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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11, 15, and 17-18 have been amended. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 9/22/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC 112 rejections detailed in the Final Rejection filed on 7/21/2025 have been withdrawn in light of the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 9/22/2025.
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 1-6, 9-10 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (US 20210251393 A1) in view of Fujita (US 20110148175 A1), further in view of Ishida (US 20040265588 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Harris discloses a multi-layer cushion (10), comprising: a cover (80); a micro-adjustable layer (60); an air cell (40) beneath the micro-adjustable layer (See Fig. 1, pressurizable layer 40 is below top layer 60); and a lower support layer (20) beneath the air cell (See Fig. 1, base layer 20 is beneath pressurizable layer 40) and conformable to a surface upon which the multi-layer cushion is placed (“readily compressible foam material”; [0042]), at least one of the micro-adjustable layer and the lower support layer including a breathable chamber (“base layer 20 may be a cushioning element that comprises a plurality of resiliently compressible walls”; [0042], resilient compressible foam such as an open-cell foam is breathable), the air cell at least partially isolating a conformability of the lower support layer from a conformability of the micro-adjustable layer (See Fig. 1, base layer 20 and top layer 60 are partially isolated from each other with intermediate layer 50, pressurizable layer 40 and base cushion 25 in between both elements) and spreading the force of the body part across the lower support layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
362
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Harris fails to explicitly disclose foam beads that flow when uncompressed, and the force of the body part increasing a coefficient of friction between the foam beads.
However, Fujita teaches foam beads (expanded bead body 10a, “applying a bead method to resin containing… polyethylene is used”; [0035], once the resin is cured the beads are dry) and the force of the body part increasing a coefficient of friction between the foam beads (See Fig. 12-14, as the foam beads are compressed and the force is increased, the material rate of displacement begins to decrease and the material becomes more rigid due to the increased friction between beads).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Harris by adding the compressible beads taught by Fujita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to be “suitable as a cushioning member utilizing an elastic recovering force in a bending direction and a thickness direction”; (Fujita, [Abstract]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Harris in view of Fujita fails to explicitly teach foam beads that flow when uncompressed.
However, Ishida teaches foam beads that flow when uncompressed (“beads are made easily flowable”; [0018]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Harris in view of Fujita by adding the flowable beads taught by Ishida. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “provide a cushioning body”; (Ishida, [0018]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, Harris, as modified, teaches the multi-layer cushion of claim 1, wherein the other of the micro-adjustable layer (60) and the lower support layer comprises a bladder carrying lubricated microspheres (“pliable bladder that contains a plurality of cushioning elements within a flowable lubricant”; [0051]).
Regarding Claim 3, Harris, as modified, teaches the multi-layer cushion of claim 1, wherein the lower support layer (20) includes the breathable chamber (“base layer 20 may be a cushioning element that comprises a plurality of resiliently compressible walls”; [0042], resilient compressible foam such as an open-cell foam is breathable).
Harris fails to explicitly teach foam beads and forces the foam beads together to increase a rigidity of substantially all of the lower support layer.
However, Fujita teaches foam beads (expanded bead body 10a, “applying a bead method to resin containing… polyethylene is used”; [0035], once the resin is cured the beads are dry) and the forces the foam beads together to increase a rigidity of substantially all of the lower support layer (See Fig. 12-14, as the foam beads are compressed and the force is increased, the material becomes more rigid due to the increased friction between beads).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Harris by adding the compressible beads taught by Fujita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to be “suitable as a cushioning member utilizing an elastic recovering force in a bending direction and a thickness direction”; (Fujita, [Abstract]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 4, Harris, as modified, teaches the multi-layer cushion of claim 3, wherein the micro-adjustable layer (60) also includes a breathable chamber (“top layer 60 may comprise a cushioning element with a plurality of resiliently compressible walls”; [0050], resilient compressible foam such as an open-cell foam is breathable).
Harris fails to explicitly teach foam beads.
However, Fujita teaches foam beads (expanded bead body 10a, “applying a bead method to resin containing… polyethylene is used”; [0035], once the resin is cured the beads are dry).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Harris by adding the compressible beads taught by Fujita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to be “suitable as a cushioning member utilizing an elastic recovering force in a bending direction and a thickness direction”; (Fujita, [Abstract]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Harris in view of Fujita fails to explicitly teach foam beads that flow when uncompressed.
However, Ishida teaches foam beads that flow when uncompressed (“beads are made easily flowable”; [0018]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Harris in view of Fujita by adding the flowable beads taught by Ishida. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “provide a cushioning body”; (Ishida, [0018]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 5, Harris, as modified, teaches the multi-layer cushion of claim 4, wherein a density of the micro-adjustable layer (“top layer 60 may have an ILD rating of about 12 to 16.5”; [0049]) differs from a density of the lower support layer (“nominal density of about 2.0 lb/ft3 and an ILD rating of 50-55; [0041]).
Harris fails to explicitly teach foam beads.
However, Fujita teaches foam beads (expanded bead body 10a, “applying a bead method to resin containing… polyethylene is used”; [0035], once the resin is cured the beads are dry).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Harris by adding the compressible beads taught by Fujita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to be “suitable as a cushioning member utilizing an elastic recovering force in a bending direction and a thickness direction”; (Fujita, [Abstract]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 6, Harris, as modified, teaches the multi-layer cushion of claim 5, wherein the density of the micro-adjustable layer (“top layer 60 may have an ILD rating of about 12 to 16.5”; [0049]) is less than the density of the lower support layer (“nominal density of about 2.0 lb/ft3 and an ILD rating of 50-55; [0041]). Indentation Load Deflection (ILD) ratings are directly correlated to material density. A higher ILD results in a higher density.
Harris fails to explicitly teach foam beads.
However, Fujita teaches foam beads (expanded bead body 10a, “applying a bead method to resin containing… polyethylene is used”; [0035], once the resin is cured the beads are dry).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Harris by adding the compressible beads taught by Fujita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to be “suitable as a cushioning member utilizing an elastic recovering force in a bending direction and a thickness direction”; (Fujita, [Abstract]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 9, Harris, as modified, teaches the multi-layer cushion of claim 1.
Harris fails to explicitly teach the foam beads comprise expanded polyethylene beads.
However, Fujita teaches the foam beads comprise expanded polyethylene beads (expanded bead body 10a, “applying a bead method to resin containing… polyethylene is used”; [0035], once the resin is cured the beads are dry).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Harris by adding the compressible polyethylene beads taught by Fujita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to be “suitable as a cushioning member utilizing an elastic recovering force in a bending direction and a thickness direction”; (Fujita, [Abstract]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 10, Harris, as modified, teaches the multi-layer cushion of claim 1, wherein the micro-adjustable layer (60) is positioned between but remains detached from the cover (“foundation 70 may also extend around… top layer 60”; [0052]) and the air cell (“intermediate layer 50 of the composite mattress 10 may be positioned over the pressurizable layer 40”; [0048]).
Regarding Claim 17, Harris discloses a multi-layer cushion (10), comprising: an outer shell (80); a first side (20) including a breathable chamber; the first side conformable to an object placed thereagainst (“compressible foam material”; [0041]) and a second side (60) opposite from the first side and comprising a pliable bladder containing lubricated microspheres (“pliable bladder that contains a plurality of cushioning elements within a flowable lubricant”; [0051]).
Harris fails to explicitly teach foam beads, the foam beads flowable to enable the first side to conform to an object placed thereagainst, force of the object on the foam beads increasing a coefficient of friction between foam beads and increasing a rigidity of a portion of the first side against which the object is placed.
However, Fujita teaches foam beads (expanded bead body 10a, “applying a bead method to resin containing… polyethylene is used”; [0035], once the resin is cured the beads are dry), force of the object on the foam beads increasing a coefficient of friction between foam beads (See Fig. 12-14, as the foam beads are compressed and the force is increased, the material rate of displacement begins to decrease and the material becomes more rigid due to the increased friction between beads) and increasing a rigidity of a portion of the first side against which the object is placed (See Fig. 12-14, as the foam beads are compressed and the force is increased, the material becomes more rigid due to the increased friction between beads).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Harris by adding the compressible beads taught by Fujita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to be “suitable as a cushioning member utilizing an elastic recovering force in a bending direction and a thickness direction”; (Fujita, [Abstract]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Harris in view of Fujita fails to explicitly teach the foam beads flowable to enable the first side to conform to an object placed thereagainst.
However, Ishida teaches the foam beads flowable to enable the first side to conform to an object placed thereagainst (“beads are made easily flowable”; [0018]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Harris in view of Fujita by adding the flowable beads taught by Ishida. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “provide a cushioning body”; (Ishida, [0018]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 18, Harris, as modified, teaches the multi-layer cushion of claim 17.
Harris fails to explicitly teach the foam beads comprise polyethylene beads.
However, Fujita teaches the foam beads comprise polyethylene beads (expanded bead body 10a, “applying a bead method to resin containing… polyethylene is used”; [0035], once the resin is cured the beads are dry).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Harris by adding the compressible polyethylene beads taught by Fujita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to be “suitable as a cushioning member utilizing an elastic recovering force in a bending direction and a thickness direction”; (Fujita, [Abstract]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 19, Harris, as modified, teaches the multi-layer cushion of claim 18, wherein the lubricated microspheres comprise microspheres dispersed throughout a lubricant. (“pliable bladder that contains a plurality of cushioning elements within a flowable lubricant”; [0051]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (US 20210251393 A1) in view of Fujita (US 20110148175 A1) in view of Ishida (US 20040265588 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Woolfson (US 20020040502 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Harris, as modified, teaches the multi-layer cushion of claim 1.
Harris in view of Fujita in view of Ishida fails to explicitly teach wherein the cover comprises an antimicrobial filter.
However, Woolfson teaches the multi-layer cushion of claim 1, wherein the cover (2) comprises an antimicrobial filter (5, “filter 5, which prevents ingress of bacteria into the cover 2”; [0030]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Harris in view of Fujita in view of Ishida by adding the antimicrobial filter taught by Woolfson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent the “ingress of bacteria into the cover”; (Woolfson, [0030]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (US 20210251393 A1) in view of Fujita (US 20110148175 A1) in view of Ishida (US 20040265588 A1), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of DeFranks (US 11202515 B2).
Regarding Claim 20, Harris, as modified, teaches the multi-layer cushion of claim 19.
Harris in view of Fujita in view of Ishida fails to explicitly teach an air chamber superimposed between but uncoupled from the first side and the second side.
However, DeFranks teaches an air chamber superimposed between but uncoupled from the first side and the second side (See Fig. 1, air bladders 30 are superimposed between the sides of side rail assembly 22, but “the plurality of air bladders 30 can be independent…of the bedding system”; [Col. 4, Lines 42-44]).
PNG
media_image2.png
784
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Harris in view of Fujita in view of Ishida by adding the superimposed but uncoupled air chamber taught by DeFranks. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 21, Harris, as modified, teaches the multi-layer cushion of claim 20.
Harris in view of Fujita in view of Ishida fails to explicitly teach the air chamber has smaller lateral dimensions than the first side and the second side.
However, DeFranks teaches the air chamber has smaller lateral dimensions than the first side and the second side (See Fig. 1, air bladders 30 having a smaller later dimension than the sides of the bedding system 10).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Harris in view of Fujita in view of Ishida by modifying the size of the air chamber as taught by DeFranks. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramp (US 20110252568 A1) in view of Shiao (US 20070294832 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Ramp discloses a positioner (100 body support system) for placement beneath a chest of a subject while the subject is in a prone position to assist a subject in breathing, comprising: a first cushion (110 lift cushion) having a first width and a first height (See Fig. 7 for dimensions); a second cushion (105 chest support) adjacent to and superimposed with the first cushion (See Fig. 2, superimposed cushions) and having a second width and a second height (See Fig. 7 for dimensions and positioning); and a third cushion (110 lift cushion) adjacent to and superimposed with the second cushion (See Fig. 2, superimposed cushions), on an opposite side of the second cushion from the first cushion, and having a third width and a third height, the second width being less than the first width and the third width (See Fig. 7 for dimensions and positioning, second width is less than the first width and the third width.).
PNG
media_image3.png
582
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
436
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ramp fails to explicitly disclose the second height being less than the first height and the third height.
However, Shiao teaches the second height being less than the first height and the third height (See Fig. 8, cushion 711 has a lesser height than pad 712 and bladder 710).
PNG
media_image5.png
272
364
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Harris by modifying the heights of the cushions as taught by Shiao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “multistage shock-absorbing”; (Shiao, [0036]. All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 12, Ramp, as modified, teaches the positioner of claim 11, wherein each of the first cushion, the second cushion, and the third cushion comprises an air chamber (“component material may also comprise air”; [0044]).
Regarding Claim 13, Ramp, as modified, teaches the positioner of claim 11, wherein each of the first cushion and the third cushion comprises a pliable, breathable chamber containing a compressible, conformable medium (“component material may also comprise air and/or a discrete gas such as nitrogen in an inflatable support”; [0044]).
Regarding Claim 14, Ramp, as modified, teaches the positioner of claim 13, wherein the second cushion comprises an air chamber (“component material may also comprise air”; [0044]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramp (US 20110252568 A1) in view of Shiao (US 20070294832 A1), as applied to Claim 13 above, further in view of Ishida (US 20040265588 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Ramp, as modified, teaches the positioner of claim 13, wherein force of a body part of the subject against the compressible, conformable medium compresses the compressible conformable medium and increases a rigidity of the first cushion and/or the third cushion (“component material may comprise foam”; [0044], any material such as compressible foam will have an increased rigidity when subjected to any force. The rigidity of the first cushion and third cushion are increased when subjected to a force of a body part.).
Ramp in view of Shiao fails to explicitly teach the compressible medium flows when uncompressed.
However, Ishida teaches the compressible medium flows when uncompressed (“beads are made easily flowable”; [0018]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Harris in view of Shiao by adding the flowable compressible medium taught by Ishida. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “provide a cushioning body”; (Ishida, [0018]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramp (US 20110252568 A1) in view of Shiao (US 20070294832 A1), as applied to Claim 11 above, further in view of Woolfson (US 20020040502 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Ramp, as modified, teaches the positioner of claim 11.
Ramp in view of Shiao fails to explicitly teach the at least one breathable chamber comprises a filter.
However, Woolfson teaches the at least one breathable chamber comprises a filter (5, “filter 5, which prevents ingress of bacteria into the cover 2”; [0030]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ramp in view of Shiao by adding the filter taught by Woolfson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent the “ingress of bacteria”; (Woolfson, [0030]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
“Since Harris in view of Fujita does not teach or suggest a breathable chamber that carries foam beads that flow when uncompressed or that a coefficient of friction between foam beads increases as pressure is applied to them, it is respectfully submitted that the teaching of Harris and Fujita, as combined by the Office, cannot be relied upon to establish a prima facie case of obviousness against claim 1, claim 17, or any of their dependent claims.”
“Claim 3 is further allowable because Harris and Fujita do not teach or suggest a cushion with a lower support layer that comprises a breathable chamber carrying foam beads and that the force of a body part on the micro-adjustable layer and air cell forces the foam beads together to increase a rigidity of substantially all of the lower support layer.”
Arguments regarding density of the foam bead layers:
“Claim 5, which depends from claim 4, is further allowable because Harris and Fujita do not expressly or inherently describe a multi-layer cushion in which a density of foam beads of a micro-adjustable layer differs from a density of foam beads of a lower support layer.”
“Claim 6, which depends from claim 5, is further allowable because Harris and Fujita do not expressly or inherently describe a multi-layer cushion in which the density of the foam beads of the micro-adjustable layer is less than the density of foam beads of the lower support layer.”
“Claim 15 is further allowable because neither Ramp nor Harris teaches or suggests a positioner with a first layer or a third layer comprising a compressible, conformable medium that flows when uncompressed and, under force of a body part of a subject against the compressible, conformable medium, compresses, to increase a rigidity of the first cushion and/or the third cushion.”
Examiner’s Response:
In response to the applicant’s arguments regarding the failed teachings of Harris in view of Fujita, specifically Claims 1 and 17 and the limitation of “a coefficient of friction between foam beads increases as pressure is applied to them”, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, Harris in view of Fujita does teach the argued limitation of the increased coefficient of friction when pressure is applied (See Fig. 12-14, as the foam beads are compressed and the force is increased, the material rate of displacement begins to decrease and the material becomes more rigid due to the increased friction between beads). Therefore, the 103 claim rejections of claims 1 and 17 are respectfully maintained.
In response to the applicant’s arguments regarding the failed teachings of Harris in view of Fujita, specifically Claim 3 and the limitation of “the force of a body part on the micro-adjustable layer and air cell forces the foam beads together to increase a rigidity of substantially all of the lower support layer”, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, Harris in view of Fujita does teach the argued limitation of the increased rigidity of the support layer (See Fig. 12-14, as the foam beads are compressed and the force is increased, the material becomes more rigid due to the increased friction between beads). Therefore, the 103 claim rejection of Claim 3 is respectfully maintained.
In response to the applicant’s arguments regarding the failed teachings of Harris in view of Fujita, specifically Claims 5 and 6 and the limitations pertaining to the densities of the foam bead layers, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion. The top layer of Harris has a different a lower density (“top layer 60 may have an ILD rating of about 12 to 16.5”; [0049]) than the lower support layer (“nominal density of about 2.0 lb/ft3 and an ILD rating of 50-55; [0041]). A higher Indentation Load Deflection (ILD) rating correlates to material density. Therefore, the 103 claim rejections of Claims 5 and 6 are respectfully maintained.
In response to the applicant’s arguments regarding the failed teachings of Ramp in view of Harris, specifically Claim 15 and the limitations pertaining to the “force of a body part of a subject against the compressible, conformable medium, compresses, to increase a rigidity of the first cushion and/or the third cushion”, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, Ramp in view of Harris does teach the argued limitation of the increased rigidity, (“component material may comprise foam”; [0044], any material such as compressible foam will have an increased rigidity when subjected to any force. The rigidity of the first cushion and third cushion are increased when subjected to a force of a body part.). Therefore, the 103 claim rejection of Claim 15 is respectfully maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4, 15, 17 (limitations regarding foam beads the flow when uncompressed), and 11 (limitations regarding dimensions of the multiple cushions) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Massman (US 20070277320 A1): Massman discloses a design concept used in seat cushion applications for a conforming air cell device where air pathways are compressed when subjected to force.
Rensink (US 20130111672 A1): Rensink discloses a multi-layer mattress comprising a matrix core of foam elements.
Pearce (US 20210127865 A1): Pearce discloses a gelatinous elastomer (A-B-A triblock copolymer) that can enhance friction in surfaces.
Aou (US 20210267382 A1): Aou discloses a coated flexible open-cell polyurethane foam structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights