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 07/13/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-4 and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leng (CN 112674543 A).
Regarding claim 1, Leng discloses an elastic assembly comprising elastic unit (figs. 1-11A), 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, 200, 220, 300) disposed between the first end and the second end of the base, wherein:
the plurality of elastic modules (100, 200, 220, 300) are detachably disposed on the base (note figs. 4B-4C), and
the elastic unit (100 in fig. 6) comprises at least one bottom openings,
first elastic modules of the plurality of elastic modules, on first elastic units of the elastic units are sleeved on upper surfaces of second elastic modules of the plurality of elastic modules on second 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) of the elastic units perpendicular to the first elastic units via the bottom openings, and the bases of the first elastic units and the second elastic units abut each other.
Re-claim 2, Leng discloses each of the plurality of elastic modules (100, 200, 220, 300) comprises a spring (110 in fig. 10A) and a flexible sleeve (300, 323),
the flexible sleeve (300, 323) comprises a closed end (322) and an open end (3211) defining a corresponding one of 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 (3211) 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, the spring comprises a spring open end (note the spring fixing part 320 as shown in fig. 10A), and
the open end (3211) 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 of an unit and thus each unit with a plurality of modules can be compressed or stacked together).
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.
Re-claim 4, Leng discloses the spring (110 in fig. 1B) is a conical spring.
Regarding claims 6-8 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 9-16, Leng discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above including using of the elastic modules units in a mattress (note fig. 41B) 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 filed 07/06/202 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that Leng and Andre are silent with respect to the first elastic modules of the plurality of elastic modules on first elastic units of the music units are sleeved on upper surfaces of second elastic modules of the plurality of elastic modules on second elastic units of the elastic units perpendicular to the first elastic units via the bottom openings, and the bases of the first elastic units and the second elastic units abut each other as recited in the claim. The examiner disagrees. As set forth above, Leng discloses the first elastic modules of the plurality of elastic modules, on first elastic units of the elastic units are sleeved on upper surfaces of second elastic modules of the plurality of elastic modules on second 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) of the elastic units perpendicular to the first elastic units via the bottom openings, and the bases of the first elastic units and the second elastic units abut each other, wherein, each of the plurality of elastic modules (100, 200, 220, 300) comprises a spring (110 in fig. 10A) and a flexible sleeve (300, 323), the flexible sleeve (300, 323) comprises a closed end (322) and an open end (3211) defining a corresponding one of 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 (3211) 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, the spring comprises a spring open end (note the spring fixing part 320 as shown in fig. 10A), and the open end (3211) 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 of an unit and thus each unit with a plurality of modules can be compressed or stacked together).
The applicant further argues that the elastic modules of Leng are stacked together, the elastic module are in a storage state rather than a usage state. The examiner notes that such argument is irrelevant because the claim does not require the elastic modules to be in a usage state or storage state.
The applicant further argues that Leng fails to teach a readily assemblable mattress with structural stability, nor does Leng provide any technical means for realizing such a mattress. Again, the examiner notes that such argument is irrelevant because the claim does not require any mattress or like. However, Leng does disclose using of the elastic modules units in a mattress (note fig. 41B).
Therefore, it is clear that Leng discloses all of the limitations as recited in the claims and thus the rejections are proper and valid.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights