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 .
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 8, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 818,415 to Cole in view of U.S. Pat. No. 3,512,192 to Simon.
Claims 1, 8, and 17, Cole discloses a fabric having heat-resisting qualities comprising obtaining face layer (A), a backing layer (C) an inlay layer (B) comprising a flame-retardant material (col. 1 lines 1-29). Cole discloses that the fabric capable of being employed in where heat needs to be excluded, but is silent to cover a core of a mattress with a fabric cover. Simon discloses a mattress core covered by a fabric cover 26 (col. 2 lines 56-68 & 1-5). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to cover a mattress core in Simon with the heat resisting fabric of Cole with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a mattress that is resistant to ignition [Abstract].
Claim 15, Cole, as modified, discloses the assembly, wherein the mattress core of Simon comprises foam (col.1 lines 62-64).
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 818,415 to Cole in view of U.S. Pat. No. 3,512,192 to Simon, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0245164 to Aneja et al.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9-10, 12-13, and 18-19, Cole discloses the cover, but is silent to the cover including a durable woven or knit fabric material comprising cellulosic or rayon fibers customarily defined by interlacing yarn in a series of connected loops, wherein sewing tension is reduced to create looser stitches defining loose yarns and that it is well known for intermediate layers being made from fiber batting or loose-fill materials wherein the flame-retardant material comprises flame-retardant viscose fiber. Aneja disclose a cover including a durable woven or knit fabric material comprising cellulosic or rayon fibers [0008][0069][0071]; the flame-retardant material comprising flame-retardant viscose fiber wherein the processing comprises processing the flame-retardant material with heat and air [0023][0024]. Selecting from a plethora of known fabric materials is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select the materials disclosed in Aneja with the cover of Cole with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative material for the cover of Cole.
Claims 7 and 14, Cole, as modified, discloses the cover wherein Aneja further discloses the intermediate layer is capable of being made from a plethora of materials having fire blocking qualities and optional fiber compositions without polyester [0039][0071], but is silent of excluding a polyester yarn. Selecting from a plethora of known materials is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select materials other than polyester with the cover of Cole with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative material to make the cover of Cole.
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 818,415 to Cole in view of U.S. Pat. No. 3,512,192 to Simon, U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0245164 to Aneja et al., and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0210584 to Lim et al.
Claims 4 and 11, Cole, as modified, discloses the cover, but is silent to the flame-retardant material having a limiting oxygen index (LOI) from 14 to 45. Lim discloses a fabric made from heat resistant fibers having a Limiting Oxygen Index (LOI) of 26 or higher. Selecting from a range of (LOI) values for heat resistant fibers is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select the range as stated above with the cover of Cole with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative range of (LOI) to make the cover of Cole.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 818,415 to Cole in view of U.S., Pat. No. 3,512,192 to Simon, U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0245164 to Aneja et al., and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0054717 to Ahluwalin.
Claim 20, Cole, as modified, discloses the method, wherein the inherently flame-retardant material comprises flame-retardant viscose fiber [0023][0024], but is silent to water texturing the flame-retardant material. Ahluwalin discloses a process to texturing the flame-retardant material with water. Ahluwalin discloses a process to treat a flame- retardant material with a blue pigment dye having a wet weight [0046]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention combine the wet weight pigment dye of Ahluwalin with the flame-retardant materials of Cole with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided color texture to the cover of Cole.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 and 18-20 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.
U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0254278 to Honig et al. discloses a flame-retardant fabric for a mattress.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,033 to Murphy et al. discloses a flame-retardant fabric for a mattress.
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 FREDRICK C CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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 on (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.
/FREDRICK C CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights