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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6, 12-15, and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 23, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on January 23, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the office failed to articulate facts related to why an election of species was necessary. This is not found persuasive because paragraph 11 of the requirement dated 11/28/2025 cited the reasons for the election requirement. Namely the number of different connection elements and springs would create a search burden and that the species appear to be patentably distinct.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, 9, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zschoch (20070022538) in view of DeMoss (US20150342362).
For compact prosecution, the spring is considered to be a spring assembly including the pocket.
In reference to claim 1, Zschoch 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, middle parts of the multiple pre-compressed springs comprise one or more connection members (15, 25), 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. Please note that figure 18 shows a panel with springs of the invention of Zschoch. The panel has both front and rear spring rows. It would be inherent that both the front row and the reach spring rows are connected at their middle sections demonstrated by figure 1.
Zschoch is silent to if the springs are pre-compressed.
DeMoss teaches a spring (20) in a pocket similar to Zschoch 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 Zschoch 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 Zschoch 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, Zschoch teaches wherein the multiple pre-compressed springs are multiple pre-compressed springs wrapped by flexible sleeves (12).
In reference to claim 4, Zschoch teaches the elastic module according to claim 3, wherein: the flexible sleeves are cloth sleeves (para 50, fabric), mesh sleeves, or bands configured to tense two ends of the multiple pre-compressed springs.
In reference to claim 7, Zschoch teaches the connection seats of the one or more connection members are outer rings (15, 25, 71) 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 9, Zschoch teaches that the connection (15, 25, 71) can be considered buckles.
In reference to claim 16, Zschoch 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 Zschoch having the claimed size would operate differently or have difference functionality. Garner VS. TEC systems, Inc.
In reference to claim 18, Zschoch 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 (15, 25) form a band connecting adjacent springs.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zschoch (20070022538) in view of DeMoss (US20150342362) in view of Bock (US 20080128965).
Zschoch 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 Zschoch with a slim waisted spring as taught by Bock as a mere simple substitution of one known spring element for another.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zschoch (20070022538) in view of DeMoss (US20150342362) in view of Orozco et al (WO 2008129342).
Zschoch fails to teach that the connection members being quadrilateral shapes.
Orozco et al teaches a spring panel similar to Zschoch and teaches connection members (150) having quadrilateral shapes.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to have replaced the connection members of Zschoch 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.
Conclusion
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