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 .
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 following features must be shown or the canceled from the claims:
It is first noted wherein usage of the phrase “and/or” in a claim (e.g. element A and/or element B) requires support in the disclosure and drawings for three distinct embodiments: Element A alone, element B alone, and element A and B together. Using multiple “and/or”’s in a claim would result in requiring support for all of the possible configurations resulting from the “and/or”’s.
An embodiment where only the support surface has a plurality of elevations and an embodiment where only the rim surface has a plurality of elevations, as claim 1 contains the language “wherein the support surface and/or mattress rim surface has a plurality of elevations”. the Figures show both the support surface and mattress rim surface comprising elevations, not one or the other.
Embodiments which show only one or some of the elevations on the top or bottom surfaces of the topper and base mattresses of claim 14, but not all at the same time. Claim 14 states the mattress may have the elevations on the top “and/or” bottom surface of the topper “and/or” base mattresses. Figure 8 shows both the top and bottom surfaces of the topper and base mattresses having elevations, but no Figures show embodiments where the elevations of top surfaces and bottom surfaces of the topper and base mattresses are provided alternatively.
Embodiments where only one or some (not all) of the statements regarding the height of the elevations of claim 14 are true. Figure 8 shows the first height being larger than the second, third, and fourth height, and the third and fourth height being larger than the second height. However, no figure show embodiments where, for example, first height is larger than the third height but not larger than the second height, as claim 14 includes these embodiments by using “and/or”.
An embodiment where first or the third height being smaller than the second height, as discussed in claim 14.
No new matter should be entered. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 14 provides for an embodiment where the third and fourth heights are smaller than the second height. Page 8, lines 5-7 state that the second height is different from the third and/or fourth heights,” in particular, lower than” the third and/or fourth heights”. While “different” would imply the second height could be larger than the third and fourth height, the specification goes on to state that it is in “in particular lower” than the third and/or fourth height, suggesting “different” in this context would only mean “lower”.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, line 5, “the inner tip and the and the outer tip” should read “the inner tip and the outer tip”
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 4-8 and 12 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the following claims contain both a broad and narrow limitation in the same claim:
Claim 2 recites the broad limitation of the outer elevations having “a shape which differs from the inner elevation” and the narrow limitation “having, in particular, the shape of cones”
Claim 9 recites the broad limitation of the mattress being “at least partially covered with a mattress cover” and the narrow limitation “in particular in that the mattress cover covers the support surface”
Claim 14 recites the broad limitations of the elevations on the top side of the topper mattress having “in particular a first height”, the elevations on the bottom side of the topper mattress “in particular a second height”, the elevations on the top side of the base mattress having “in particular a third height” and the elevations on the bottom side of the base mattress having “in particular a fourth height”. Claim 14 also recites the narrow limitations of “in particular” the first height is larger than the third or fourth height, and the and third height and the fourth height being “different from the from the second height, in particular larger or smaller than the second height.”
The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language, which is preceded by the phrase “in particular” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 3, 10, and 11 are additionally rejected by virtue of their dependence from claims 2 and 9.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the inner elevations" in line 4 and “the outer elevations” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is assumed claim 4 was intended to depend from claim 2 which introduces the inner and outer elevations.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the outer elevations" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is assumed claim 5 was intended to depend from claim 2 which introduces the outer elevations. Claims 6-7 are additionally rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites “the rim distance (D4) is a maximum of 10%, preferably max. 60%, further preferably max. 50% of the base distance”. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the “preferable” features are (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the inner elevations" in line 4 and “the outer elevations” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is assumed claim 8 was intended to depend from claim 2 which introduces the inner and outer elevations.
In claim 12, line 4, it is unclear if the “rim elevations” being introduced are the same as or distinct from the any of the plurality of elevations which may be provided on the rim surface. For examination purposes, it is assumed the rim elevations of claim 12 may be the same as the elevations provided on the rim surface of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Awdhan (U.S. Patent No. 4,673,452).
Regarding claim 1, Awdhan teaches a mattress body 30 having a support surface 32 for supporting a user and a mattress rim surface (defined by the outer edge of the mattress extending downward from the top layer 32 to bottom layer 34, Figure 5) surrounding the mattress body 30 (Figure 5), wherein the support surface 32 and/or the mattress rim surface has a plurality of elevations 16 (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 2, Awdhan discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Awdhan further discloses wherein the support surface 32 has inner elevations 16 (defined by the elevations 16 positioned away from the outer edge of the mattress, Figure 5) and outer elevations 16 (defined by the elevations 16 positioned on the outer edge of the mattress, Figure 5) which adjoin the circumferential mattress rim surface (Figure 5), wherein the outer elevations 16 having a shape which differs from the inner elevations 16 (see Figure 5, where the elevations 16 which are positioned on the outer edge are cut down the center), wherein the inner elevations 16 having in particular the shape of cones (Figure 2-3 and 5).
Regarding claim 3, Awdhan discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 2. Awdhan further discloses wherein the outer elevations 16 (defined by the elevations 16 positioned on the outer edge of the mattress, Figure 5) each form the shape of a laterally truncated cone (see Figure 5, where the elevations 16 which are positioned on the outer edge are cut down the center).
Regarding claim 4, Awdhan discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 2. Awdhan further discloses wherein the inner elevations 16 (defined by the elevations 16 positioned away from the outer edge of the mattress, Figure 5) are each formed as cones (Figures 2-3 and 5).
Regarding claim 5, Awdhan discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 2. Awdhan further discloses wherein the outer elevations each have an outer tip (defined by the highest point of the outer elevations 16 positioned on the outer edge of the mattress 30) which are each arranged in such a way that, viewed in top view, a rim distance of the outer tip from the mattress rim surface is less than a base distance of the outer tip from a nearest base of the elevation 16 (Figure 5, where the rim distance of the outer elevations 16 of Awdhan would be zero as the outer tip of the outer elevations are positioned on the edge and the base distance would be equal to about half the width of the elevations 16).
Regarding claim 6, Awdhan discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1, 2, and 5. Awdhan further discloses wherein the rim distance is a minimum of 10% of the base distance and/or that the rim distance is a maximum of 80% of the base distance (Figure 5, where the rim distance of the outer elevations 16 of Awdhan would be zero as the outer tip of the outer elevations are positioned on the edge and the base distance would be equal to about half the width of the elevations 16, such that the rim distance is 0% of the base distance, below a maximum of 80%).
Regarding claim 8, Awdhan discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 2. Awdhan further discloses wherein the inner elevations 16 (defined by the elevations 16 positioned away from the outer edge of the mattress, Figure 5) each have an inner tip (defined by the highest point on each of the inner elevations 16, Figure 5) and in that the outer elevations (defined by the elevations 16 positioned on the outer edge of the mattress, Figure 5) each have an outer tip (defined by the highest point on each of the outer elevations 16, Figure 5), the inner tip and the and the outer tip having an identical first height starting from a base (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 13, Awdhan discloses a box spring arrangement (Figure 5) comprising a base mattress 34 and a topper mattress 32 and 36 (Figure 5), wherein a bottom side of the topper mattress 32 and 36 rests on a top side of the base mattress 34, wherein the base mattress and/or the topper mattress 32 and 36 is formed as a mattress according to claim 1 (see discussion of claim 1, above).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awdhan in view of Rothbard (U.S. Patent No. 5,327,597).
Regarding claim 7, Awdhan discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1, 2, and 5. Awdhan does not disclose wherein the rim distance is a minimum of 10% of the base distance and the rim distance is a maximum 10%, preferably max 60%, further preferably max 50% of the base distance.
Rothbard teaches wherein the rim distance (between the outermost peak 10 in a mattress comprising two proximate peaks, as shown in Figure 2, and the outer edge of the mattress defined at, approximately, the distance between the peak and the closest valley 0.5 inches-1.5 inches, Figures 2 and 6) is a minimum of 10% of the base distance (being defined by the distance between the outermost peak 10 and the distance to the nearest inner valley, which would be about equal to the sum of the distance between the peaks and the distance between the second peak and the valley, about 1-3 inches, making the rim distance 50% of the base distance, see Figures 2 and 6 and Col. 2, lines 16-36) where the distance between the and the rim distance is a maximum 10%, preferably max 60%, further preferably max 50% of the base distance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Awdhan with Rothbard (both being directed to a foam mattress comprising elevations) such that the rim distance is a minimum of 10% of the base distance and the rim distance is a maximum 10%, preferably max 60%, further preferably max 50% of the base distance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the configuration of Rothbard helps to increase air flow between the elevations in the mattress (Abstract).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awdhan in view of Yamada (U.S. Patent No. 4,276,666).
Regarding claim 9, Awdhan discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Awdhan does not disclose wherein the mattress is at least partially covered with a mattress cover in particular in that a mattress cover covers the support surface and is held with prestress around the mattress outer surface, and in that the mattress cover bears against the elevations in such a way that the mattress cover is held at least in sections at a distance from the mattress base body.
Yamada teaches wherein the mattress “a” is at least partially covered with a mattress cover “b” in particular in that the mattress cover “b” covers the support surface and is held with prestress around the mattress outer surface (Figure 3 and Col. 7, lined 37-63 where the cover “b” is held taut across the elevations), and in that the mattress cover bears against the elevations in such a way that the mattress cover is held at least in sections at a distance from the mattress base body surface 10(Figure 3 and Col. 7, lined 37-63 where the cover “b” is held taut across the elevations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Awdhan with Yamada (both being directed to a foam mattress comprising elevations) such that the mattress is at least partially covered with a mattress cover which covers the support surface, is held with prestress around the mattress outer surface, and bears against the elevations in such a way that the mattress cover is held at least in sections at a distance from the mattress base body. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the casing of Yamada protects the mattress from soiling while still allowing the elevations to press against a user’s body (Col. 7, lines 37-63).
Regarding claim 10, Awdhan, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 9. Awdhan, as modified, further discloses wherein a contact area is formed between an inner elevation and the mattress cover “b” (see Yamada, Figure 3 and Col. 7, lines 37-63 the contact area being defined by the area in which the cover “b” contacts the tip of the elevation). Awdhan, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein, in the unloaded state, the contact area being max 1 square centimeter.
However, it nevertheless would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select the size of the contact area to be a maximum of 1 square centimeter, as doing so would merely amount to a potential change in the size of the elevations that would not provide unexpected results. The cover of Yamada is shown covering the entire surface area of the mattress to provide protection to the mattress core (Col. 7, lines 37-63), but the cover of Yamada is not contiguous with the undulating surface of the mattress and has sections where it contacts the tips of the elevations and other sections between elevations where the cover is suspended over the mattress without making contact to provide for circulation and heat dissipation between the elevations (see Yamada, Col. 3, lines 12-26, Col. 7, line 46-50, and Figure 3). Applicant has not disclosed that having a contact area of a maximum of specifically one square centimeter solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well where the contact area between the cover and the elevations is larger than a square centimeter, or, generally, so long as the cover is not contiguous with the support surface of the mattress to allow for open areas between elevations. Overall, applicant has not established any criticality of the claimed contact area size, and thus selecting the claimed size would be an obvious matter of design choice. In this regard, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) are relevant.
Regarding claim 11, Awdhan, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 9. Awdhan, as modified, further discloses wherein a contact surface is formed between an inner elevation and the mattress cover “b” in the unloaded state (see Yamada, Figure 3 and Col. 7, lines 37-63 the contact surface being defined by the area in which the cover “b” contacts the tip of the elevation). Awdhan, as modified, does not disclose wherein, in the unloaded state, the sum of all contact surfaces in an inner support region amounting to max 1% of the inner support region.
However, it nevertheless would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select the size of the contact surfaces to be so the sum of all contact surfaces in an inner support region amounts to a maximum of 1% of the area of the inner support region, as doing so would merely amount to a potential change in the size of the elevations that would not provide unexpected results. The cover of Yamada is shown covering the entire surface area of the mattress to provide protection to the mattress core (Col. 7, lines 37-63), but the cover of Yamada is not contiguous with the undulating surface of the mattress and has sections where it contacts the tips of the elevations and other sections between elevations where the cover is suspended over the mattress without making contact to provide for circulation and heat dissipation between the elevations (see Yamada, Col. 3, lines 12-26, Col. 7, line 46-50, and Figure 3). Applicant has not disclosed that having the sum of all contact surfaces in an inner support region amounting to a specific maximum of 1% of the area of the inner support region solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well where the sum of the contact surfaces amounts is larger than 1%, such as a maximum of 5% (such as discussed in Applicant’s specification, Page 8, lines 23-25), for example, or, generally, so long as the cover is not contiguous with the support surface of the mattress to allow for open areas between elevations. Overall, applicant has not established any criticality of the claimed contact area size, and thus selecting the claimed size would be an obvious matter of design choice. In this regard, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) are relevant.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awdhan in view of Davidson (U.S. Patent No. 5,160,785).
Regarding claim 12, Awdhan discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Awdhan does not explicitly disclose that the mattress rim surface has a plurality of rim elevations, the rim elevations having, in particular, a fifth height.
Davidson teaches the mattress rim surface has a plurality of rim elevations 32, the rim elevations 32 having, in particular, a fifth height (Figures 4 and 6 and Col. 4, line 67-Col. 5, line 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Awdhan with Davidson (both being directed to a foam mattress comprising elevations) such that the mattress rim surface has a plurality of rim elevations having a fifth height. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the elevations on the rim surface of Davidson allow for the elevations on the support surface to act more independently from each other while providing additional structural integrity to the mattress by increasing the volume on the sides (Col. 4, line 67-Col. 5, line 23).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awdhan in view of Schwartz (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0365117).
Regarding claim 14, Awdhan discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 13. Awdhan further discloses wherein a top side 32 of the topper mattress 32 and 36 has elevations 16, the elevations being a particular first height (Figures 2 and 5) and/or a bottom side of the topper mattress has elevations having in particular a second height, and/or a top side of the base mattress has elevations having in particular a third height and/or a bottom side of the base mattress 34 has elevations 16 having in particular a second height (Figures 2 and 5).
Awdhan does not explicitly disclose wherein in particular the first height is larger than the third height or the fourth height and/or the first height is larger than the second height and/or the third height and the fourth height are different from the second height, in particular larger or smaller than the second height.
Schwartz (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0365117) teaches wherein in particular the first height is larger than the third height or the fourth height and/or the first height is larger than the second height and/or the third height and the fourth height are different from the second height, in particular larger or smaller than the second height (paragraph 0044-0045, where the height of the ridges 302 and 304, which may define any of the four above listed heights, may have different dimensions and paragraph 0026, where the top and bottom layers 102a and 102b may have different heights).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Awdhan with Schwartz (both being directed to a foam mattress comprising elevations) such that the first height is larger than the third height or the fourth height and/or the first height is larger than the second height and/or the third height and the fourth height are different from the second height. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the different dimensions of the elevations would allow for the elevations to depress substantially evenly no matter which part of the body overlies it or which material the layer is made from (paragraph 0045).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references each disclose a mattress comprising elevations on the support surface.
Kraft (U.S. Patent No. 4,999,868)
Robinson (U.S. Patent No. 6,782,575)
Yamaguchi (U.S. Patent No. 4,924,542)
Robrecht (U.S. Patent No. 6,272,707)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISON N LABARGE whose telephone number is (571)272-6098. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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.
/ALISON N LABARGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679