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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, line 4, “poly urethane” should read “polyurethane”
In claim 4, line 4, “poly urthan” should read “polyurethane”
In claim 14, line 4, “Wherein” (currently written with a capital W) should read “wherein”.
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 1-17 are 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.
In claim 1, lines 31-32 it is not clear how the third layer can be disposed between the first layer and itself. For examination purposes, it is assumed “the third layer” was intended to read “the second layer”. Claims 2-17 are additionally rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
In claim 1, lines 37-39, it appears the claim language of “H3 is selected to enable the mattress to be compressed…” encompasses a method. A claim which contains both a product and method steps is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as it is not clear whether infringement occurs when creating a product (i.e. when selecting an appropriate H3 for the third layer such that the mattress may be compressed or rolled) or when a final product is actually created (i.e. when a mattress having a height H3 which is capable of being compressed and rolled in the claimed manner is created, regardless of whether H3 was selected for that purpose or not). In this regard, MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) is relevant. Examiner recommends the language “H3 is configured to enable the mattress to be compressed…”. Claims 2-17 are additionally rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
In claim 1, lines 38-39, the term “common carrier” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “common carrier” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification (paragraph 0008) notes that “major delivery services” such as UPS or FedEx are capable of shipping compressed and rolled mattresses in cardboard boxes, although the specification does not explicitly define “major delivery services” as common carriers nor does the specification provide an exhaustive list of “major delivery services”. Mattresses are also commonly shipped from mattress retailers directly, whether rolled and compressed in a cardboard box or not. Therefore, mattress retailers may reasonably be considered a common carrier as well, but there would likely be substantial differences in the requirements to ship a mattress through retailers, who can ship unrolled, uncompressed mattresses, and “major delivery services” such as UPS and FedEx which serve a more general customer base and may have restrictions or incur additional costs related to the dimensions of a package. As such, the term “common carrier” is considered indefinite. Claims 2-17 are additionally rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "IFDT2" in lines 10 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is assumed “IFDT1” in line 9 was intended to read "IFDT2". Claims 5-17 are additionally rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 4.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jewett (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0344045) in view of Mossbeck (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0166076) and further in view of (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0141233).
Regarding claim 1, Jewett (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0344045) discloses a flippable mattress 10b extending along a length between a first end and a second end (Figure 1B), the mattress 10b having a first side (defined by the layers 14 and 16 positioned above the spring layer 17 in Figure 1B) configured for supporting a person and presenting a first firmness to the person when the first side is facing in an up direction (where firmness is an inherent property the first side foam layers 14 and 16 would have, Figure 1B, , the first firmness being defined by the firmness of the lower layers 14 and 16 defining the first side) and the mattress 10b defining a second side (defined by the layers 14 and 16 positioned below the spring layer 17 in Figure 1B) configured for supporting a person, the second side being opposed to and parallel to the first side (Figure 1B), the second side presenting a second firmness to the person when the second side is in the up direction (where firmness is an inherent property the first side foam layers 14 and 16 would have, Figure 1B, the second firmness being defined by the firmness of the lower layers 14 and 16 defining the second side), the mattress being flippable about an axis extending between the first end and the second so as to present either the first side facing the up direction or the second side facing the up direction when the mattress 10b is resting on a flat surface (paragraph 0054, where the mattress 10b is a double-sided mattress), the mattress 10b comprising: a first layer 16 (defined by the layer 16 positioned above the spring layer 17, Figure 1B) extending between the first end of the mattress 10b and the second end of the mattress 10b (Figure 1B), the first layer 16 having a uniform height H1 in a direction perpendicular to the length of the mattress 10b (Figure 1B), the first layer 16 having a uniform indentation force deflection IFD1 in a direction perpendicular to the length of the mattress (where IFD is an inherent property the first foam layer 16 would have, Figure 1B and paragraph 0050); a second layer 16 (defined by the layer 16 positioned below the spring layer 17, Figure 1B) extending between the first end of the mattress 10b and the second end of the mattress 10b (Figure 1b), the second layer 16 having a uniform height H2 in a distance perpendicular to the length of the mattress 10b (Figure 1B), the second layer having a uniform indentation force deflection IFD2 in a direction perpendicular to the length of the mattress 10b (where IFD is an inherent property the first foam layer 16 would have, Figure 1B and paragraph 0050); a third layer 17 extending between the first end of the mattress 10b and the second end of the mattress 10b, the third layer 17 defining a top surface and a bottom surface (Figure 1B), the third layer 17 comprising a plurality of individually wrapped coils 28 (Figure 1B and paragraph 0052-0053), each of the individually wrapped coils 28 extending between the bottom surface of the third layer 17 and the top surface of the third layer 17 (Figure 1B), the third layer 17 having a uniform height H3 (Figure 1B and paragraph 0068), a side surface of each of the wrapped coils 28 being adhered to a side surface of an adjacent coil 28 so as to form a continuous layer having a uniform height being H3 (paragraph 0074), the third layer 17 being disposed between the first layer 16 and the third layer 16 (Figure 1B); each of the first layer 16, the second layer 16, and the third layer 17 being fixed in position relative to each other (Figure 1B); a cover 20 defining a volume for receiving the first layer 16, the second layer 16, and the third layer 17 (Figure 1B).
Jewett does not disclose the first and second layers comprising copper-infused memory foam, the second layer having a uniform indentation force deflection IFD2 in a direction perpendicular to the length of the mattress; wherein H3 is selected to enable the mattress to be compressed and rolled and packaged into a carboard box that can be shipped by a common carrier.
Mossbeck (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0166076) teaches wherein H3 is selected to enable the mattress 10 to be compressed and rolled and packaged into a carboard box that can be shipped by a common carrier (paragraph 0005 and 0009).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Jewett, as modified, in view of Carlitz (both being directed to a layered, pocketed spring mattress) such that H3 is selected to enable the mattress to be compressed and rolled and packaged into a carboard box that can be shipped by a common carrier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because rolling the mattress allows it to be more easily transported (paragraphs 0005 and 0009).
Additionally, Crawford (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0141233) teaches copper-infused memory foam (paragraphs 0008, 0050)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Jewett, as modified, (directed to a layered, pocketed spring mattress) with Crawford (directed to a memory foam mattress) such that the first and second layers comprise copper-infused memory foam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the copper infused open-celled viscoelastic polyurethane (memory) foam of Crawford improves the thermal conductivity of a mattress, which helps to maintain a more comfortable temperature for a user (Figure 1 and paragraphs 0003, 0008, 0050, and 0069).
Regarding claim 2, Jewett, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Jewett, as modified, further discloses wherein H3 is six inches or less (see Jewett, paragraph 0074, where the coil springs 38 can be six inches tall).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jewett in view of Mossbeck and Crawford and further in view of Kemper (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0058541).
Regarding claim 3, Jewett, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1-2. Jewett, as modified, further discloses a first transitional layer 14 extending between the first end of the mattress 10b and the second end of the mattress 10b (see Jewett, Figure 1b, the first transitional layer 14 being defined by the layer 14 positioned above the spring layer 17), the first transitional layer comprising open cell poly urethane foam (see Crawford, Figure 1 and paragraphs 0003, 0008, 0050, and 0069); the first transitional layer 14 having a uniform height HT1 in a distance perpendicular to the length of the mattress 10b; the first transitional layer 14 being disposed between the first layer 16 and the third layer 17 and being fixed relative thereto (see Jewett, Figure 1B); the first transitional layer 14 having a uniform indentation force deflection IFDT1 in a direction perpendicular to the length of the mattress (see Jewett, Figure 1B, where IFD is an inherent property of foam).
Jewett, as modified, does not disclose wherein the first transitional layer comprising open cell poly urethane foam, wherein IFDT1 is greater than IFD1; wherein IFDT1 is greater than IFD2.
Kemper (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0058541) teaches a first transitional layer 124 having a uniform indentation force deflection IFDT1 in a direction perpendicular to the length of the mattress (Figure 2 and paragraph 0042) wherein IFDT1 (of layer 124) is greater than IFD1 (of upper layer 126) and IFD2 (of lower layer 126, Figure 2 and paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Jewett, as modified, with Kemper (both being directed to a layered mattress assembly) such that IFDT1 is greater than IFD1 and IFD2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the lower IFD of the exterior layers minimizes pressure points against a user’s skin while the higher IFD of the interior layers provides support to a user’s joints (paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 4, Jewett, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1-3. Jewett, as modified, further discloses a second transitional layer 14 extending between the first end of the mattress 10b and the second end of the mattress 10b (see Jewett, Figure 1b, the second transitional layer 14 being defined by the layer 14 positioned below the spring layer 17), the second transitional layer comprising open cell poly urethane foam (see Crawford, Figure 1 and paragraphs 0003, 0008, 0050, and 0069); the second transitional layer 14 having a uniform height HT1 in a distance perpendicular to the length of the mattress 10b; the second transitional layer 14 being disposed between the second layer 16 and the third layer 17 and being fixed relative thereto (see Jewett, Figure 1B); the second transitional layer 14 having a uniform indentation force deflection IFDT1 in a direction perpendicular to the length of the mattress (see Jewett, Figure 1B, where IFD is an inherent property of foam).
Jewett, as modified, does not disclose wherein the first transitional layer comprising open cell poly urethane foam, wherein IFDT1 is greater than IFD1; wherein IFDT1 is greater than IFD2.
Kemper (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0058541) teaches a second transitional layer 124 having a uniform indentation force deflection IFDT2 in a direction perpendicular to the length of the mattress (Figure 2 and paragraph 0042) wherein IFDT2 (of layer 124) is greater than IFD1 (of upper layer 126) and IFD2 (of lower layer 126, Figure 2 and paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Jewett, as modified, with Kemper (both being directed to a layered mattress assembly) such that IFDT1 is greater than IFD1 and IFD2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the lower IFD of the exterior layers minimizes pressure points against a user’s skin while the higher IFD of the interior layers provides support to a user’s joints (paragraph 0008).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, Jewett, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1-4. Jewett, as modified, does not disclose wherein the first firmness presented to the person on the first side when the first side is in the up direction is different than the second firmness presented to the person on the second side when the second side is in the up direction.
Carlitz (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0325597) is cited as being of interest for teaching the first side 110 and 102 presenting a first firmness to the person when the first side 110 and 102 is facing in an up direction (paragraph 0020), the second side 108 and 112 presenting a second firmness to the person when the second side is in the up direction (paragraph 0020 and Figures 1-2), wherein the first firmness presented to the person on the first side when the first side 110 and 102 is in the up direction is different than the second firmness presented to the person on the second side 108 and 112 when the second side is in the up direction (paragraph 0020 and Figures 1-2).
However, double-sided mattresses, such as those discussed by Jewett and Kemper are typically provided in order to extend the life of a mattress by allowing a mattress to be flipped to a second, identical side when the top layers of the first side have worn down from use. With reference to the embodiments of Kemper in particular, one embodiment has top and bottom layers with the same or similar support characteristics (paragraph 0056-0057), and would therefore not provide the required, different first and second firmnesses. Another, seemingly non-reversible embodiment has layers with IFDs that decrease, generally progressing with lower IFDs on the top to the highest IFDs on the bottom. While this embodiment would produce a mattress with different first and second firmnesses as required by the claims, both transitional layers (defined by any two of the intermediate layers between an uppermost layer and a bottommost layer) would necessarily have a lower IFD than the bottommost layer, such that IFDT1 and IFDT2 could not be greater than IFD2 as required by claims 3-4. As such, there is no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion in the prior art of record such that a prior art rejection of claim 5 may be reasonably maintained. Claims 6-17 would additionally be allowable by virtue of their dependence from claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0042338) which discloses a mattress comprising springs which can be rolled for storage or transport.
The following prior art discloses a reversible mattress comprising a first side with a first firmness and a second side with a second, different firmness:
O’Connell (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0224126)
Romero (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0059776)
Schwartz (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0365117)
McLeod (U.S. Patent No. 4,476,594)
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