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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/04/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 23 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
The difference between the two independent claims is that Claims 1 recites “the springs of the at least one third string of pocketed springs and the springs of the at least one fourth string of pocketed springs have a spring diameter less than the springs of the plurality of first strings of the innerspring main body” and Claim 23 recites “the springs of the second, third and fourth strings of pocketed springs have a spring diameter less than the springs of the plurality of first strings of the innerspring main body”. The difference between the two claims is that Claim 23 does not indicate the second string of pocketed springs has a lesser spring diameter in that portion of the claim. However, earlier in each claim, it is recited that “wherein the springs of the at least one second string of pocketed springs have a spring diameter less than the diameter of the springs of the plurality of first strings of the innerspring main body”.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to Claim 1 is supported by at least published ¶0008 and Figure 1B.
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 1-6 are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1, 6, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US20170251821A1) in view of Mossbeck (US20170340130A1), further in view of Jewett (US20180049559A1).
Claim 1
Long teaches an innerspring unit (Figure 1B, Item 10b) comprising (a) an innerspring main body comprising a plurality of first strings of pocketed springs (Figure 1B shows strings (26) of springs (28) that make up a core of the mattress (10b).) ; and (b) at least one second string of pocketed springs located on a lateral surface of the innerspring main body, so that the at least one second string of pocketed springs extends in a longitudinal direction of the innerspring main body (Figure 1B teaches a border (17) that is made up of a continuous material extending in the longitudinal direction of the mattress (10b) and located on the lateral side surface of the spring assembly (12). ¶0051 teaches that the border can be made from a string of springs of a different diameter.), wherein the springs of the at least one second string of pocketed springs have a spring diameter different from the diameter of the springs of the plurality of first strings of the innerspring main body. (¶0051 teaches that the border is made from a string of pocketed springs having a different diameter than the ones of the interior of the pocketed spring assembly.) wherein at least one third string of pocketed springs is attached to a first longitudinal end of the innerspring main body and at least one fourth string of pocketed springs is attached to a second longitudinal end of the innerspring main body (Figure 1B teaches the border (17) has portions on the longitudinal ends of the mattress core spring assembly (12). ¶0051 teaches the border can be made from pocketed springs. As for “attached”, see the combination with Mossbeck below.), wherein the springs of the at least one third string of pocketed springs and the springs of the at least one fourth string of pocketed springs have a spring diameter different than the springs of the plurality of first strings of the innerspring main body (¶0051 teaches the border can be made from pocketed springs having a different diameter than the interior springs.)and wherein at least one second string of pocketed springs is attached to a first lateral side surface and to a second lateral side surface of the innerspring main body (Figure 1B shows the border (17) includes portions on the two lateral side surfaces of the innerspring main body (12).), so that the springs of the second, third and fourth strings of pocketed springs form an edge area completely surrounding the first strings of pocketed springs (border, 17).
Long does not explicitly disclose that the borders are attached to the perimeter of the innerspring main body.
However, Mossbeck teaches a border made from strings of pocketed springs where the strings are attached to the perimeter of the innerspring main body. (Figure 12A shows border strings (38i and 38ii) that surround the inner spring core (28). ¶0061 teaches the perimeter strings are glued or otherwise secured to the periphery of the core.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known attachment technique of Mossbeck to the border and core structure of Long in order to secure the border to the inner ore of springs. (Mossbeck ¶0061)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known attachment technique of Mossbeck to the border and core structure of Long because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the border strings of springs in Long will be secured via gluing to the inner core.
Long does not disclose that the diameter of the second, third and fourth strings of pocketed springs is less than the diameter of the first string of pocketed springs; and wherein the springs of the second, third and fourth strings of pocketed springs are configured such that a stability of the innerspring unit at an edge area thereof is increased compared to an area where the springs of the first strings of pocketed springs are arranged.
However, Jewett (Figure 2 teaches a pocketed spring assembly that includes edge springs (32/36) and core strings (26/60). teaches the diameter of the second, third and fourth strings of pocketed springs is less than the diameter of the first string of pocketed springs (¶0011-0012 teach that the diameter of the springs of the inner pocket core springs is greater than the diameter of the edge springs.); and wherein the springs of the second, third and fourth strings of pocketed springs are configured such that a stability of the innerspring unit at an edge area thereof is increased compared to an area where the springs of the first strings of pocketed springs are arranged. (¶0012 teaches that the structure of the inner core springs and outer edge springs having different diameters results in four sides of edge support for the core. Additionally, since Jewett teaches the claimed structure of the smaller diameter edge springs as claimed, the reference teaches the claimed intended use/function of this structure.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known smaller diameter edge spring technique of Jewett to the different diameter spring size mattress device of Long in order to have a firmer perimeter (Jewett ¶0013) that provides edge support (Jewett ¶0012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known smaller diameter edge spring technique of Jewett to the different diameter spring size mattress device of Long because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 6
Long in view of Mossbeck and Jewett teaches the innerspring unit of claim 1, wherein the at least one second spring of pocketed springs is glued to the innerspring main body. (Mossbeck teaches the gluing of the border strings to the inner core in ¶0061.)
Claim 23
Long teaches an innerspring unit (Figure 1B, Item 10b) comprising (a) an innerspring main body comprising a plurality of first strings of pocketed springs (Figure 1B shows strings (26) of springs (28) that make up a core of the mattress (10b).) ; and (b) at least one second string of pocketed springs on a lateral surface of the innerspring main body, so that the at least one second string of pocketed springs extends in a longitudinal direction of the innerspring main body (Figure 1B teaches a border (17) that is made up of a continuous material extending in the longitudinal direction of the mattress (10b) and located on the lateral side surface of the spring assembly (12). ¶0051 teaches that the border can be made from a string of springs of a different diameter.), wherein the springs of the at least one second string of pocketed springs have a spring diameter different from the diameter of the springs of the plurality of first strings of the innerspring main body. (¶0051 teaches that the border is made from a string of pocketed springs having a different diameter than the ones of the interior of the pocketed spring assembly.) wherein at least one third string of pocketed springs is attached to a first longitudinal end of the innerspring main body and at least one fourth string of pocketed springs is attached to a second longitudinal end of the innerspring main body (Figure 1B teaches the border (17) has portions on the longitudinal ends of the mattress core spring assembly (12). ¶0051 teaches the border can be made from pocketed springs. As for “attached”, see the combination with Mossbeck below.), wherein the springs of second, third and fourth strings of pocketed springs have a spring diameter different than the plurality of first springs of the plurality of first strings of the innerspring main body (¶0051 teaches the border can be made from pocketed springs having a different diameter than the interior springs.)and wherein at least one second string of pocketed springs is attached to a first lateral side surface and to a second lateral side surface of the innerspring main body (Figure 1B shows the border (17) includes portions on the two lateral side surfaces of the innerspring main body (12).), so that the springs of the second, third and fourth strings of pocketed springs form an edge area completely surrounding the first strings of pocketed springs (border, 17).
Long does not explicitly disclose that the borders are attached to the perimeter of the innerspring main body.
However, Mossbeck teaches a border made from strings of pocketed springs where the strings are attached to the perimeter of the innerspring main body. (Figure 12A shows border strings (38i and 38ii) that surround the inner spring core (28). ¶0061 teaches the perimeter strings are glued or otherwise secured to the periphery of the core.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known attachment technique of Mossbeck to the border and core structure of Long in order to secure the border to the inner ore of springs. (Mossbeck ¶0061)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known attachment technique of Mossbeck to the border and core structure of Long because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the border strings of springs in Long will be secured via gluing to the inner core.
Long does not disclose that the diameter of the second, third and fourth strings of pocketed springs is less than the diameter of the first string of pocketed springs; and wherein the springs of the second, third and fourth strings of pocketed springs are configured such that a stability of the innerspring unit at an edge area thereof is increased compared to an area where the springs of the first strings of pocketed springs are arranged.
However, Jewett (Figure 2 teaches a pocketed spring assembly that includes edge springs (32/36) and core strings (26/60). teaches the diameter of the second, third and fourth strings of pocketed springs is less than the diameter of the first string of pocketed springs (¶0011-0012 teach that the diameter of the springs of the inner pocket core springs is greater than the diameter of the edge springs.); and wherein the springs of the second, third and fourth strings of pocketed springs are configured such that a stability of the innerspring unit at an edge area thereof is increased compared to an area where the springs of the first strings of pocketed springs are arranged. (¶0012 teaches that the structure of the inner core springs and outer edge springs having different diameters results in four sides of edge support for the core. Additionally, since Jewett teaches the claimed structure of the smaller diameter edge springs as claimed, the reference teaches the claimed intended use/function of this structure.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known smaller diameter edge spring technique of Jewett to the different diameter spring size mattress device of Long in order to have a firmer perimeter (Jewett ¶0013) that provides edge support (Jewett ¶0012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known smaller diameter edge spring technique of Jewett to the different diameter spring size mattress device of Long because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 25
Long in view of Mossbeck and Jewett teaches the innerspring unit of claim 23, wherein the at least one second spring of pocketed springs is glued to the innerspring main body. (Mossbeck teaches the gluing of the border strings to the inner core in ¶0061.)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US20170251821A1) in view of Mossbeck (US20170340130A1) and Jewett (US20180049559A1), further in view of Argo Federkernprod Gmbh (DE29710267U1).
Claim 5
Long in view of Mossbeck and Jewett teaches the innerspring unit of claim 1, wherein a pair of sheets (Long, Figure 1B shows items 14 and 18 as layers on the top and bottom of the pocketed spring assembly (12). ¶0051-0052 teach these items can be scrim sheets.) is attached to upper and lower surfaces of the innerspring main body (Jewett, ¶0041 “The pocketed spring assembly 12 may include upper and lower scrim sheets 18 attached with adhesive to upper and lower surfaces of the strings of springs 26 of the pocketed spring assembly 12.”), the sheets cover the innerspring main body and laterally extend beyond the innerspring main body (Applicant’s Claim 1 indicates that the innerspring main body is made up only of the first strings of pocketed springs. Long, Figure 1B shows the layers (14, 18) extend beyond the main body (12) and out to the border (17).); and wherein the at least one second string of pocketed springs is attached to the lateral surface of the innerspring main body (Long, Figure 1B shows the border (17) is attached to the lateral surface of the innerspring main body (12).) such that it is arranged between the pair of sheets. (Long, Figure 1B shows the layers (14, 18) extend over the top and bottom of the border (17).)
Long in view of Mossbeck and Jewett does not explicitly disclose fleece sheets.
However, Argo Federkernprod Gmbh teaches the use of fleece material for a covering a pocketed spring core. (Figure 1 teaches pocketed springs (3) that have a top and bottom (11 and 12) cover layer applied to them. Lines 71-72 teach that the cover layers (11, 12) are made from fleece.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to substitute the known fleece material of Argo Federkernprod Gmbh with for the sheet material of Jewett in order to use a flexible, low stretch cloth (Argo Federkernprod Gmbh Line 71) for the scrim sheets of Jewett.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to substitute the known fleece material of Argo Federkernprod Gmbh with for the sheet material of Long in view of Mossbeck and Jewett because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US20170251821A1) in view of Mossbeck (US20170340130A1) and Jewett (US20180049559A1), further in view of Argo Federkernprod Gmbh (DE29710267U1).
Claim 24
Long in view of Mossbeck and Jewett teaches the innerspring unit of claim 23, wherein a pair of sheets (Long, Figure 1B shows items 14 and 18 as layers on the top and bottom of the pocketed spring assembly (12). ¶0051-0052 teach these items can be scrim sheets.) is attached to upper and lower surfaces of the innerspring main body (Jewett, ¶0041 “The pocketed spring assembly 12 may include upper and lower scrim sheets 18 attached with adhesive to upper and lower surfaces of the strings of springs 26 of the pocketed spring assembly 12.”), the sheets cover the innerspring main body and laterally extend beyond the innerspring main body (Applicant’s Claim 1 indicates that the innerspring main body is made up only of the first strings of pocketed springs. Long, Figure 1B shows the layers (14, 18) extend beyond the main body (12) and out to the border (17).); and wherein the at least one second string of pocketed springs is attached to the lateral surface of the innerspring main body (Long, Figure 1B shows the border (17) is attached to the lateral surface of the innerspring main body (12).) such that it is arranged between the pair of sheets. (Long, Figure 1B shows the layers (14, 18) extend over the top and bottom of the border (17).)
Long in view of Mossbeck and Jewett does not explicitly disclose fleece sheets.
However, Argo Federkernprod Gmbh teaches the use of fleece material for a covering a pocketed spring core. (Figure 1 teaches pocketed springs (3) that have a top and bottom (11 and 12) cover layer applied to them. Lines 71-72 teach that the cover layers (11, 12) are made from fleece.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to substitute the known fleece material of Argo Federkernprod Gmbh with for the sheet material of Jewett in order to use a flexible, low stretch cloth (Argo Federkernprod Gmbh Line 71) for the scrim sheets of Jewett.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to substitute the known fleece material of Argo Federkernprod Gmbh with for the sheet material of Long in view of Mossbeck and Jewett because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments (see remarks filed 11/04/2025) against the rejection presented in the office action dated 07/01/2025 are fully convincing. The rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new rejection is presented using Long in view of Mossbeck, further in view of Jewett.
Broadly, Long is relied upon for teaching the border made of strings of springs of a different diameter, Mossbeck is relied upon for attaching/gluing the border to the core springs, and Jewett teaches using springs of a lesser diameter for the edge/border/perimeter springs alongside a motivation for doing so.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited Form. The following table outlines interpretations of the prior art:
Document
Description of Relevant Subject Matter
US20040172767A1
¶0016 teaches the use of differing spring characteristics in different regions of a mattress core in order to impart differing firmnesses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached on 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726