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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/26/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Amendments submitted on 11/14/2025 have been considered and entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-14 have been amended and claim 17 has been newly added. Claims 1-17 are pending in the present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Leng (CN 112674543 A).
Regarding claim 1, Leng discloses an elastic unit (figs. 1-7E), comprising:
a base (400 in fig. 4A) comprising a first end and a second end opposite to the first end in a length direction of the base; and
a plurality of elastic modules (100) disposed between the first end and the second end of the base, wherein:
the plurality of elastic modules (100) are detachably disposed on the base (note figs. 4B-4C), and
the elastic unit (100 in fig. 6) comprises at least one bottom opening to enable at least one of the plurality of elastic modules to be sleeved on an upper surface of at least one of a plurality of elastic modules of another elastic unit (note each of the detachable elastic modules having openings as shown in fig. 6 of an unit and thus each unit with a plurality of modules can be compressed or stacked together).
Re-claim 2, Leng discloses each of the plurality of elastic modules comprises a spring (110 in fig. 5c) and a flexible sleeve (220),
the flexible sleeve (220) comprises a closed end and an open end defining the at least one bottom opening,
the spring (110) is configured to pass through the open end of the flexible sleeve to enter an inside of the flexible sleeve to enable the flexible sleeve to be wrapped around an outside of the spring,
the open end of the flexible sleeve is configured to be detachably connected to a bottom end of the spring to enable the spring to have a predetermined initial elastic force by compression (note the spring fixing part is a plurality of hook-shaped component 1212 as shown in fig. 1C), and
the open end is configured to receive a top part of the at least one of the plurality of elastic modules of the another elastic unit to form sleeving of two elastic modules which belong to different elastic units (note each of the detachable elastic modules having openings as shown in fig. 6 of an unit and thus each unit with a plurality of modules can be compressed or stacked together).
Re-claim 4, Leng discloses the spring (110 in fig. 1B) is a conical spring.
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.
Claims 3 and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leng (CN 112674543 A).
Re-claim 3, Leng discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above except for a thickness of the base is 5-20 mm, and a distance between two adjacent elastic modules of the plurality of the elastic modules is 2-10 mm as recited in the claim. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to have the thickness of the base is 5-20 mm, and the distance between two adjacent elastic modules of the plurality of the elastic modules is 2-10 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art in order to make the assembly more efficient.
Regarding claims 6-14 and 17, Leng discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above including the unit having a plurality of elastic modules that can be stacked together except for a number of the elastic units as recited in the claims. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to provide the number of the elastic units as recited in the claims, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art in order to make the assembly more efficient.
Regarding claims 15-16, Leng discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above except for a bottom mattress is disposed below the one or more of the elastic assemblies, and an outer cover covers an outer surface of the one or more of the elastic assemblies. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to provide the number of the elastic units as recited in the claims, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device and rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art in order to make the assembly more efficient.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leng (CN 112674543 A) in view of Andre (DE 102016204496 B4).
Regarding claim 5, Leng discloses the spring comprises an upper part and a lower part, but fails to disclose the upper part is spherical, and the lower part is conical as recited in the claim. However, Andre discloses a spring (6 in fig. 2) comprising an upper part is spherical, and an lower part is conical. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to modify the spring of Leng with the upper part is spherical and the lower part is conical as taught by Andre is an engineering design choice in order to provide various spring damping forces as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 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
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 MAHBUBUR RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-7218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 10pm EST.
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 5712727124. 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.
/MAHBUBUR RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616