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 .
Claims 1-17 are pending in the application. No newly added claims are presented. No claims have been canceled.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication US2019/0104860A1 hereinafter referred to as Blumberg in view of US Patent Publication US2017/0208941A1 hereinafter referred to as Trakic.
Re-Claim 1
Blumberg disclose a body supporting system 100, 200 fig.1 & 2 comprising: a body supporting device 110 fig.1 configured to support at least part of a body; a pressure sensing layer 180 fig.1 comprising a plurality of pressure sensors 180 [0028 “The sensor array 180 may be capable of sensing acceleration, position, or curvature.”], the plurality of pressure sensors being each configured to sense pressure on the surface of the body supporting device at a corresponding sensing location [0028 “For example, tapping at a particular location could be sensed by the sensor array 180 and this can be read by the controller 160 which causes the bed to be either be lowered or raised at the particular location that was tapped.”]; and a firmness adjusting layer 150 fig.1 comprising a plurality of actuators 140 fig.1 arranged in an actuator pattern (see fig.1), the plurality of actuators are each configured to control the firmness of the surface of the body supporting device at a corresponding adjusting location based on some or all of the pressures sensed by the plurality of pressure sensors [0028].
However does not discloses the plurality of pressure sensors arranged in a sensor pattern.
Trakic teaches a body supporting system 6 fig.7 comprising: a body supporting device 6 configured to support at least part of a body; a pressure sensing layer 5 fig.2A, 3A comprising a plurality of pressure sensors 5 [0039 “FIG. 3A is an example of an alternative sensor arrangement, wherein each furniture component such as a padding has an individual sensor array attached to it. All individual sensor array units (for each padding) can be controlled by the electronics hardware unit 4 or an alternative, dedicated hardware system.”] arranged in a sensor pattern (see fig.4, 7 & 8A) [0040 “FIG. 4 is an example of a 2-dimensional configuration wherein the blocks are arranged in a 4×8 grid-type array, with paddings as furniture component. Arbitrarily large array configurations of such blocks are also possible,”], the plurality of pressure sensors being each configured to sense pressure on the surface of the body supporting device at a corresponding sensing location [0036 “Referring to FIG. 2A, a flexible layer 5 containing an array of sensors that can be situated below, inside or on top of the furniture component in order to measure at least one of the following: pressure, force, weight, temperature, electric field, magnetic field, electromagnetic field, heat, spatial position, voltage, current, humidity and flow. The measurement data can be interrogated from the sensor array in parallel, serially, or in any combination of those two, using the same electronics hardware unit 4, or an entirely separate hardware system (not shown). The measurement data can therefore be used as part of a feedback mechanism (or closed circuit system) in order to adjust the positions of the individual paddings and provide the desired spatial shape of the furniture.”].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the body supporting system of Blumberg and the pressure sensor array of Trakic for a body supporting system and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a body supporting system having a plurality of pressure sensors arranged in a sensor pattern. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of having individual sensors attached to each actuator as taught in Trakic [0039].
Re-Claim 14
Blumberg as modified by Trakic above discloses,
wherein the firmness adjusting layer is configured to equalize the pressures applied by the at least part of the body on the surface of the body supporting device, or to keep the spine of the body straight [0044 “For example, a user or hospital patient lying on the configured bed shape, can have their spine optimally aligned by measuring the body pressure with a sensor array and using measurement data to adjust a set of paddings to a particular or optimal shape.” Trakic].
Re-Claim 15
Blumberg as modified by Trakic above discloses,
wherein the pressure sensing layer and the firmness adjusting layer are placed underneath, on top of, or in middle of the mattress (see fig.1 Blumberg).
Re-Claim 16
Blumberg as modified by Trakic above discloses,
wherein the pressure sensing layer and the firmness adjusting layer are integrated to each other (see fig.1 Blumberg).
Claim(s) 5-9, 11-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blumberg in view of Trakic further in view of US Patent 7,941,882 hereinafter referred to as Strozer.
Re-Claim 5
Blumberg in view of Trakic above discloses the claimed body supporting apparatus and wherein the actuators comprises electromagnets [0028 “The actuators 140 may comprise electro-magnetic devices such as solenoids, screw-type actuators, or scissor-type actuators.”], and the same number of components 120 fig.1 Blumberg [0018 “The embedded disks 120 need not be disk-shaped, but can be any rigid or semi-rigid embedded material such as metal or plastic disks, or items of other shapes such as rectangles.” & 0027 “Both a flexible connecting means and a rigid connecting means may be attached to each disk 120. Also, the function of either the flexible and/or the rigid connecting means may be provided by magnets or a system for magnetic levitation to attract, repel, or otherwise move the disc to achieve a differing height or elevation of the surface of the bed at various locations. An array of actuators may be provided as the rigid connecting means, with each actuator connected to one of the disks or each actuator selectively connected to one or more of the disks.” Blumberg] as the actuators are embedded in the body supporting device (see fig.1 Blumberg) in a plane parallel to the surface of the body supporting device in a pattern corresponding to the actuator pattern (see fig.4, 6 and 8A Trakic).
However does not discloses wherein the actuators comprises electromagnets, and the same number of magnetic components as the actuators.
Strozer teaches a body supporting system 10 fig.1 comprising: a body supporting device 10 configured to support at least part of a body; a firmness adjusting system 32 fig.2 comprising a plurality of actuators 20 fig.2, wherein the actuators comprises electromagnets [column 3 lines 30-32 “It should be understood that the positioning of the permanent magnet 18 and the electromagnet 20 may be interchanged.”], and the same number of magnetic components 18 fig.2 as the actuators (see fig.1 & 2) are in a plane parallel to the support surface of the body supporting device in a pattern corresponding to the actuator pattern (see fig.1 & 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the body supporting system of Blumberg as modified by Trakic and the magnetic actuators for a body supporting system of Strozer and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at body supporting system utilizing magnetic actuators to raise and lower areas of the body supporting system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of controlling the firmness in the mattress by controlling the repulsive force of the actuator as taught in Strozer [column 4 lines 28-40].
Re-Claim 6
Blumberg as modified by Trakic and Strozer above discloses,
wherein the magnetic components embedded in the body supporting device is of a flat configuration (see 120 fig.1 Blumberg).
Re-Claim 7
Blumberg as modified by Trakic and Strozer above discloses,
wherein the magnetic components embedded in the body supporting device is of an elongate configuration (see 120 fig.1 Blumberg) and is provided with adhesive around it (adhered to foam [0019 “In an embodiment, a layer of discs 120 (which in this embodiment may or may not touch each other) are embedded inside a memory foam mattress” Blumberg] and [column 3 lines 27-29 “The permanent magnet 18 may be secured therein by any suitable type of permanent fastener, such as adhesives, stitching or the like.” Strozer]) .
Re-Claim 8
Blumberg as modified by Trakic and Strozer above discloses,
wherein the magnetic components embedded in the body supporting device comprises electromagnets [column 3 lines 53-57 “Similarly, it should be understood that any suitable type of electromagnet may be used, such as the exemplary solenoid coil illustrated in FIG. 2. Additionally, it should be understood that permanent magnets 18 may be replaced by a second set of electromagnets.” Strozer].
Re-Claim 9
Blumberg as modified by Trakic and Strozer above discloses,
wherein the electromagnets are embedded in the body supporting device by means of a sewing machine [column 3 lines 27-29 and column 4 lines 2-4 “The magnetic supports 32 may be secured therein via any suitable type of permanent fastener, such as adhesives, stitching or the like.” Strozer].
Re-Claim 11
Blumberg as modified by Trakic and Strozer above discloses,
wherein the magnetic components embedded in the body supporting device comprises magnets or iron components [column 3 lines 34-36 “Any suitable type of permanent magnet may be used, such as common ferromagnets, rare earth magnets, and the like.” Strozer and 0018, 0027 Blumberg].
Re-Claim 12
Blumberg as modified by Trakic and Strozer above discloses,
wherein the magnetic components embedded in the body supporting device are implemented as a whole sheet or layer of flexible magnetic material (see fig.1 Blumberg).
Re-Claim 13
Blumberg as modified by Trakic and Strozer above discloses,
wherein the magnetic components embedded in the body supporting device are implemented as a whole sheet or layer of fabric woven with magnetic material or of resilient material embedded with magnetic material (see fig.1 [0018] Blumberg).
Re-Claim 17
Blumberg as modified by Trakic and Strozer above discloses,
wherein the sensor pattern is the same as or different from the actuator pattern [0039 Trakic].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not disclose a body supporting system having electromagnets “embedded in the body supporting device by means of two needles, in which a smaller needle is provided inside the other needle that is configured to be inserted together with the smaller needle and a wire into the body supporting device and to be pulled out of the body supporting device together with the smaller needle and the wire after the smaller needle coils the wire in the body supporting device to create an electromagnet.”. For at least that reason the claimed limitation appears to overcome the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of Blumberg does not discloses the limitation “the plurality of actuators are each configured to control the firmness of the surface of the body supporting device at a corresponding adjusting location based on some or all of the pressures sensed by the plurality of pressure sensors”. Examiner respectfully disagrees it is clearly discloses in [0028] that “Algorithms can be provided in the controller for sensing sleeping posture and pressure points, and for monitoring and mitigating sleep apnea by observing the initial signs of sleep apnea and moving the sleeper to their side or applying another mitigating strategy”. It is inherent that the raising and lowing locations on the bed using the plurality of actuators 140 would control/alter the firmness of the surface of the body supporting device at the corresponding location. It is also clear the controller can be used to sense the position/ pressure point of the occupant via the plurality of sensors 180 and then adjust the firmness based on the sensed information. This is again supported in [0014] “Via the use of the computer 170, the controller 160, and sensor array 180 for detecting the position of a body or part thereof, the contours of the mattress material (and/or box spring) can be altered to increase the comfort of the user and/or to match the contours of the user's body and/or to best support the body/bodies of the user.”. What Applicant is referring to is an alternative methods of adjusting the contour/firmness of the mattress by selecting area to be adjusted by taping a location on a user input device 170. Alternatively a voice command can also be utilized. The disclosure of US Patent Application 11/851,204 which is incorporated in the prior art of Blumberg additionally clearly support adjusting the firmness of the mattress in response to sensed data.
Applicant additionally argues Trakic does not discloses “the plurality of pressure sensors arranged in a sensor pattern”. Applicant argues block 6 is arrange in an 4x8 array but fails to discloses all individual sensor array units being arranged in a pattern. It appears alliance’s understanding of the prior art is incomplete. Trakic clearly discloses utilizing a sensor array5 in the form of a continuous sheet (fig.2A & 2B) or a sensor array where each units 2 includes a sensor 5 (fig.3A & 3B) forming the sensor array having a pattern same as the units 2 (fig.4). Additionally an array is defined as a “regular and imposing grouping or arrangement” which satisfies the limitation of a pattern. As such in both cases the limitation of “the plurality of pressure sensors arranged in a sensor pattern” is satisfied.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 IFEOLU A ADEBOYEJO whose telephone number is (571)270-3072. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10AM-5PM 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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/IFEOLU A ADEBOYEJO/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679