) itself is not a flange in whole. In fact, the elements appear to have flanges (common terminology for the top and bottom part of an i-beam shape) but wherein the flanges have a further tapered or flanged end. Therefore, this terminology renders the claim unclear as to where the “flange”, as cited in the claim, begins and ends within the disclosed structure. Examiner encourages clarifying the claims by referring to the “free ends” as the Applicant does in the arguments or some other structural designation.
Claims 28, 29, 33-39, and 48-50 are indefinite because the preamble for these claims recites “a spring module” but then go on to further claim an element (“connector”) which is not part of the spring module, but rather used to connect adjacent spring modules (as claimed in claim 36). Therefore, the preambles should indicate a system structure being claimed to allow for broadening beyond the module itself.
Claim 34 recites “The spring module according to claim 28, wherein.” As this claim appears to be incomplete, and all of its contents cancelled, the Examiner will interpret this claim as being cancelled in whole.
Claim 49, line 1 recites “wherein each first upper flange” which renders the claim indefinite because only one flange has been positively recited. It is unclear if there are meant to be multiple first upper flanges or not. Examiner will interpret the claim as reading --wherein the first upper flange--.
Claim 49 claims wherein the flanges have free ends that extend towards each other which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 48, from which this claim depends, recites that the flanges extend “entirely” in a vertical direction, but then claim 49 appears to require the same thing (that the flanges extend toward each other). It is unclear how these limitations work. It is worth noting that the specification and figures appear to show that the flanges have both a vertical and horizontal vector component, thus further rendering the scope of these claims unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 48-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tylee US Patent 12,053 hereinafter referred to as Tylee in view of Hsu US Patent Application Publication 2016/0353899 hereinafter referred to as Hsu.
Regarding claim 48, Tylee discloses a spring module (see Figures 1-3) for furniture (Column 1, lines 5-8), comprising: one or more conical wire springs (a, a); a first end (lower end) of each conical wire spring attached to a base (A) having four sides (“block” - Column 1, lines 48-49); an end cover (B) at a second end (top end) of each conical wire spring (Column 2, lines 9-14 and as shown on the Figures); the second end of each conical wire spring having a diameter greater than the first end (as shown); each conical wire spring making more than one complete turn between the base and the end cover (as shown); and a plurality of flexible straps (D, D) extending from the base to the end cover (Examiner notes that there is no structural or functional limitation that limits “flexible” in the claim, therefore the Examiner is interpreting the term “flexible” to mean having a myriad of uses. Given that the cords can be altered to hold compression and/or placed in various ways, as shown, the cords are “flexible”). Tylee discloses this spring module as noted which may be connected to provide spring support (Column 2, lines 1-8), but fails to explicitly disclose how a series or plurality of these modules may be connected together.
Hsu teaches an analogous spring mattress structure. Hsu further teaches springs located on a common board or slat forming a spring module (1, 2) which comprise coiled springs (21, 22). These modules are then connected to each other via connectors (41). These bases (1) of the modules comprise a first upper and lower flanges on a first side of the base (see annotated figure below); second upper and lower flanges on a second side of the base, opposite from the first side of the base (see annotated figure below); the upper and lower flanges extending entirely vertically in a direction parallel to a central longitudinal axis of the one or more springs (as shown; furthermore, the examiner notes that “upper” and “lower” are not given an base directional reference point); and a connector (41) slidable onto the first upper and lower flanges to connect the spring module to a second spring module (as shown on Figure 3 and [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the at the time the invention was filed to modify the block (A) of Tylee with the flanges and connector as taught by Hsu in order to place the spring modules in the desired locations (as taught by Tylee cited above) as well as to allow for improved placement of specific spring firmness as desired by the user [0002 - Hsu].
[AltContent: textbox (Flat base)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
444
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Hsu
Regarding claim 49, Tylee and Hsu teach the claimed flanges, and as shown on the annotated figure above from Hsu, the flanges comprise free ends with horizontally flanged portions (as shown in this figures orientation) that extend towards each other (examiner notes again that the claims do not recite a reference point for upper and lower).
Regarding claim 50, Tylee and Hsu further teach wherein the upper and lower flanges comprise a flat base (see annotated figure above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28, 29, and 33-39 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
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 TARA SCHIMPF whose telephone number is (571)270-7741. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 3:30pm 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, John Fristoe can be reached at (571) 272-4926. 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.
/TARA SCHIMPF/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676