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 1, 4-14 and 16-18 are pending in the application. Claims 16-18 are newly added. Claims 2, 3 and 15 have been canceled.
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) 1,4-11, 14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication US2014/0143955A1 hereinafter referred to as Nishimura in view of US Patent Publication US2017/0295945A1 hereinafter referred to as Stickler.
Re-claim 1
Nishimura discloses a mattress 10 fig.6 comprising at least two laminated layers 20 fig.5 [0026 “The plurality of cores 20 are separated from one another. However, it is also possible to adhere the respective cores 20 onto one another, for example, by attaching adhesive tape onto side surfaces of the cores 20.”], the at least two layers including: a first layer 27 fig.2, 11a fig.6 defining a support surface (top of 11a) configured to support a user and a second surface (bottom of 11a) on an opposite side of the first layer to the support surface (see fig.6), the first layer formed from a resiliently deformable, fluid-impervious material (latex [0006]), and defining a plurality of perforations 13 fig.6 arranged to communicate fluid through the first layer [0038 “In a third example, as shown in FIG. 2C, the core 20 is composed of three layers, which are: a high-resilience latex layer 27 provided with a plurality of air vent holes”], the perforations having a first end at the support surface and a second end at the second surface and extending through the first layer from the first end to the second end (see fig.6); and a second layer 12, 11b fig.6 laminated to the second surface of the first layer to cover the second end of the perforations (see fig.6), the second layer defining side-walls and being formed from a fluid-pervious material [0006 “an air-permeable core material 12 interposed therebetween, and that these latex foams 11a and 11b and core material 12 are wrapped with an outer cover 14.”] and arranged to communicate fluid exiting the second end of the perforations to a location external to the side-walls (via perforations 13 fig.6 and the air-permeable core 12); the side-walls defining at least two opposite lateral edges terminating inwardly of a corresponding at least two opposite lateral edges of the first layer (a left lateral edge of the side wall would terminate inwardly of a corresponding right lateral edge if the first layer, while a right lateral edge of the side wall would terminate inwardly of a corresponding left lateral edge if the first layer); and a border 50 fig.4/ 3 fig.6 extends along and outwardly from at least two opposite lateral edges of the second layer, the border being formed from a resiliently deformable material [0029 “the edge portion 50 is composed of a hard urethane foam”], to urge the mattress to adopt a planar configuration, the border being formed from a fluid-impervious material (hard urethane foam is understood to be a fluid impervious material since it is a closed cell foam) and defines a plurality of apertures 60 fig.5/4 fig.6 extending through the border, the apertures being arranged to communicate fluid from the side-walls of the second layer to a location external to the mattress [0028 “In the closed-bottom frame 30, a plurality of air vent holes 60 which allow an inner surface and outer surface of the closed-bottom frame 30 to communicate with each other are provided.”].
However does not discloses explicitly disclose the first layer formed from a resiliently deformable, fluid-impervious material.
Stickler teaches a first layer 152 fig.3 formed for a resiliently deformable, fluid impervious material [0045 “In one or more embodiments, the comfort layer 152 comprises a Talalay latex foam having a thickness dimension with a value between 1 inch and 3 inches.” 0049 “In one or more embodiments, the Talalay latex foam of the comfort layer comprises a closed cell foam material.”].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the mattress of Nishimura and the mattress utilizing a fluid impervious closed cell Talalay latex foam of Stickler and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a mattress having a fluid impervious first layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a fluid impervious first layer as taught by Stickler, 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.
Re-Claim 4
Nishimura as modified by Stickler above disclose,
Nishimura disclose wherein the border is formed from a material having a greater density than the material of the first layer (that hard urethane foam has a high density than Latex foam).
Re-Claim 5
Nishimura as modified by Stickler above disclose,
Nishimura disclose wherein the border is dimensioned to define a width which is greater than a thickness of the border (see fig.1).
Re-Claim 6
Nishimura as modified by Stickler above disclose,
Nishimura disclose the claimed apparatus however does not disclose wherein the second layer comprises two portions separated by a barrier; the barrier being at least partially formed from a fluid-impervious material arranged to inhibit fluid being communicated between the two portions.
Stickler teaches a second layer 132 fig.2 wherein the second layer comprises two portions 136, 138 fig.6 separated by a barrier 134, the barrier being at least partially formed from a fluid-impervious material arranged to inhibit fluid being communicated between the two portions [0067 “The starboard volume 146 is in fluid communication with the starboard flow channels 128 in an embodiment. In an embodiment, the dividing member 134 comprises a closed cell foam material disposed between the port diffusing member 136 and the starboard diffusing member 138 so that the port volume 144 is not in fluid communication with the starboard volume 146 via the dividing member 134.”].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the mattress of Nishimura in view of Stickler and the mattress having a separated diffuser layer of Stickler and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a mattress having a separated diffuser layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of allowing fluid to pass through the two portions separately and but not between the two portions as taught in Stickler [0067].
Re-Claim 7
Nishimura as modified by Stickler above disclose,
further comprising a third layer 23 fig.2/40 fig.5 Nishimura 102 fig.4 Stickler defining a further support surface configured to support the user, the third layer formed from a resiliently deformable, fluid-impervious material (closed cell polyurethane memory foam) [0048 “In one or more embodiments, the polyurethane memory foam of the base layer comprises a closed cell foam material.”] Stickler and defining a plurality of perforations 60 fig.5 Nishimura 120 fig.4 Stickler arranged to communicate fluid through the third layer, the third layer being joined to an opposite side of the second layer to the first layer and arranged so that an end of at least some of the perforations of the third layer are covered by the second layer.
Re-claim 8
Nishimura as modified by Stickler above disclose,
Stickler teaches wherein the third layer (102 fig.2 polyurethane memory foam Stickler) is formed from a material having a greater density than the material of the first layer (152 fig.2 Talalay latex Stickler, it is known that polyurethane memory foam has a greater density than Talalay latex).
Re-Claim 9
Nishimura as modified by Stickler above disclose,
Stickler teaches wherein the first layer and the third layer are formed from a closed-cell foam [0048, 0049].
Re-Claim 10
Nishimura as modified by Stickler above disclose,
Nishimura disclose the claimed apparatus however does not discloses wherein the second layer is formed from an open-cell foam.
Stickler wherein a second layer 132 fig.2 is formed from an open-cell foam [0049 “Referring to FIGS. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7A and 7B, in one or more embodiments, the cellular structure of the port diffusing member comprises an open cell, reticulated polyurethane foam structure. In one or more embodiments, the cellular structure of the starboard diffusing member comprises an open cell reticulated polyurethane foam structure.”].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the mattress of Nishimura and the second mattress layer utilizing a fluid pervious open-cell foam of Stickler and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a mattress having a fluid-pervious second layer formed from an open-cell foam. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a fluid pervious open cell foam second layer as taught by Stickler, 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. Such a material selection allows for improved fluid communication between the first layer, second layer, third layer and boarder without relying on perorations in the second layer.
Re-claim 11
Nishimura as modified by Stickler above disclose,
Stickler teaches wherein the first layer defines a thickness (see claim 46 Stickler “wherein the comfort layer has a thickness of from 1 to 4 inches think”) which is greater than a thickness defined by the second layer [0043 Stickler “In one or more embodiments, the dividing member, the port diffusing member and the starboard diffusing member each having a height T of between 1 inch and 3 inches.”].
Re-Claim 14
Nishimura as modified by Stickler above disclose,
wherein the border is formed from a resiliently deformable closed cell form (hard urethane forma is a closed cell material Nishimura).
Re-Claim 16
Nishimura as modified by Stickler above disclose,
Nishimura discloses a rollable mattress 10 fig.6 configured to be rolled for storage (Examiner notes the materials and the construction of the mattress of Nishimura allows the mattress to be rollable at the least by machine), the mattress including: a first layer 27 fig.2, 11a fig.6 defining a support surface (top of 11a) configured to support a user and a second surface (bottom of 11a) on an opposite side of the first layer to the support surface (see fig.6), the first layer formed from a resiliently deformable, fluid-impervious material (latex [0006]), and defining a plurality of perforations 13 fig.6 arranged to communicate fluid through the first layer [0038 “In a third example, as shown in FIG. 2C, the core 20 is composed of three layers, which are: a high-resilience latex layer 27 provided with a plurality of air vent holes”], the perforations having a first end at the support surface and a second end at the second surface and extending through the first layer from the first end to the second end (see fig.6); and a second layer 12, 11b fig.6 laminated to the second surface of the first layer to cover the second end of the perforations (see fig.6), the second layer defining side-walls and being formed from a fluid-pervious material [0006 “an air-permeable core material 12 interposed therebetween, and that these latex foams 11a and 11b and core material 12 are wrapped with an outer cover 14.”] and arranged to communicate fluid exiting the second end of the perforations to a location external to the side-walls (via perforations 13 fig.6 and the air-permeable core 12); the side-walls defining at least two opposite lateral edges terminating inwardly of a corresponding at least two opposite lateral edges of the first layer (a left lateral edge of the side wall would terminate inwardly of a corresponding right lateral edge if the first layer, while a right lateral edge of the side wall would terminate inwardly of a corresponding left lateral edge if the first layer); and a border 50 fig.4/ 3 fig.6 extends along and outwardly from at least two opposite lateral edges of the second layer, the border being formed from a resiliently deformable material [0029 “the edge portion 50 is composed of a hard urethane foam”] and dimensioned to define a width parallel to the support surface which is greater than a thickness perpendicular to the support surface (see fig. 1 & 4), the border arranged to urge the mattress to adopt a planar configuration after being rolled for storage and the border being formed from a fluid-impervious material (hard urethane foam is understood to be a fluid impervious material since it is a closed cell foam) and defines a plurality of apertures 60 fig.5/4 fig.6 extending through the border, the apertures being arranged to communicate fluid from the side-walls of the second layer to a location external to the mattress [0028 “In the closed-bottom frame 30, a plurality of air vent holes 60 which allow an inner surface and outer surface of the closed-bottom frame 30 to communicate with each other are provided.”].
However does not discloses explicitly disclose the first layer formed from a resiliently deformable, fluid-impervious material.
Stickler teaches a first layer 152 fig.3 formed for a resiliently deformable, fluid impervious material [0045 “In one or more embodiments, the comfort layer 152 comprises a Talalay latex foam having a thickness dimension with a value between 1 inch and 3 inches.” 0049 “In one or more embodiments, the Talalay latex foam of the comfort layer comprises a closed cell foam material.”].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the mattress of Nishimura and the mattress utilizing a fluid impervious closed cell Talalay latex foam of Stickler and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a mattress having a fluid impervious first layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a fluid impervious first layer as taught by Stickler, 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.
Re-Claim 17
Nishimura as modified by Stickler above disclose,
wherein each layer is formed from a foam [0048, 0049] Stickler, and the foam of the border has a greater density than the foam of the first layer or the second layer. (Hard urethane foam has a high density than Latex foam and open cell polyurethane foam).
Re-Claim 18
Nishimura as modified by Stickler above disclose,
wherein the border is arranged to extend around a periphery of the mattress (see fig.1 Nishimura).
Claim(s) 12 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in as modified by Stickler further in view of US Patent Publication US2017/0156508A1 hereinafter referred to as Segal.
Re-Claim 12
Nishimura in view of Stickler above disclose the claimed apparatus however does not disclose a cover dimensioned to enclose the at least two layers, the cover including an upper portion releasably connected to a lower portion.
Segal teaches a cover 500 fig.5 dimensioned to enclose the at least two layers fig.3, the cover including an upper portion 502 fig.6 releasably connected to a lower portion 506 fig.6.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the mattress of Nishimura in view of Stickler and the mattress cover of Segal and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a mattress having a cover. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of fulling encasing the layers of the mattress as taught in Segal [0031].
Re-claim 13
Nishimura as modified by Stickler and Segal above discloses,
wherein an asymmetric seam 508, 510 fig.6 Segal is defined between the upper portion and the lower portion such that at least a portion of the seam is angled towards one of the upper portion and the lower portion (see fig.5 Segal).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-14 and 16-18 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
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