DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that, “Washburn discloses a bed and mattress structure 50, including a mattress 52 (corresponding to the claimed sleeping mat body). The mattress 52 includes a top cover 60 (corresponding to the claimed sleeping mat layer) and a bottom cover 54 (corresponding to the claimed ground mat layer), wherein an air bladder 96 is arranged between the top and bottom covers 54. See Fig. 1 thereof. Moreover, the air bladder 96 comprises an upper sheet 210 and a lower sheet 212. I-beams 218, 219 are arranged between the upper and lower sheets 210, 212 and adhesively attached thereto. See column 17, lines 37-53 and Fig. 13. However, in Washburn the I-beams 218, 219, asserted as the claimed tensioning bands, are adhesively attached to an upper sheet 210 and a lower sheet 212 of the air bladder 96, instead of the mattress 52 corresponding to the claimed sleeping mat body. Therefore, Washburn fails to disclose the feature of "the upper and lower ends of each tensioning band 5 are fixedly bonded to the sleeping mat layer 2 and the ground mat layer 3 throughface-to-face connection, respectively". Compared with Washburn, the invention recited in amended claim 1 enables a separate member (i.e., air bladder) unnecessary, thus reducing the cost and saving space within the mattress. Moreover, the I-beam 218 of Washburn cannot present a C-shaped configuration. As shown in Fig. 12 which shows the inflated state, the main portion of I-beam 218 remains vertical and the lower lip 222 thereof remains horizontal. Only the upper lip 220 of I-beam 218 may be considered as having an arc shape. However, according to amended claim 1, the tensioning band will present a C-shaped configuration in the inflated state, which means the surface of the tensioning band is arched at all regions thereof. Therefore, the tensioning bands can perfectly conform to the undulating surfaces of the sleeping mat layer 2 and the ground mat layer 3, enhancing the stability of the undulating surfaces as formed to provide better support for the user. As a result, the C-shaped tensioning band can suffer the tension uniformly, thus improving the lifetime of the mattress.”
This is not found persuasive. The bands at 218, in Figure 11 of Washburn do in fact have a c shape. The c shape does not require arches, as C’s can be drawn in block letters which do not include arches, and the bands 218 in Washburn resemble a c shape in that they have an upright portion with parallel top and bottom portions pointing in the same direction, perpendicularly off the upright portion. This creates a c shape. The claim must include language distinguishing the arches from Washburn if that is a distinction being made.
Examiner further notes that in the claim, the sleeping mat layer and ground mat layer which are analogous to 210 and 212 in Washburn, form the sleeping mat body, which contains the tensioning bands, and thus the tensioning bands are attached to the claimed sleeping mat body (which in Washburn is formed from 210 and 212).
Examiner notes that a new reference is being used for the amendments previously found in claim 15. Upon consideration of the new material not previously in the dependence chain from claim 15 (i.e. the structure incorporated from previous claim 4), Examiner has determined that a better rejection is made using the new Maxfield reference which contains divisions within the air cushion which are more similar in structure and consistency to those claimed as well as those used in the primary Washburn reference, thus resulting in a stronger rejection. Thus the arguments regarding the O’Keefe reference, which is no longer being used, do not apply to the current rejection.
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, 5-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washburn (US Patent 5815865) in view of Maxfield (US Patent Application Publication 20210186225).
Regarding claim 1, Washburn teaches an ergonomic sleeping mat, comprising: a sleeping mat body including a sleeping mat layer and a ground mat layer (Column 17; lines 37-42 “Air bladder 96 is constructed from an upper sheet 210 of an air impermeable material that is adhesively connected to a lower sheet 212 of an air impermeable material”) fixedly connected with each other to form into one piece, thereby forming a closed accommodation cavity (Figure 11; 216) therebetween; and a plurality of tensioning bands (Figure 11; 218, 218’) arranged at intervals along a longitudinal direction within the closed accommodation cavity, an upper end of each tensioning band being fixedly bonded to the sleeping mat layer (Figure 11; 220) while a lower end thereof being fixedly bonded to the ground mat layer (Figure 11; 222), thereby dividing the closed accommodation cavity into a plurality of inflatable cavities (Figure 11; 224) extending along a lateral direction, wherein the sleeping mat layer comprises an upper body portion (Figure 8b, 192), a waist portion (Figure 8b; to the right of 194, see 224’ to the right of 194 in Figure 15) and a lower limb portion (Figure 8b; 196 and 198) corresponding to different parts of human body, respectively, and the tensioning bands corresponding to different portions of the sleeping mat layer are configured to have different vertical heights (Figure 11; 218’ versus 218, as shown), so that each portion of the sleeping mat layer is configured to form a contact surface that fits a corresponding part of human body when the inflatable cavities are in an inflated state; and the waist portion is configured to be thicker than the upper body portion (Figure 15; 224’ within upper body portion 192 are located at the waist), so that the waist portion is in contact with and supports the waist of human body; the upper end and the lower end of each tensioning band are fixedly bonded to the sleeping mat layer and the ground mat layer through face-to-face connection, each tensioning band presenting a C-shaped configuration in the inflated state (Figure 13; 218/218’ as shown, and 222 and 220). Washburn does not teach a longitudinal spacing between adjacent tensioning bands corresponding to the neck region and the back region is configured as a first spacing, and a longitudinal spacing between adjacent tensioning bands corresponding to the waist region, the leg region and the ankle region is configured as a second spacing, wherein the second spacing is configured to be greater than the first spacing. Maxfield teaches a longitudinal spacing between adjacent tensioning bands corresponding to the neck region and the back region is configured as a first spacing, and a longitudinal spacing between adjacent tensioning bands corresponding to the waist region, the leg region and the ankle region is configured as a second spacing, wherein the second spacing is configured to be greater than the first spacing (Figure 11 shows a waist, leg, and ankle region uncovered by the upper bad part (114a/114b). Paragraph 47 notes that cells uncovered by the pad part are wider in width than those under the pad part, thus meaning the divisions between cells analogous to the c shaped dividers of Washburn are more spaced out in those regions). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Washburn (directed to an inflatable pad with divided cells) and Maxfield (directed to an inflatable pad with divided cells of varying widths) and arrived at an inflatable pad with divided cells of varying widths. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide stiffer support to some areas as opposed to others (Maxfield Paragraph 47).
Regarding claim 5, Washburn teaches the lower limb portion comprises a hip region (Figure 8b; 196) and a leg region (Figure 8b; 198) that fit corresponding parts of the human body.
Regarding claim 6, Washburn teaches the upper body portion comprises a neck region (Figure 8b; left portion of 192 around where 226 is written) and a back region (Figure 8b; 192, middle) that fit corresponding parts of the human body.
Regarding claim 7, Washburn teaches the lower limb portion comprises a leg region (Figure 8b; left of 198) and an ankle region (Figure 8b; right of 198, or see Figure 15; rightmost 218’) that fit corresponding parts of the human body.
Regarding claim 8, Washburn teaches along the lateral direction, the tensioning bands corresponding to the neck region, the back region, the waist region and the ankle region are fixedly bonded to the sleeping mat layer and the ground mat layer in a continuous manner, so that protruding strips extending continuously along the lateral direction are formed in corresponding regions of the sleeping mat layer (Figure 8b, 218 as shown, see also Figure 13, 2020 and 222).
Regarding claim 9, Washburn teaches the tensioning bands corresponding to the leg region and spaced from each other evenly along the lateral direction are fixedly bonded to the sleeping mat layer and the ground mat layer (Figure 11; 222 and 220, bulges as shown (at 210) see also Figure 15, 198), so that undulating bulges (Figure 11; bulges as shown (at 210)) extending along the lateral direction are formed in the leg region.
Regarding claim 10, Washburn teaches the heights of the neck region, the waist region and the ankle region are configured to remain unchanged along the lateral direction (Figure 8b and Figure 11; 218, 222, and 220, the height is constant across the lateral direction for any pocket/strip).
Regarding claim 13, Washburn teaches an inflation channel (Column 17; lines 24-28 and Column 17 line64 — Column 18 line 1) is provided within the closed accommodation cavity, so that the plurality of inflatable cavities is in communication with each other through the inflation channel, and the sleeping mat body is provided with an inflation port (Figure 9; 232) in communication with the inflation channel, for inflating all the inflatable cavities.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 11, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washburn (US Patent 5815865) in view of Maxfield (US Patent Application Publication 20210186225) in view of Bertoni (US Patent Application Publication 20230181396).
Regarding claim 2, Washburn does not teach the waist portion is 0.75-1.5 cm thicker than the upper body portion. Bertoni teaches the waist portion is 0.75-1.5 cm thicker than the upper body portion (see Claims 8 and 51, which teach maintaining a set of bladders at a different height than a first set of bladders, where the height difference is 10 mm (1 cm)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Washburn (directed to an inflatable pad with bladders of different heights) and Maxfield (directed to an inflatable pad with divided cells of varying widths) and Bertoni (directed to an inflatable mattress with bladders of different heights of 1 cm) and arrived at an inflatable pad with bladders of different heights of 1 cm and varying widths. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to reduce pressure points on bedridden patients and prevent pressure sores as taught in Bertoni (Paragraphs 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 3, Washburn does not teach a thickness of the waist portion is 7-11 cm. Bertoni teaches a thickness of the waist portion is 7-11 cm, and preferably 8-10 cm (Paragraph 123 teaches bladders with a height of 10 centimeters). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Washburn (directed to an inflatable pad with bladders of different heights) and Maxfield (directed to an inflatable pad with divided cells of varying widths) and Bertoni (directed to an inflatable mattress with bladders of different heights of 1 cm) and arrived at an inflatable pad with bladders of different heights of 1 cm and varying widths. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to reduce pressure points on bedridden patients and prevent pressure sores as taught in Bertoni (Paragraphs 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 11, Washburn does not teach the height of the neck region is configured to be greater than a maximum height of the back region, so that the neck region forms a support for a head of the human body. Bertoni teaches the height of the neck region is configured to be greater than a maximum height of the back region, so that the neck region forms a support for a head of the human body (Figure 1a; as shown). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Washburn (directed to an inflatable pad with bladders of different heights) and Maxfield (directed to an inflatable pad with divided cells of varying widths) and Bertoni (directed to an inflatable mattress with bladders of different heights of 1 cm) and arrived at an inflatable pad with bladders of different heights of 1 cm and varying widths. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to reduce pressure points on bedridden patients and prevent pressure sores as taught in Bertoni (Paragraphs 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 12, Washburn does not teach the contact surface of the sleeping mat layer has a height difference a range of 0.5-4 cm. Bertoni teaches the contact surface of the sleeping mat layer has a height difference a range of 0.5-4 cm (see Claims 8 and 51, which teach maintaining a set of bladders at a different height than a first set of bladders, where the height difference is 10 mm (1 cm)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Washburn (directed to an inflatable pad with bladders of different heights) and Maxfield (directed to an inflatable pad with divided cells of varying widths) and Bertoni (directed to an inflatable mattress with bladders of different heights of 1 cm) and arrived at an inflatable pad with bladders of different heights of 1 cm and varying widths. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to reduce pressure points on bedridden patients and prevent pressure sores as taught in Bertoni (Paragraphs 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 14, Washburn does not teach an air pressure within the inflatable cavities after inflation is 2-5 kPa. Bertoni teaches an air pressure within the inflatable cavities after inflation is 2-5 kPa (Paragraph 156). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Washburn (directed to an inflatable pad with bladders of different heights) and Maxfield (directed to an inflatable pad with divided cells of varying widths) and Bertoni (directed to an inflatable mattress with bladders of different heights of 1 cm) and arrived at an inflatable pad with bladders of different heights of 1 cm and varying widths. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to reduce pressure points on bedridden patients and prevent pressure sores as taught in Bertoni (Paragraphs 3 and 4).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washburn (US Patent 5815865) in view of Maxfield (US Patent Application Publication 20210186225) in view of Haller (US Patent 5974608.
Regarding claim 4, Washburn does not teach a thickness of the waist portion is 8-10 cm. Haller teaches a thickness of the waist portion is 8-10 cm (Column 2; lines 17-27). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Washburn (directed to an inflatable pad with divided cells) and Maxfield (directed to an inflatable pad with divided cells of varying widths) and Haller (directed to an inflatable support with a waist height between 8-10cm) and arrived at an inflatable pad with divided cells of varying widths and a waist height between 8-10cm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
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 MORGAN J MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)270-0362. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesdays 12pm-10pm and Thursdays 12pm-10pm.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at 5712728525. 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.
/MORGAN J MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights