DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responding to applicant’s amendment filed on 2/18/2026. Claims 1-2 have been cancelled. Claims 3, 11, and 16 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
The objections to the specification have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s remarks.
The objections to the drawings regarding pressure sensor has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s remarks. Regarding a first recess and a second recess, such objections have Figure 42A does not illustrates the claimed limitations.
The Normand reference has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 3-7 and 11-14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Rygiel (U.S. Patent No. 5,815,862).
Regarding independent claim 3, Figure 6-9 in Rygiel discloses applicant’s claimed support assembly (10) comprising:
first fluid-filled pods (1-3);
second fluid-filled pods (4-6); and
a pad (column 3 lines 45-48 discribes a soft, pleasant to touch fabric is interpreted to correspond to claimed limitation pad) positionable over the first fluid-filled pods (1-3) and the second fluid-filled pods (4-6),
wherein each of the first fluid-filled pods (1-3) are fluidically isolated from one another (column 4 lines 33-38), and
wherein the first fluid-filled pods (1-3) have a greater thickness than a thickness of the pad (chambers 1-3 is thicker than a fabric).
Regarding claim 4, Rygiel reference, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed support assembly of claim 3, wherein the second fluid-filled pods (4-6 have a greater thickness than the thickness of the pad (chambers 4-6 is thicker than a fabric).
Regarding claim 5, Rygiel reference, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed support assembly of claim 4, wherein when the pad is positioned over the first fluid-filled pods and the second fluid-filled pods (column 45-48 discloses fabric is external surface of mattress 10), a height of the pad between the first fluid-filled pods and the second fluid-filled pods is less than the height of the first fluid-filled pods (height of fabric is less than height of chambers 1-3).
Regarding claim 6, Rygiel reference, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed support assembly of claim 5, wherein when the pad is positioned over the first fluid-filled pods and the second fluid-filled pods, the height of the pad between the first fluid-filled pods and the second fluid-filled pods is less than the height of the second fluid-filled pods (height of fabric is less than height of chambers 4-6).
Regarding claim 7, Rygiel reference, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed support assembly of claim 3, wherein when the pad is positioned over the first fluid-filled pods and the second fluid-filled pods, the first fluid-filled pods are moveable toward and away from the second fluid-filled pods and the second fluid-filled pods are moveable toward and away from the first fluid-filled pods.
Regarding independent claim 11, Figure 6-9 in Rygiel discloses applicant’s claimed
support assembly comprising:
first fluid-filled pods (1-3);
second fluid-filled pod (4-6); and
a pad (column 3 lines 45-48 discribes a soft, pleasant to touch fabric is interpreted to correspond to claimed limitation pad) positionable over the first fluid-filled pods (1-3) and the second fluid-filled pods (4-6),
wherein each of the first fluid-filled pods (1-3) are fluidically isolated from one another (column 4 lines 33-38), and
wherein the first fluid-filled pods (1-3) and the second fluid-filled pods (4-6) are compressible (chambers 1-6 are compressible, column 4 lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 12, Rygiel reference, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed support assembly of claim 11, wherein the first fluid-filled pods and the second fluid-filled pods are expandable (chambers 1-6 are inflatable and resilience, rendering being expandable).
Regarding claim 13, Rygiel reference, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed support assembly of claim 11, wherein the first fluid-filled pods are thicker than the pad (column 3 lines 45-48 discribes a soft, pleasant to touch fabric is interpreted to correspond to claimed limitation pad, chambers 1-3 is thicker than a fabric).
Regarding claim 14, Rygiel reference, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed support assembly of claim 13, wherein the second fluid-filled pods are thicker than the pad (chambers 4-6 is thicker than a fabric).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-22 are allowed.
Claims 8-10 and 15 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.
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 CAMTU TRAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4799. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Rachael E Bredefeld can be reached at 571-270-5237. 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.
/CAMTU T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights