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 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that, “The Office Action states, "Hawley does not teach the core is attached to the perimeter rail structure via only the top edge interface." Office Action, p. 5. The Office Action cites Wu's first and second flaps 25, 31 for these features. Id. Wu states, "A third inflatable pad is connected pivotally to the second inflatable pad, and is operable so as to pivot relative to the second inflatable pad between a third position, where the third inflatable pad is received fittingly in a notch in the first side of the second inflatable pad, and a fourth position, where the third inflatable pad is superposed on the second inflatable pad." Wu, Abstract. Wu additionally states, "[t]he third inflatable pad 3 includes a second flap 31 fastened to a side 30 thereof and connected fixedly to the first flap 25 of the second inflatable pad 2, thereby allowing pivoting movement of the third inflatable pad 3 about an assembly of the first and second flaps 25, 31." Wu [0026]. Wu's first flap 25 and second flap 31 facilitate a pivotable relationship between the third inflatable pad 3 to the second inflatable pad 2. Accordingly, Wu does teach that, "the core is attached to the perimeter rail structure via only the top edge interface along the top edge of the top surface of the core adjacent to each of the head portion, the foot portion, and the first and second side portions," recited in claim 1. Bausch & Lomb,Inc. v. Barnes-Hind Hydrocurve, Inc., 796 F.2d 443, 448 (Fed. Cir. 1986); ("It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one skilled in the art."); Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Evidence suggesting reasons to combine cannot be viewed in a vacuum apart from evidence suggesting reasons not to combine."). Accordingly, claim 1 is patentable over Hawley in view of Wu.”
This is not found persuasive. Although Wu does not teach the core is attached to the perimeter rail structure at only the top edge adjacent to each of the head portion, the foot portion, and the first and second side portions, that is not relevant because Hawley teaches the top edge attachment adjacent all four sides. In Hawley, the core 10 is attached to the perimeter rails 23, 24, etc. along all four sides/edges of the core. However, in Hawley, the core is attached at both the top and bottom edges. Wu is merely modifying Hawley to be attached only at the top edge, rather than at the top and bottom edge, as is shown in Wu Figure 3. Wu is not being used to teach the edge attachment along all 4 sides and edges. Thus, the rejection teaches the claim as currently written.
Applicant also argued, “The Office Action states, "Hawley does not teach a plurality of anchors connected to the top seam, wherein the anchors are configured to connect the top seam of the one or more air chambers to the perimeter rail structure." Office Action, p. 10. The Office Action cites Orr's fasteners/clips 34 for these features. Id. Orr states, "In FIG. 1, bed/sheet assembly 10 is connected to mattress 40 by at least one of the fastening members 30. Sheet assembly 10 has a cover portion 20 and a plurality of fastening members 30. The fastening members 30 include at least 2 different types of fasteners 32 and 34 (See FIGS. 2 and 3) and fastening belts 31." Orr col. 2, ln. 29-34. Orr's clips 34 connect a side of bed sheet 10 to mattress 40. Accordingly, Orr does not teach that, "a plurality of anchors connected to the top seam, wherein the anchors are configured to connect the top seam of the one or more air chambers to a top surface of the perimeter rail structure," recited in claim 11. (Emphases added). Additionally, the Office Action states the, "Examiner further notes that although in Hawley, the seam of the core extends in an overlapping fashion over the edge of the perimeter structure, the perimeter structure is not completely overlapped, and as such straps could be attached to both the core and perimeter structure to join over their juncture as is taught by Orr." Office Action, p. 10. Belden Inc. v. Berk-TekLLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention."); PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that it is insufficient to allege "that a skilled artisan, once presented with the two references, would have understood that they could be combined."). Hawley states, "[a]s may be seen from FIG. 5, the flange 14 is formed by joining the side face 11 and the top face 13 of the air compartment 10 together, for example by means of stitching 42. In this embodiment, flange 14 is connected to side wall 24 by bonding flange 14 and side wall 24 together using a layer of adhesive 44. Alternatively or additionally, flange 14 can be connected to side wall 24 by stapling flange 14 and side wall 24 together." Hawley [0049]. Annotated FIG. 5 of Hawley (reproduced below) shows a secure adhesive (or alternatively stapled) connection at the side wall 24.
This is not found persuasive. Hawley teaches a top seam of a core (Figure 5; at 14) connected to the top surface of the perimeter rail structure (Figure 5; at 44 on top of 24). Orr is merely modifying the connection type from that of adhesive, stapling, stitching, etc. to that of the anchor attachment style of Orr. As is shown in Hawley Figure 5, there is non-overlapping space on top of perimeter rail structures 24 (etc.) to allow such a connection. Thus, Hawley teaches the top surface/top seam connection, Orr is not used for the location of the connection, only to modify Hawley’s connection type to be anchors.
Applicant also argued, “The Office Action's alleged motivation is that, "[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination 'to prevent dislocation' of the two elements being attached (Orr Column 1; line 7)." Office Action, p. 10. The Office Action fails to articulate why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Hawley's already secure connection with the connectors of Orr. Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (a primary reference's "statements regarding preferences are relevant to a finding regarding whether a skilled artisan would be motivated to combine that reference with another reference"). Accordingly, the combination of Hawley and Orr does not teach that, "a plurality of anchors connected to the top seam, wherein the anchors are configured to connect the top seam of the one or more air chambers to a top surface of the perimeter rail structure," recited in claim 11. (Emphases added).”
This is not found persuasive. The anchors of Orr present an alternative method of connection which successfully “prevents dislocation”, as discussed in the rejection, as is the goal of Hawley, while also presenting additional advantages to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, the anchors allow a non-permanent connection, which would then allow for the switching out, cleaning, and replacement of parts within the system, extending its life and useability.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 18, "means for detachably connecting the air chamber and the perimeter rail structure" is determined by the specification (see Paragraph 6) to mean anchors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley (US Patent 20200323356) in view of Wu (US Patent Application Publication 20070169273).
Regarding claim 1, Hawley teaches a mattress comprising: a core (Figure 3; 12) having a top surface with a top edge (Figure 3; edges of 12, which overlap the foam edges 21-24 as shown) extending around the top surface adjacent to a head portion, a foot portion, and first and second side portions of the core, wherein the core defines a top edge interface (Figure 3; the top edge interface is the portion where the core 12 overlaps the foam perimeter rail 21-24, as shown) where the top edge of the top surface meets the head portion, the foot portion, and the first and second side portions; a perimeter rail structure (Figure 3; 21-24) that extends around a perimeter of the core to surround the core; and wherein the core is attached to the perimeter rail structure via the top edge interface along the top edge of the top surface of the core (Figure 4; 14, and Paragraph 49) adjacent to each of the head portion, the foot portion, and the first and second side portions (Figure 3; as shown). Hawley does not teach the core is attached to the perimeter rail structure via only the top edge interface. Wu teaches the core is attached to the perimeter rail structure via only the top edge interface (Figure 2; at 25 and 31, show a core piece 3 attached to a perimeter piece 2 at only the top edge). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Hawley (directed to a mattress with attached core and perimeter portions) and Wu (directed to a core attached to perimeters at only a top edge) and arrived at a mattress with a core and perimeter attached only at a top surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to allow for the detachment of and movement to various alternative positions as taught in Wu (Paragraphs 10-11).
Regarding claim 5, Hawley teaches the mattress is configured to be compressed and rolled, and in a compressed and rolled position, the attachment of the core to the perimeter rail structure maintains a desired positioning of the core (Paragraphs 8 and 65 discuss compressing and roll packing (which typically involves compression) the mattress, and as the adhesive is permanent in Hawley, Hawley envisions the components to remain attached during packaging).
Regarding claim 6, Hawley teaches the core is one or more air chambers (Figure 4; 10, and Paragraph 44).
Regarding claim 7, Hawley teaches the top edge interface includes a seam that extends outwardly from the top surface of the core (Figure 5; 14 (see also 11, 13, and 42) and Paragraph 49).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley (US Patent 20200323356) in view of Wu (US Patent Application Publication 20070169273) in view of Wilder (US Patent Application Publication 20150349351).
Regarding claim 2, Hawley does not teach a foam layer positioned at a top surface of the mattress above the core and the perimeter rail structure. Wilder teaches a foam layer positioned at a top surface of the mattress above the core and the perimeter rail structure (Figure 5; 120). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Hawley (directed to a mattress with attached core and perimeter portions) and Wu (directed to a core attached to perimeters at only a top edge) and Wilder (directed to a mattress with a core and perimeter rail with an upper foam layer) and arrived at a mattress with a core and perimeter attached only at a top surface, with an upper foam layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination "for distributing pressure from a user's body, or portion thereof, across the body supporting portion" (Wilder Paragraph 31).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley (US Patent 20200323356) in view of Wu (US Patent Application Publication 20070169273) in view of Wilder (US Patent Application Publication 20150349351) in view of Dolter (US Patent Application Publication 20190313809)
Regarding claim 3, Hawley does not teach a plurality of straps that are each positioned between a top surface of the perimeter rail structure and a bottom surface of the foam layer, wherein the plurality of straps each extend to the top edge interface, and wherein an anchor is positioned on each of the plurality of straps. Dolter teaches a plurality of straps (Figure 2; 22, 24) that are each positioned between a top surface of the perimeter rail structure and a bottom surface of the foam layer (Examiner notes that when applied to the combination, the straps would be positioned between the core and perimeter to be attached, and that would be located below the foam layer and above the perimeter rail structure), wherein the plurality of straps each extend to the top edge interface (Examiner notes that the straps 22 and 24 in Dolter extend across the interface between a first piece analogous to the core, i.e. 20, and a second piece analogous to the perimeter rail structure (i.e. 14), and thus would extend across the top edge interface), and wherein an anchor is positioned on each of the plurality of straps (Figure 2; the end buckles on 24 and 22).
Claim(s) 8 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley (US Patent 20200323356) in view of Wu (US Patent Application Publication 20070169273) in view of Goenka (US Patent 9357863).
Regarding claim 8, Hawley does not teach a plurality of straps connects the core to the perimeter rail structure. Goenka teaches a plurality of straps connects the core to the perimeter rail structure (Figure 5; 42 (plurality in that 42 is on each edge of the perimeter structure)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Hawley (directed to a mattress with attached core and perimeter portions) and Wu (directed to a core attached to perimeters at only a top edge) and Goenka (directed to a detachable fastening along an overlapping edge) and arrived at a mattress with a core and perimeter attached only at a top surface, with a detachable fastener. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to allow for selective engagement and thus allow the user to selectably remove the two pieces (Goenka Column 6; lines 26-55).
Regarding claim 26, Hawley does not teach further comprising snaps, hook and loop, buttons, or zippers connecting the core to the perimeter rail structure at the top edge interface. Goenka teaches snaps, hook and loop, buttons, or zippers connecting the core to the perimeter rail structure at the top edge interface (Figure 4; 84, 82). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Hawley (directed to a mattress with attached core and perimeter portions) and Wu (directed to a core attached to perimeters at only a top edge) and Goenka (directed to a detachable fastening along an overlapping edge) and arrived at a mattress with a core and perimeter attached only at a top surface, with a detachable fastener. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to allow for selective engagement and thus allow the user to selectably remove the two pieces (Goenka Column 6; lines 26-55).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley (US Patent 20200323356) in view of Wu (US Patent Application Publication 20070169273) in view of Wilder (US Patent Application Publication 20150349351) in view of Roserger (US Patent 2247667).
Regarding claim 10, Hawley does not teach the perimeter rail structure includes an inverted foam tub that surrounds the core, and wherein the inverted foam tub comprises a plurality of straps extending inwardly from an inner portion of the inverted foam tub at locations configured to detachably connect to the top edge interface along the top surface of the core. Wilder teaches the perimeter rail structure includes an inverted foam tub that surrounds the core (Figure 5; the perimeter rail at 140 along with the foam layer 120 would form an inverted foam tub that surrounds the core (at 130)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Hawley (directed to a mattress with attached core and perimeter portions) and Wu (directed to a core attached to perimeters at only a top edge) and Wilder (directed to a mattress with a core and perimeter rail with an upper foam layer) and arrived at a mattress with a core and perimeter attached only at a top surface, with an upper foam layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination "for distributing pressure from a user's body, or portion thereof, across the body supporting portion" (Wilder Paragraph 31). Hawley, as modified, does not teach wherein the inverted foam tub comprises a plurality of straps extending inwardly from an inner portion of the inverted foam tub at locations configured to detachably connect to the top edge interface along the top surface of the core. Rosberger teaches the inverted foam tub comprises a plurality of straps (Figure 3; 16 (Examiner notes when applied to Hawley this would include a strap 16 along all 4 edges of the perimeter rail structure/core interface)) extending inwardly from an inner portion of the inverted foam tub (Examiner notes that when applied to the combination of Hawley and Wilder, the straps with the zipper halves would have to extend inward under the foam layer to reach the core) at locations configured to detachably connect to the top edge interface along the top surface of the core (Figure 3; the top edge interface of the core is analogous to 14). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Hawley (directed to a mattress with attached core and perimeter portions) and Wu (directed to a core attached to perimeters at only a top edge) and Wilder (directed to a mattress with a core and perimeter rail with an upper foam layer) and Rosberger (directed to a mattress with a top edge attachment including straps extending inward) and arrived at a mattress with a core and perimeter attached only at a top surface via inwardly extending straps, with an upper foam layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide "an even distribution of the weight supported by the sections" (Rosberger Column 1; lines 13-14).
Claim(s) 11, 14, 16, 17, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley (US Patent 20200323356) in view of Orr (US Patent 6233764).
Regarding claim 11, Hawley teaches a mattress comprising: one or more air chambers (Figure 4; 10) each having a plurality of surfaces and a plurality of seams (Figure 4; 14) defined where the plurality of surfaces meet, wherein a top seam of the plurality of seams is positioned along a top surface of the air chamber and extending outwardly from the air chamber along a head portion, a foot portion, and first and second side portions of the air chamber; a perimeter rail structure (Figure 3; 21-24) including a head portion, a foot portion, and first and second side portions, wherein the perimeter rail structure is configured to extend around a perimeter of the one or more air chambers to surround the one or more air chambers (Figure 3; as shown), and a connection (Figure 5; 42, 44) connected to the top seam (Figure 5; at 14), where the connectors are configured to connect the top seam of the one or more air chambers to a top surface of the perimeter rail structure (Figure 5; 42 and 44 as shown connect the top surface of 24 to top seam at 14). Hawley does not teach a plurality of anchors connected to the top seam, wherein the anchors are configured to connect the top seam of the one or more air chambers to the perimeter rail structure. Orr teaches a plurality of anchors (Figure 5; 34) connected to the top seam (Figure 5; analogous to top component where 10 is pointing), wherein the anchors are configured to connect the top seam of the one or more air chambers to the perimeter rail structure (Figure 5; Analogous to the bottom portion where 20 is pointing) (Examiner further notes that although in Hawley, the seam of the core extends in an overlapping fashion over the edge of the perimeter structure, the perimeter structure is not completely overlapped, and as such straps could be attached to both the core and perimeter structure to join over their juncture as is taught by Orr). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Hawley (directed to a mattress with attached core and perimeter portions) and Orr (directed to detachable fasteners for attaching two bedding components together) and arrived at a mattress with a core and perimeter detachable fastened. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination "to prevent dislocation" of the two elements being attached (Orr Column 1; line 7).
Regarding claim 14, Hawley does not teach the anchors include a plurality of straps positioned around the perimeter of the one or more air chambers and extend between the top seam and the perimeter rail structure. Orr teaches the anchors include a plurality of straps positioned around the perimeter of the one or more air chambers and extend between the top seam and the perimeter rail structure (Figure 5; the straps of the anchors 34 would, when applied to Hawley, be placed at the attachment edges of the perimeter rail and the core in Hawley, and extend between the two to join them, as shown between the two joining surfaces of Orr). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Hawley (directed to a mattress with attached core and perimeter portions) and Orr (directed to detachable fasteners for attaching two bedding components together) and arrived at a mattress with a core and perimeter detachable fastened. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination "to prevent dislocation" of the two elements being attached (Orr Column 1; line 7).
Regarding claim 16, Hawley does not teach the anchors are positioned on the top seam along a length and along a width of the air chamber. Orr teaches the anchors are positioned on the top seam along a length and along a width of the air chamber (Figure 5; when applied to the two elements to be attached in Hawley, the anchors would be positioned along the top seam along the length and width of the air chamber (See Hawley Figure 3; the juncture between the dotted lines and outer edge)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Hawley (directed to a mattress with attached core and perimeter portions) and Orr (directed to detachable fasteners for attaching two bedding components together) and arrived at a mattress with a core and perimeter detachable fastened. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination "to prevent dislocation" of the two elements being attached (Orr Column 1; line 7).
Regarding claim 17, Hawley teaches the one or more air chambers includes a first air chamber and a second air chamber that each extend from a head of the mattress to a foot of the mattress (Figure 7; 12a, 12b and Figure 8; 10a, 10b), the mattress further comprising a pump system having one or more air pumps fluidly connected to the first and second air chambers (Figure 7; 16a, 16b, and Paragraphs 45 and 65 discuss inflating and deflating via the tubes, and attaching a vacuum pump, thus they are meant to be attached to pumps for inflation and deflation), wherein the pump system is configured to inflate the first and second air chambers.
Regarding claim 24, Hawley teaches the one or more air chambers further comprises a bottom seam and wherein no anchors are attached to the bottom seam (Figure 4; bottom 14, as shown).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley (US Patent 20200323356) in view of Orr (US Patent 6233764) in view of Wilder (US Patent Application Publication 20150349351).
Regarding claim 15, Hawley does not teach each of the plurality of straps are each attached between a top surface of the perimeter rail structure and a bottom surface of a foam layer. Wilder teaches an upper foam layer (Figure 5; 120). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Hawley (directed to a mattress with attached core and perimeter portions) and Wilder (directed to a mattress with a core and perimeter rail with an upper foam layer) and arrived at a mattress with a core and perimeter, with an upper foam layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination "for distributing pressure from a user's body, or portion thereof, across the body supporting portion" (Wilder Paragraph 31). Orr teaches each of the plurality of straps are each attached between a top surface of the perimeter rail structure and a bottom surface of a foam layer(Figure 5; when positioning the straps against the juncture to be secured as shown in Orr Figure 5, when applied to Hawley and Wilder, the straps would be positioned above the perimeter rail structure and below the foam layer). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Hawley (directed to a mattress with attached core and perimeter portions) and Wilder (directed to a mattress with a core and perimeter rail with an upper foam layer) and Orr (directed to detachable fasteners for attaching two bedding components together) and arrived at a mattress with a core and perimeter detachable fastened, with an upper foam layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination "to prevent dislocation" of the two elements being attached (Orr Column 1; line 7).
Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley (US Patent 20200323356) in view of Orr (US Patent 6233764) further in view of Fisher (US Patent 5604945).
Regarding claim 22, Hawley does not teach the seams comprises a lamination seam where layers of the air chamber are laminated and sealed to form the seams. Fisher teaches the seams comprises a lamination seam where layers of the air chamber are laminated and sealed to form the seams (Figure 4; at 23, and Column 2; lines 38-47). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Hawley (directed to a mattress with attached core and perimeter portions including seams) and Orr (directed to detachable fasteners for attaching two bedding components together) and Fisher (directed to a mattress with laminated seams) and arrived at a mattress with a core and perimeter detachable fastened, including laminated seams. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to create "pneumatically sealed" interiors (Fisher Column 3; lines 38-47).
Regarding claim 23, Hawley does not teach the top seam comprises a lamination seam where layers of the air chamber are laminated and sealed to form the top seam. Fisher teaches the top seam comprises a lamination seam where layers of the air chamber are laminated and sealed to form the top seam (Figure 4; at 23, and Column 2; lines 38-47). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Hawley (directed to a mattress with attached core and perimeter portions including seams) and Orr (directed to detachable fasteners for attaching two bedding components together) and Fisher (directed to a mattress with laminated seams) and arrived at a mattress with a core and perimeter detachable fastened, including laminated seams. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to create "pneumatically sealed" interiors (Fisher Column 3; lines 38-47).
Claim(s) 18, 19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawley (US Patent 20200323356) in view of Goenka (US Patent 9357863).
Regarding claim 18, Hawley teaches a method of assembling a mattress assembly comprising: connecting an air chamber (Figure 4; 10) to a perimeter rail structure (Figure 3; 21- 24); compressing and packaging a compressed mattress including the air chamber and perimeter rail structure while the air chamber is secured to the perimeter rail structure via the means for connecting the air chamber and the perimeter rail structure (Paragraph 65, Examiner notes the system would remain attached as the attachments in Hawley are envisioned to be permanent attachments); and expanding the compressed mattress while the air chamber remains secured to the perimeter rail structure (Paragraph 8), wherein the compressed mattress is compressed and packaged with the air chamber secured to the perimeter rail structure via a top edge interface of the air chamber adjacent to each of a head portion, a foot portion, and first and second side portions of the air chamber (Figure 3 and 4 of Hawley show the top edge interface at 14 attached to the perimeter rail structure around all four sides). Hawley does not teach the air chamber and perimeter rail structure are connected via means for detachably connecting the air chamber and the perimeter rail structure, and that the perimeter rail structure is attached only at the top edge. Goenka teaches the air chamber and perimeter rail structure are connected via means for detachably connecting the air chamber and the perimeter rail structure (Figure 5; 82/84). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Hawley (directed to a mattress with attached core and perimeter portions) and Goenka (directed to a detachable fastening along an overlapping edge) and arrived at a mattress with a core and perimeter attached at a top surface, with a detachable fastener. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to allow for selective engagement and thus allow the user to selectably remove the two pieces (Goenka Column 6; lines 26-55). Wu teaches the perimeter rail structure is attached only at the top edge (Figure 2; at 25 and 31, show a core piece 3 attached to a perimeter piece 2 at only the top edge). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Hawley (directed to a mattress with attached core and perimeter portions) and Goenka (directed to a detachable fastening along an overlapping edge) and Wu (directed to a core attached to perimeters at only a top edge) and arrived at a mattress with a core and perimeter detachably attached only at a top surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to allow for the detachment of and movement to various alternative positions as taught in Wu (Paragraphs 10-11).
Regarding claim 19, Hawley teaches the air chamber is connected to the perimeter rail structure via a seam of the air chamber at a top edge interface positioned along a top surface of the air chamber (Figure 4; 14 is the seam which is connected to the perimeter rail structure at 23/24 at the top edge interface (where 14 overlaps 23/24), see also Figure 5).
Regarding claim 21, Hawley does not teach the means for detachably connecting the air chamber and the perimeter rail structure comprises snaps, hook and loop, buttons, or zippers. Goenka teaches the means for detachably connecting the air chamber and the perimeter rail structure comprises snaps, hook and loop, buttons, or zippers (Figure 5; 82/84). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Hawley (directed to a mattress with attached core and perimeter portions) and Goenka (directed to a detachable fastening along an overlapping edge) and arrived at a mattress with a core and perimeter attached at a top surface, with a detachable fastener. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to allow for selective engagement and thus allow the user to selectably remove the two pieces (Goenka Column 6; lines 26-55).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORGAN J MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)270-0362. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesdays 12pm-10pm and Thursdays 12pm-10pm.
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 5712728525. 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.
/MORGAN J MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights