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 .
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) 1-4, 7, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grothaus (EP1029473) in view of DeMoss (US20150342362).
In reference to claim 1, Grothaus teaches an elastic module (figure 1), comprising: multiple springs (5), wherein: the springs contact or are adjacent to each other,(evident that the springs are adjacent in figure 1) upper ends of the multiple springs are separated (see figure 2), each of connection members (4, 2) is sleeved around a corresponding one of middle parts of the multiple pre-compressed springs, and middle parts of side surfaces of a front row and a rear row of two adjacent rows of the multiple pre-compressed springs are connected together (see figure 1) by directly connecting corresponding ones of the connection members together. The spring strand and the adhesive 4 provides the connection for the springs with are housed in the pocket 8.
Grothaus is silent to if the springs are pre-compressed.
DeMoss teaches a spring (20) in a pocket similar to Grothaus and teaches that the spring has a level of pre-compression (para 19).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to have provided the springs of Grothaus with a precompression as taught by DeMoss in order to provide stability. (Para 19 DeMoss).
In reference to claim 2, this claim is considered a functional limitation. The assembly of the instant invention provides a precompression which on an end spring, may result in a lateral bend. This is functionality would be present in Grothaus as modified as the spring as modified under precompression would want to expand the pocket. The pocket would need to be pulled to be attached to the adjacent pocket.
In reference to claim 3, Grothaus teaches wherein the multiple pre-compressed springs are multiple pre-compressed springs wrapped by flexible sleeves (8).
In reference to claim 4, Grothaus teaches the elastic module according to claim 3, wherein: the flexible sleeves are cloth sleeves (fabric), mesh sleeves, or bands configured to tense two ends of the multiple pre-compressed springs.
In reference to claim 7, Grothaus teaches the connection seats of the one or more connection members are outer rings (the spring strands are a ring-like structure forming bands, each row is considered to be connected by a band) disposed on middle parts of the flexible sleeves, and the outer rings are loops of bands or the bands spaced apart. The connection members of the reference go around the material and are considered rings.
In reference to claim 16, Grothaus is silent to the height of the connecting members. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the size / height of the connecting members is a function of the desired height of the panel.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to have made the connection members the claimed size as a matter of design choice. Further, there is not any indication that the device of Grothaus having the claimed size would operate differently or have difference functionality. Garner VS. TEC systems, Inc.
In reference to claim 18, Grothaus teaches the plurality of the elastic modules are spliced together, or an outer periphery of the plurality of the elastic modules is encompassed by a band. The connection members (2, 4) form a band connecting adjacent springs.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grothaus (EP1029473) in view of DeMoss (US20150342362) in view of Bock (US 20080128965).
Grothaus does not teach the multiple pre-compressed springs are slim-waisted shapes.
Bock teaches a plurality of springs (3, figure 8) disposed in pockets, where the springs are slim waisted.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to have replaced the springs of Grothaus with a slim waisted spring as taught by Bock as a mere simple substitution of one known spring element for another.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grothaus (EP1029473) in view of DeMoss (US20150342362) in view of Orozco et al (WO 2008129342).
Grothaus fails to teach that the connection members being quadrilateral shapes or a buckle.
Orozco et al teaches a spring panel similar to Grothaus and teaches connection members (150) having quadrilateral shapes which act as a buckle to connect adjacent springs.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to have replaced the connection members of Grothaus with those of Orozco to increase the time and flexibility of forming the product (See translation paragraph directly before brief description of drawings)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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 DEVON C KRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-7118. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7AM-4PM; Friday Mornings.
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.
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.
DEVON C. KRAMER
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3746
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights