DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment The Amendments filed FILLIN "MONTH DAY, YEAR of APPLICANT'S REMARKS" \d "[ 1 ]" \* MERGEFORMAT March 23rd, 2026 have been entered. Claims FILLIN "Note claims here" \d "[ 2 ]" \* MERGEFORMAT 18-25, and 29-30 remain pending in the application , and claim 33 is newly entered . Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome FILLIN "each and every claim objection and 112(b) rejection (unless circumstances dictate otherwise)" \d "[ 3 ]" \* MERGEFORMAT at least several Drawing Objections (those to claim 31-32) , and several 112b rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed FILLIN "Month, day, year of prior OFFICE ACTION" \d "[ 4 ]" \* MERGEFORMAT December 22nd, 2025 and are hereby withdrawn in light of their correction. However, several issues of drawings remain because although applicant indicates in the remarks the claims have been amended, the limitation “an outer surface of the inner space” is still illustrated and respectfully has not been amended as allegedly indicated. However, amendment of correspondent to that alleges would obviate the Drawing Objections/112b Rejections related thereto, and appears to otherwise be a typographical error, but must be maintained due to the limitation’s presence in the claims. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "an outer surface of the inner space" (of claim 1 8 ) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 18-24, and 3 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1 8 , the limitation “ a second fabric layer disposed to surround … an outer surface of the inner space ” is recited. There is confusion as to the scope of “an outer surface of the inner space” as the inner space would by its namesake respectfully comprise inner surfaces thereof, but’s it’s unclear how inner space becomes an outer surface particularly in consideration to the figures portrayed. Examiner considered that perhaps it was intended to be the ‘outer surface of the lower frame’ (131, that the inner space is within and encompassed by); however , the claim recites thereafter “an outer surface of the lower frame”, so it’s unclear what the scope of the limitation “an outer surface of the inner space” should consider in interpretation. However ; in the interest of examination, it’s considered that if the lower frame is surrounded the inner space is surrounded and any ‘surfaces’ thereof. However further clarity and explanation are respectfully requested as to the scope and meaning of the claimed limitation and otherwise amendment is necessary. Regarding claim 3 3 , the limitation “ an inner space ”, alongside “the inner space” is recited. There is antecedent confusion and attribution as “ an inner space ” has already been previously recited in antecedent claim 25, and it’s unclear if such inner space is the same as that introduced in claim 25, or is a second inner space delineated from the apparent ‘first inner space’. For the purposes of examination, the limitation “an inner space” of claim 32 is construed as “a second inner space” and “the inner space” of claim 32 is likewise construed as “the second inner space”. Additionally claims 1 9 -2 4 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 second paragraph as being dependent on a rejected indefinite antecedent claim (Claim 1 8 at a minimum). 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 8 -24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Jansen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20200000241); hereafter "Jansen" in view of Larsson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20030019044); hereafter “ Larsson ” . Regarding claim 1 8 , Jansen discloses (FIGS. 1-10) a mattress (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-10) having an inlet hole (correspondent 160; FIG. 5) formed in a lower part thereof (as illustrated in FIG. 5) and a plurality of ventilation holes (140/150; FIG. 5) formed in an upper part thereof, the mattress comprising: a lower frame (correspondent 122) having the inlet hole therein (As illustrated in FIG. 5) ; a first fabric layer (139; FIG. 5) being spaced apart from an upper surface of the lower frame by a preset distance and having an inner space formed between the lower frame and the first fabric layer (As illustrated in FIG. 5); and a foam layer (138/144) , wherein the plurality of ventilation holes is formed while vertically penetrating the foam layer, the second fabric layer, and the first fabric layer, and external air flowed in through the inlet hole is discharged through the inner space and the plurality of ventilation holes (As illustrated in FIG. 5) ; wherein the ventilation holes comprise: a first ventilation hole (140; correspondent the 138 layer; FIG. 5) penetrating the first fabric layer and the second fabric layer; and a second ventilation hole (150; correspondent the 144 layer; FIG. 5) vertically aligned with the first ventilation hole and penetrating the foam layer (as illustrated in FIG. 5), and a diameter of the first ventilation hole is less than a diameter of the second ventilation hole (Jansen: “apertures 140 may be all of a single size or may vary in diameter” [0041] and “Further, the aperture 150 sizes may vary or may be the same as previously described … The apertures 150 may be sized based upon any of, but not limited to, the following: the desired flow rate at the upper surface 148 (FIG. 2) of the mattress 12 and/or the amount of air pressure needed to pass through the apertures 140, 150 and/or the number of apertures provided, and/or air mover flow rates and pressure. ” [004 2 ] which is analogous to applicant’s rationales ) . However, Jansen does not explicitly disclose wherein there a second fabric layer disposed to surround upper and outer surfaces of the first fabric layer, an outer surface of the inner space and an outer surface of the lower frame , and where a foam layer is disposed on the second fabric layer. Regardless, Larsson teaches (FIGS. 1-4) a mattress (as illustrated in FIG. 1-4), wherein a first fabric layer (correspondent 14/12; FIG. 3) is provided and a second fabric layer (15; FIG. 3) disposed to surround upper and outer surfaces of the first fabric layer, an outer surface of the inner space and an outer surface of the lower frame, and where a foam layer (11/10; FIG. 3) is disposed on the second fabric layer (As illustrated in FIG. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the second layer and the placement of the foam layer thereon as Larsson provides (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-4). Where the results would have been predictable as both Larsson and Jansen concern bedding assemblies with built in blowers that pass air through the material body with a plurality of ventilated openings (16 in Larsson: FIG. 1). Where Jansen acknowledges “ The room 13 is laterally and at the bottom air-tightly delimited with respect to the exterior through a surrounding tight member 15 ” [0025], and there by Larsson’s consideration would improve the air retention and flow of Jansen. Regarding claim 19, Jansen in view of Larsson discloses (Jansen: FIGS. 5) the mattress of claim 18, wherein a center point on a cross section of the first ventilation hole and a center point on a cross section of the second ventilation hole are vertically aligned (As illustrated in FIG. 5) . Regarding claim 20, Jansen in view of Larsson discloses (Jansen: FIGS. 5) the mattress of claim 1 8 , wherein the second fabric layer is formed of a non-air permeable material (Larsson: claim 8: “ air-tight limitation (10, 15) to the exterior ”) Regarding claim 21, Jansen in view of Larsson discloses (Jansen: FIGS. 5) the mattress of claim 20, wherein the second fabric layer comprises: a lower layer formed of polyester (Jansen: [0039: the envelope material may be a multilayer material of polyester ) ; an intermediate layer stacked on the lower layer and made of polyurethane ([0044]: “ a layer … may further include a … polyurethane ” ; and an upper layer stacked on the intermediate layer and made of a mixed material of polyester and polyurethane ([0044]: “a layer… may further include a… polyurethane , and combinations and/or blends thereof”. Where notably the combination with Larsson provides several additional layers as those concerning the upper layer and foam covering and concerning lowest layer 15 (FIG. 1) , intermediate layer 10/9; (FIG. 1), and upper layer 8/6; (FIG. 1). Regarding claim 22, Jansen in view of Larsson discloses (Jansen: FIGS. 5) the mattress of claim 1 8 , further comprising a plurality of springs installed in the inner space and supporting the first fabric layer (Jansen: [0030]: “ the mattress may also incorporate springs in combination with the foam ”, and [0038] “ A component core layer may be any mattress core construction including, but not limited to, a foam core, a gel foam core, a latex core, an inner spring layer, ” where the application is to 122 which is beneath the first fabric layer) . Regarding claim 23, Jansen in view of Larsson discloses ( Larsson: FIG. 1-3 ) the mattress of claim 1 8 , further comprising a third fabric layer (correspondent either 7/8/9) having a mesh structure (5; FIG. 1) installed on the foam layer (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3) . Regarding claim 24, Jansen in view of Larsson discloses ( Larsson: FIG. 1-4 ) the mattress of claim 23, further comprising a topper (2; FIG. 1) detachably installed on the third fabric layer (As illustrated in FIG. 1 and 3) , wherein the topper comprises: a first topper fabric layer (9; FIG. 1) having a second mesh structure ([0024]: “ a lower more restricted surface 9 ”) contacting the third fabric layer (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3) ; a topper foam layer (5; FIG. 1) stacked on the first topper fabric layer and made of an air permeable material ([0024]: “ core layer 5 of an elastic soft material with a good ability to let air through ”) ; and a second topper fabric layer (correspondent 7 or 8; FIG. 1) stacked on the topper foam layer (As illustrated in FIG. 1) , and wherein external air passing through the plurality of ventilation holes is discharged to an outside through the second topper fabric layer (as illustrated in FIG. 1-4 , as clarified in [0024]: “t hrough which air may move between the interior of the bed mattress and the space under the bed mattress ” ) . Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 26 -30 are 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 , and upon correction of antecedent matters that necessitate 112b Rejections thereof as set forth in the pertinent section. Claims 25 , and 29- 30 are allowable. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims necessitate among other features a considerably narrow configuration of a ventilation system incorporated directed into a bed, while further necessitating a flow path conversion system, connection portions of narrowing geometry, a sensor and correction system into the flow path conversion system , generation of an electrical signal when a distance between the first position recognition portion and the second position recognition portion is less than a preset distance among other features . Where a modification of Won would likely necessitate a degree of impermissible hindsight bias and a degree of unpredictability to modify a modifying reference (Won) . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pages 10-11), filed March 23rd, 2026 , with respect to several Drawing Objections (concerning claims 31 and 32), alongside Specification/Abstract Objections, alongside several 112b Rejections (concerning the matter provided in claim 24) alongside 103 Rejections for claims 25 and dependents thereof have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Drawing Objections (concerning claims 31 and 32), alongside Specification/Abstract Objections, alongside several 112b Rejections (concerning the matter provided in claim 24) alongside 103 Rejections for claims 25 and dependents thereof of December 22nd, 2025 has been withdrawn. However, it should be understood claim 24 is still rejected under 112b as being dependent on an indefinite antecedent claim (claim 18 at a minimum), and that claim 33, newly necessitates a new 112b Rejection in view of antecedent basis/confusion subject matter in “an inner space” and “the inner space” as expounded in the pertinent section. Applicant's arguments filed December 22nd, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Particularly in regards to applicant’s allegation that Jensen (in view of Larsson) fails to avail the requisite claimed features of the invention, (those of larger and smaller holes that thus affect the flow rates. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this characterization as Jenson acknowledges through [0041] and [0042] how the first ventilation holes (140) and the second ventilation holes (150), may be of varying sizes, and particularly so “ The apertures 150 may be sized based upon any of, but not limited to, the following: the desired flow rate at the upper surface 148 (FIG. 2) of the mattress 12 and/or the amount of air pressure needed to pass through the apertures 140, 150 and/or the number of apertures provided, and/or air mover flow rates and pressur e” . Which is synonymous with applicant’s invention, and respectfully do indeed appear to be designed for the diffusion of air passing through the holes which would respectfully appear to be dependent on both flow rate and pressure. And wherein the passage clearly indicates Jensen’s first and second ventilation holes are not always identical where flow performance is considered as acknowledged explicitly in Jensen. Therefore, examiner is respectfully not persuaded at the present time that Jensen in view of Larsson avails the claimed features of applicant’s invention. 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. The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT Luke F Hall whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5996 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8am-5pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Justin Mikowski can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8525 . 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. /LUKE HALL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3673 /JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673