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 Amendment
The amendment filed06/20/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended, claims 9-10 have been withdrawn and claims 2, 5, 11, 14 have been cancelled. Therefore, claims 1, 3-4 6-8, 12-13 are now pending in the application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 6-8, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US – 2017/0335914 A1) and further in view of Larry K Demoss (WO – 2017/105454 A1).
As per claim 1, Thomas discloses Coil Spring With Non-Linear Loading Responses And Mattresses comprising:
a helical main body (10, Fig: 1-2) having a plurality of spring coils (21-26, Fig: 1-2); and
a pitch between adjacent spring coils increases gradually from one end of the main body to the other end of the main body ([0027], Fig: 1-2 showed that different pitch).
Thomas discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the main body has a free height H of 200-300 mm, and a wire diameter d of 1.8-2.2 mm; and
a minimum pitch H1 between the adjacent spring coils is 5-20 mm, a maximum pitch H2 between the adjacent spring coils is 60-80 mm, and an active coil number N of the spring coils is nine coils.
Larry discloses Coil-In-Coil Spring with Variable Loading Response And Mattress and further discloses coil-in-coil spring, the wire diameter ranges from about 0.072 inches (1.83 mm) to about 0.080 inches (2.03 mm) ([0007], Fig: 1), uncompressed, the outer coil has an uncompressed height of about 235 mm and the inner coil has an uncompressed height of about 175 mm ([0011], Fig: 1), and the pitch between each of the plurality of helical convolutions of the inner coil ranges from about 14 mm to about 28 mm. For example, in some embodiments, the pitch between the lower end of the coil-in-coil spring and the first helical convolution is about 22 mm; the pitch between the first helical convolution and the second helical convolution is about 28 mm; the pitch between the second helical convolution and the third helical convolution is about 25 mm; the pitch between the third helical convolution and the fourth helical convolution is about 23 mm; the pitch between the fourth helical convolution and the fifth helical convolution is about 21 mm; the pitch between the fifth helical convolution and the sixth helical convolution is about 18 mm; the pitch between the sixth helical convolution and the seventh helical convolution is about 16 mm; and the pitch between the seventh helical convolution and the eighth helical convolution is about 14 mm ([0009], Fig: 1).
Therefore, by teaching of Larry, it would have been obvious to equivalent structure (coil spring) well known in the art and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the spring with the main body has a free height H of 200-300 mm, and a wire diameter d of 1.8-2.2 mm; and a minimum pitch H1 between the adjacent spring coils is 5-20 mm, a maximum pitch H2 between the adjacent spring coils is 60-80 mm, and an active coil number N of the spring coils is nine coils, since Examiner take Official Notice of the equivalent to spring of Thomas as modified by Larry and spring of instant application for their use in the mattress art and the selection of any of these known equivalent to the spring coils, would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 3, Thomas as modified by Larry discloses all the structural element of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the spring coils each have a minimum outer diameter D1 of 40-60 mm, and a maximum outer diameter D2 of 60-80 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the spring with the spring coils each have a minimum outer diameter D1 of 40-60 mm, and a maximum outer diameter D2 of 60-80 mm., since Examiner take Official Notice of the equivalent to spring of Thomas as modified by Larry and spring of instant application for their use in the mattress art and the selection of any of these known equivalent to the spring coils each have a minimum outer diameter D1 of 40-60 mm, and a maximum outer diameter D2 of 60-80 mm, would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 4, Thomas discloses wherein the spring coil with the minimum outer diameter is the spring coil with a minimum pitch (upper portion 16, Fig: 1).
As per claim 6, Thomas discloses the plurality of the springs (Fig: 8) being arranged in a matrix structure (Fig: 8 is a cross-sectional view of an exemplary mattress made in accordance with the present invention, and showing a plurality of coil spring of FIG. 1 arrange in a matrix and enclosed within fabric pocket, [0023], Fig: 8); and
two inner cushion layers, where the plurality of the springs are kept in between the two inner cushion layers ([0045] – [0046], Fig: 8).
As per claim 7, Thomas discloses a plurality of positioning cloth pockets, wherein the plurality of the springs are inserted into the plurality of positioning cloth pockets in one-to-one correspondence ([0042] – [0046], Fig: 1-2, 8).
As per claim 8, Thomas as modified by Larry discloses all the structural element of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of the springs are arranged in 20-33 rows and 20-30 columns.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the plurality of the springs are arranged in 20-33 rows and 20-30 columns, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP – 2144.05, III. C.
As per claims 12 and 13, Thomas disclose the plurality of the springs being arranged in a matrix structure (FIG. 8 is a cross sectional view of an exemplary mattress made in accordance with the present invention, and showing a plurality of coil spring of FIG. 1 arranged in a matrix and enclosed within fabric pockets, [0023], Fig: 8); and
two inner cushion layers, where the plurality of the springs are kept in between the two inner cushion layers ([0045] – [0046], Fig: 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARK, filed 06/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-4 6-8, 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Thomas et al. (US – 2017/0335914 A1) and further in view of Larry K Demoss (WO – 2017/105454 A1).
Prior art reference discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention and teaching reference Larry disclose similar coil spring with closed dimension of instant application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN M AUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5792. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/SAN M AUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616