DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The Amendments filed October 17th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-8, and 11-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every 112b Rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 18th, 2025 and are hereby withdrawn in light of their correction.
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, 3-8, 14-18, and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (U.S. Pat. No. 3808616) in view of Poyer (U.S. Pat. No. 2480196) and Montesalvo (U.S. Pub. No. 20190376309).
Regarding claim 1, White discloses (FIGS. 1-8) a camping mattress (as illustrated in FIG. 1-8), said camping mattress comprising: a upper section (12; FIG. 1) for supporting an upper portion of a user, and a lower section (14/16; FIG. 1) for supporting a lower portion of the user; wherein the upper section is rotatable about an axis (Correspondent to 18; FIG. 2) such that, in use, the upper section can be rotated and reversibly fixed at one or more inclined positions relative to the lower section (as illustrated in FIG. 1 and 7); and wherein the camping mattress comprises {part of} a mechanism (correspondent the hinge of FIG. 2) attached to the upper section that, in use, facilitates the rotation and inclination of the upper section relative to the lower section (As illustrated between FIGS. 1-2, and 8).
However, White may not explicitly disclose wherein the upper section comprises a backboard attached to an underside of the upper section; wherein the backboard extends across the substantial majority of the underside or rear side of the upper section, and wherein the camping mattress comprises a mechanism attached to the upper section that, in use, facilitates the rotation and inclination of the upper section relative to the lower section, and the mechanism is attached to the backboard of the upper section.
Regardless, Poyer teaches (FIGS. 1-5), a camping like support mattress (Title: sun mattress) an upper section (correspondent 12; FIGS. 1-5), and a lower section (correspondent 10; FIGS. 1-3), where the upper section rotatable about an axis (As illustrated in FIG. 2), and wherein the upper section comprises a backboard (16; FIGS. 1-3), attached to an underside of the upper section (on the underside of upper section correspondent upper surface of 10 of inclined portion in FIG. 2); wherein the backboard extends across the substantial majority of the underside or rear side of the upper section (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-3, and clarified as “plywood or the like” in [1:35-37]) the camping mattress comprises a mechanism (24 and parts adjoint thereof; FIGS. 1-5) attached to the upper section (AS illustrated in FIGS. 1-3) that, in use, facilitates the rotation and inclination of the upper section relative to the lower section (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-2), and the mechanism is attached to the backboard of the upper section (As illustrated in FIGS. 3 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the backboard (and adjoint legs) of Poyer (18; as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3) into the assembly of White. Where the results would have been predictable as both White and Poyer are camping mattresses. And further advantageously due to the removable nature of the backboard in Poyer, the backboard could be used as a separable support surface in addition to a bed (such as a table or stand adjacent the mattress in bed form), thereby improving the versatility of the invention and amenities provided by White.
However, White still does not explicitly disclose a roof tent.
Regardless Montesalvo teaches (FIG. 1) a kit of parts (as conveyed through FIG. 1 as a plurality of parts provided for transit and assembly) and a roof tent (corresponding to 30/50; FIG. 1); used in tandem with a mattress.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated and combined the roof tent of Montesalvo (As illustrated in FIG. 1) with the mattress of White (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-8). Where the results would have been predictable as Montesalvo already considers use with a mattress (100; as illustrated in FIG. 1). Where the tent of Montesalvo would continue to avail the functions of sheltering the user on the roof of a vehicle within the tent housing structure, and the mattress of White would continue to operate as a mattress and support the user thereon. Where Montesalvo notes ([0110]) that its roof tent avails “The attachment of the fabric strap or cover 51 to the base 30 effectively provides a weatherproof seal between the fabric cover 51 and the base 30 of the deployable shelter structure 10. The cover 51 or as shown as the tent walls 51 and annexes 130, 140 are constructed from breathable fabric that is UV resistant and 100 percent waterproof.” Thereby providing improved accommodation to the user by mitigating weather and UV rays thereon.
Regarding claim 3, White in view of Poyer and Montesalvo discloses (White: FIGS. 1-8; Poyer: FIGS. 1-2) the kit of parts of Claim 1, wherein the mechanism is also attached to the lower section (White: the hinge part of the mechanism as illustrated in FIG. 2; and indirectly in FIG. 1-2 of Poyer)
Regarding claim 4, White in view of Poyer and Montesalvo discloses (White: FIGS. 1-8) the kit of parts of Claim 1, wherein the mechanism can be reversibly fixed in one or more positions such that the upper section can be reversibly positioned at one or more inclinations relative to the lower section. Where as illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 4 of White, a plurality of ball and detents are provided to avail a plurality of positions of inclinations relative to the lower section, and at a minimum Poyer avails at least two fixed positions within FIGS. 1-2 with a flat and right angle blocked position, and otherwise may fix at any number of positions in ordinary use.
Regarding claim 5, White in view of Poyer and Montesalvo discloses (White: FIGS. 1-8) the kit of parts of Claim 1, wherein the camping mattress comprises two mechanisms (White: 20/21; FIG. 1; Poyer: 24; FIG. 5) that are located on opposing sides or edges of the camping mattress (White: as illustrated in FIG. 2; Poyer: As illustrated in FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 6, White in view of Poyer and Montesalvo discloses (White: FIGS. 1-8) the kit of parts of Claim 1, wherein the mechanism comprises a hinge (White: 18; FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 7, White in view of Poyer and Montesalvo discloses (White: FIGS. 1-8; Poyer: FIGS. 1-5) the kit of parts of Claim 1, wherein the mechanism comprises a support member (20/21; FIG. 1 and 4; Poyer: 24; FIG. 1-5) for supporting the upper section in one or more inclined positions (As illustrated between FIGS. 1, 3, and 4).
Regarding claim 8, White in view of Poyer and Montesalvo discloses (White: FIGS. 1-8)the kit of parts of Claim 7, wherein the support member is arranged to be reversibly fixed in one or more different positions relative to the upper section such that the upper section is reversibly fixed in one or more inclined positions relative to the lower section. Where, as illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 4 of White, a plurality of ball and detents are provided to avail a plurality of positions of inclinations relative to the lower section; and at a minimum Poyer avails at least two fixed positions within FIGS. 1-2 with a flat and right angle blocked position, and otherwise may fix at any number of positions in ordinary use..
Regarding claim 14, White in view of Poyer and Montesalvo discloses (White: FIGS. 1-8; Poyer: FIGS. 1-2) the kit of parts of Claim 1, wherein the upper section and the lower section are integrally formed (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-4; Poyer: as illustrated in FIGS. 1-2).
Regarding claim 15, White in view of Poyer and Montesalvo discloses (White: FIGS. 1-8) the kit of parts of Claim 1, wherein the camping mattress comprises a thinner or weakened section (about hinge 18; FIG. 2) between the upper section and the lower section (as illustrated in FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 16, White in view of Poyer and Montesalvo discloses (White: FIGS. 1-8) the kit of parts of Claim 1, wherein the upper section is equal to in size or smaller than the lower section. Where eminently the upper section is about 1/2 the size of the lower section as illustrated in FIG. 1), discernably smaller in size.
Regarding claim 17, White in view of Poyer and Montesalvo discloses (White: FIGS. 1-8) the kit of parts of Claim 1, wherein the size of the upper section is greater than one-tenth of the camping mattress. Where eminently the size of the upper section is about 1/3 of the total length of the mattress as illustrated in FIG. 1. Such cushions prescribed to be “Approximately 2 feet in width, two feet in length” [4:5-27].
Regarding claim 18, White in view of Poyer and Montesalvo discloses (White: FIGS. 1-8) the kit of parts of Claim 1, the upper section can be rotated about a rotational axis (R) relative to the lower section by an angle in a range of 0 to 90 degrees. Where eminently in a use the upper section in White is eminently between 0 and 90 degrees of angle between the upper section and the lower section.
Regarding claim 20, White in view of Poyer and Montesalvo discloses (White: FIGS. 1-8) the kit of parts of Claim 1, wherein the camping mattress comprises foam. As illustrated in FIGS. 1-4, a foam material is clearly demonstrated, where FIG. 7 is expressed as being upon the water, floating, [1:59-64] further clarifies a foam material.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Poyer and Montesalvo in further view of Assink (U.S. Pub. No. 20090004452).
Regarding claim 11, White in view of Poyer and Montesalvo discloses the kit of parts of claim 1
However, White does not explicitly disclose wherein the upper section comprises one or more handles for rotating and inclining the upper section relative to the lower section.
Regardless, Assink teaches (FIGS. 4B-6) a mattress wherein the upper section comprises one or more handles (48; FIG. 4b/61; FIG. 6) for rotating and inclining the upper section relative to the lower section (As by lifting and carrying/orienting the individual thereon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the various handles of Assink into White. Where the results would have been predictable as both Assink and White are concerned with mats for hosting users thereon, and where additionally the incorporation of the handles would render the mattress into a stretcher in an emergency, thereby improving the utility of White.
Regarding claim 12, White in view of Poyer, Montesalvo and Assink discloses (Assink: FIGS. 4-6B) the kit of parts of Claim 11, wherein the one or more handles comprise loops of material (61; as illustrated in FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 13, White in view of Poyer, Montesalvo and Assink discloses (Assink: FIGS. 4-6B) the kit of parts of Claim 11, wherein the one or more handles comprise a cavity handle (48; FIG. 4b) located in the underside or rear side of the upper section and {a} backboard (As illustrated in FIGS. 4b).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Poyer and Montesalvo in further view of Torrez (U.S. Pub. No. 20040168257).
Regarding claim 19, White in view of Poyer and Montesalvo discloses (White: FIGS. 1-8) the kit of parts of claim 1; the upper section can be reversibly fixed at one or more inclined positions (as illustrated and conveyed through FIGS. 1-8)
However, White does not explicitly disclose wherein the angle between the upper section and the lower section is between 15 and 75 degrees.
Regardless, Torrez teaches (FIGS. 4) a mattress that specifically uses an angle of 15-30 degrees ([0065]: “raised between about 15 degrees and about 30 degrees”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the particular angle considerations of Torrez ([0065]) into White (As illustrated in FIG. 1-8), Where the results would have been predictable as both White and Torrez are concerned with beds that house individuals thereon. And where Torrez particularly notes “This range is desirable in preventing an infant or incapacitated person from regurgitating during sleep and from choking on regurgitated matter during sleep. When the head of an infant or incapacitated person is raised between about 15 degrees and about 30 degrees, gravity assists the digestive process and prevents regurgitation and a potential life-threatening choking hazard to the infant or incapacitated person.” [0065]. Whereby obviously the simple modification or incorporation of the angular range would assist the digestive process, prevent regurgitation during sleep and choking on said regurgitated matter during sleep and would overall improve the sleep quality of the individual thereby.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (page , filed October 17th, 2025, with respect to 112b Rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b Rejections of July 18th, 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pages 5-7), filed October 17th, 2025, with respect to 103 Rejections under White and Montesalvo (without Poyer) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 Rejections (excluding those with Rejected under White, Montesalvo, and Poyer) of July 18th, 2025 has been withdrawn.
Particularly, although Examiner considers that the ‘backboard’ of White may be on the underside, and the mechanism is indirectly attached therewith by its connection to the upper section cushion, for the sake of compacting the prosecution and keeping the record concise and clear Examiner respectfully adopts the more narrower interpretation of a more adjacent attachment. However, it is considered White in view of Montesalvo may under the broadest reasonable interpretation may be considered ‘attached’ properly to the backside; as indirectly through the cushion surface that is integral the frame, that is integral the underside, that is integral the hinge; and in keeping with the respective spirit of applicant’s term and application of “mechanism” is treated as a more arbitrary/nebulous multi-bodied or composite ‘mechanism’ that is a plurality of its parts as one to facilitate an operation/function. Again however in the interest of clarity and conciseness, Examiner withdraws the 103 Rejection of White with Montesalvo (as paired alone), and instead expounds on the 103 Rejection of White in view of Poyer and Montesalvo (previously established to be of analogous scope to the previous dependent claims).
It is respectfully however put forth for consideration that applicant does not explicitly claim that the attachment is “direct” in any capacity and appears to be left more broadly, and In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a more direct attachment) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments filed October 17th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Particularly, applicant alleges that White and Poyer fail to provide for a mattress with backboard (Poyer: 16) attached to the underside, because Poyer demonstrates the backboard ‘within the padded upper section and not attached to the underside of the upper section’. However, it is respectfully considered that Poyer avails both a topmost surface (cushion surface of 10) and the interior of the cavity to be such a cavity must possess its own underside surface therein (the top most surface of the cavity), and the backboard (16) is specifically both secured and therefore attached therewith (to act as support an anchor within the cavity and underside surface thereof) and extends across a substantial majority of the underside of the upper section; where consideration is taken of the fact Poyer respectfully more adjacently attaches the backboard with the mechanism and the underside of the upper section.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where particularly Montesalvo is not utilized for the body of the mattress but for the dwelling/housing the apparatus is used within.
Therefore, Examiner is not persuaded at the present time that White in view of Poyer and Montesalvo fails to anticipate the claimed invention and the claims remain rejected under 103 in view of White with Poyer and Montesalvo at a minimum.
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.
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673