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
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I (claims 1-45) in the reply filed on December 17, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 33 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 33 and 41 contain the limitation “wherein the first layers are separable from the first base”, included in the preliminary amendment which was filed December 17, 2025. It does not appear that this feature was disclosed in the application as originally filed. Paragraph 0037 of the Specification states that the layers could be formed from multiple pieces of foam, however, the specification does not explicitly state or imply that these layers are able to be separated. Additionally, paragraph 0060 discusses how two foam cushion components can be separated from each other, but claims 33 and 41 require that the first layers and first base, which are part of a single first foam cushion component, be separable. As such, the limitation “wherein the first layers are separable from the first base” is considered new matter.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10, 11, 15, and 39 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.
Claims 10, 11, 15, and 39, introduce a height of the first and second layers. It is unclear if the height of the layers which is introduced in these claims are the same as the height of the first and second layers which is introduced in claim 1, from which claims 10, 11, and 15 depend, and claim 36, from which claim 39 depends. For examination purposes, it is assumed the heights of claims 1, 10, 11, and 15 are the same and the heights of claims 36 and 39 are the same. Examiner recommends language such as “wherein the height of the first layers and the height of the second layers are the same” for claims 10 and 15, “wherein the height of the first layers is different from the height of the second layers” for claim 11, and “wherein the height of the layers of the first and second foam cushion components is shorter than a height of the layers of the third and fourth foam cushion components” for claim 39.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-13, 18-19, 23-24, 30, 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farnham (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0208521).
Regarding claim 1, Farnham discloses a cushioning article comprising: a first foam cushion 300 (Figure 3A)comprising: a first foam cushion component 11 having a first base (defined by the portion of component 11 which extends from the top of the cushion to the recessions 14 and bases of the protrusions 16, Figure 3A) and first layers 16 that emanate from the first base (Figure 3A and paragraph 0041); a second foam cushion 22 component having a second base (defined by the portion of component 22 which extends from the bottom of the cushion to the recessions 24 and bases of the protrusions 23, Figure 3A) and second layers 23 that emanate from the second base (Figure 3A and paragraph 0041); wherein the first layers 16 are alternated with and positioned between the second layers 23 along a length of the cushioning article 300 (Figure 3A); wherein each layer of the first and second foam cushion components has a height (defined by the total heights of each of the cushion components 11 and 22, which are 2.0-5.0” and 2.0”-6.0” respectively) and a thickness (defined by the thickness of the each of the first and second bases, which are 0.75-3.5” and 1.0-3.0”, respectively), and wherein a ratio of the height to the thickness is at least 2.5 (where said ratio for the first and second cushion components would have a maximum of 6.67 and 6.0, respectively, determined by the ratio of the largest height to the smallest thickness).
Regarding claim 2, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Farnham further discloses a base layer 45 on which the first foam cushion is positioned (Figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 3, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Farnham further discloses wherein the first and second layers 11 and 22 are formed of different types of foam (paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 8, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Farnham further discloses wherein the first base and the second base have the same height (where the base of the first and second foam cushion components 11 and 22 may be in the range of 0.75-3.5” and 1.0-3.0”, respectively, see Figure 3A and paragraph 0041, such that the heights may be the same in some embodiments).
Regarding claim 9, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Farnham further discloses wherein the first base has a different height from the second base (where the base of the first and second foam cushion components 11 and 22 may be in the range of 0.75-3.5” and 1.0-3.0”, respectively, see Figure 3A and paragraph 0041, such that the heights may be different in some embodiments).
Regarding claim 10, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Farnham further discloses wherein the first layers 16 and the second layers 23 have the same height (where the protrusions of the first and second foam cushion components 11 and 22 may be in the range of 2.0-5.0” and 2.0”-6.0”, respectively, see Figure 3A and paragraph 0041, such that the heights may be the same in some embodiments).
Regarding claim 11, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Farnham further discloses wherein the first layers 16 have a different height from the second layers 23 (where the protrusions of the first and second foam cushion components 11 and 22 may be in the range of 2.0-5.0” and 2.0”-6.0”, respectively, see Figure 3A and paragraph 0041, such that the heights may be different in some embodiments).
Regarding claim 12, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Farnham further discloses wherein gaps are formed between the first layers 16 and the second base (Figure 3A and paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 13, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 12. Farnham further discloses wherein the second layers 23 extend to the first base (Figure 3A and paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 18, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Farnham further discloses wherein the first layers 16 and first base (defined by the portion of component 11 which extends from the top of the cushion to the recessions 14 and bases of the protrusions 16, Figure 3A) are unitarily formed and the second layers 23 and second base (defined by the portion of component 22 which extends from the bottom of the cushion to the recessions 24 and bases of the protrusions 23, Figure 3A) are unitarily formed (Figures 1-3A and paragraphs 0021 and 0030).
Regarding claim 19, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Farnham further discloses wherein the first foam cushion component 11 is positioned above the second foam cushion component 22 (Figure 3A), and wherein a height of the first base is greater than a height of the second base (where the base of the first and second foam cushion components 11 and 22 may be in the range of 0.75-3.5” and 1.0-3.0”, respectively, see Figure 3A and paragraph 0041, such that the height of the first base may be greater than the height of the second base in some embodiments).
Regarding claim 23, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Farnham further discloses wherein the first and second bases include tapered extensions that extend parallel to first and second layers respectively (see annotated Figure 3A, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
156
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Farnham further discloses a second foam cushion 59, wherein the first foam cushion 11 and 22 is positioned on top of the second foam cushion 59 (Figure 5 and paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 30, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Farnham further discloses wherein the cushioning article is a mattress 500 (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 32, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Farnham further discloses wherein an adhesive is applied between the first and second layers 16 and 23 only to ends of one or both of the first and second layers 23 to thereby enable the first and second layers 11 and 22 to collapse (paragraph 0040, where adhesive is not applied to the ends of the protrusions 16).
Regarding claim 34, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Farnham further discloses wherein the first foam cushion has a non-rectangular cross-sectional shape (Figure 3A, where recesses are formed between the protrusions 16 and recessions 25).
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.
Claims 1 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarazona De La Asuncion (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0264571) in view of Farnham.
Regarding claim 1, Tarazona De La Asuncion discloses a cushioning article comprising: a first foam cushion (Figure 1) comprising: a first foam cushion component 1 and 2 having a first base 1 and first layers 2 that emanate from the first base 1 (Figure 1); a second foam cushion component 1’ and 2’ having a second base 1’ and second layers 2’ that emanate from the second base 1’ (Figure 1 and paragraph 0042); wherein the first layers 2 are alternated with and positioned between the second layers 2’ along a length of the cushioning article (Figure 1); wherein each layer of the first and second foam cushion components has a height (defined by the total heights of each of the cushion components 11 and 22, which are 2.0-5.0” and 2.0”-6.0” respectively) and a thickness (defined by the thickness of the each of the first and second bases, which are 0.75-3.5” and 1.0-3.0”, respectively), and wherein a ratio of the height to the thickness is at least 2.5 (where said ratio for the first and second cushion components would have a maximum of 6.67 and 6.0, respectively, determined by the ratio of the largest height to the smallest thickness).
Tarazona De La Asuncion does not disclose wherein a ratio of the height to the thickness is at least 2.5
Farnham teaches wherein each layer of the first and second foam cushion components has a height (defined by the total heights of each of the cushion components 11 and 22, which are 2.0-5.0” and 2.0”-6.0” respectively) and a thickness (defined by the thickness of the each of the first and second bases, which are 0.75-3.5” and 1.0-3.0”, respectively), and wherein a ratio of the height to the thickness is at least 2.5 (where said ratio for the first and second cushion components would have a maximum of 6.67 and 6.0, respectively, determined by the ratio of the largest height to the smallest thickness).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified Farnham, as modified such that a ratio of the height to the thickness is at least 2.5. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would merely amount to a potential change in the size of the of the layers that would not provide unexpected results, as Farnham discloses that the protrusions may have a variety of sizes without departing from the scope of the invention, and that the mattress disclosed is not limited to the described dimensions (see Farnham, paragraph 0041). Moreover, applicant has not disclosed that having such a ratio itself solves any stated problem, the claimed ratio does not provide any unexpected result, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well where the ratio is of another size, such as a ratio of at least 2.0. While Applicant notes that a higher ratio results in greater instability, resulting in the cushion better conforming to an individual’s body, Applicant has not disclosed that a ratio of 2.5 is required for a specific result (see paragraph 0033 of Applicant’s specification), and Tarazona de La Asuncion notes that the dimensions of the protuberances may be adjusted such that the cushion may withstand different weights (paragraph 0057). Overall, applicant has not established any criticality of the claimed radius, and thus selecting the claimed radius would be an obvious matter of design choice. In this regard, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) are relevant.
Regarding claim 31, Tarazona de La Asuncion, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Tarazona De La Asuncion further discloses wherein the cushioning article is a pillow (see Tarazona De La Asuncion, paragraph 0011).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnham in view of Oh (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0237728)
Regarding claim 4, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 3. Farnham does not disclose wherein the different types of foam have Indentation Force Deflections (IFDs) that differ by at least 15%.
Oh teaches wherein the different types of foam (of layers 31 and 32) have Indentation Force Deflections (IFDs) that differ by at least 15% (paragraph 0032, where upper layer 31 may have an IFD of 9, and lower layer 32 may have an IFD of 15, such that the upper layer 31 has an IFD that is 40% lower than the IFD of lower layer 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Farnham with Oh (both being directed to a layered mattress structure) such that the different types of foam have Indentation Force Deflections (IFDs) that differ by at least 15%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the softer upper layer of Oh allows portions of a user’s body to sink into the mattress at varying degrees, while still providing support via the firmer lower layer (paragraphs 0025 and 0032).
Regarding claim 5, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 3. Farnham does not disclose wherein the different types of foam have Indentation Force Deflections (IFDs) that differ by at least 20%.
Oh teaches wherein the different types of foam (of layers 31 and 32) have Indentation Force Deflections (IFDs) that differ by at least 20% (paragraph 0032, where upper layer 31 may have an IFD of 9, and lower layer 32 may have an IFD of 15, such that the upper layer 31 has an IFD that is 40% lower than the IFD of lower layer 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Farnham with Oh (both being directed to a layered mattress structure) such that the different types of foam have Indentation Force Deflections (IFDs) that differ by at least 20%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the softer upper layer of Oh allows portions of a user’s body to sink into the mattress at varying degrees, while still providing support via the firmer lower layer (paragraphs 0025 and 0032).
Regarding claim 6, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 3. Farnham does not disclose wherein the different types of foam have Indentation Force Deflections (IFDs) that differ by at least 25%.
Oh) teaches wherein the different types of foam (of layers 31 and 32) have Indentation Force Deflections (IFDs) that differ by at least 25% (paragraph 0032, where upper layer 31 may have an IFD of 9, and lower layer 32 may have an IFD of 15, such that the upper layer 31 has an IFD that is 40% lower than the IFD of lower layer 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Farnham with Oh (both being directed to a layered mattress structure) such that the different types of foam have Indentation Force Deflections (IFDs) that differ by at least 25%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the softer upper layer of Oh allows portions of a user’s body to sink into the mattress at varying degrees, while still providing support via the firmer lower layer (paragraphs 0025 and 0032).
Regarding claim 7, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 3. Farnham further discloses wherein the different types of foam are polyurethane or the like (paragraph 0021)
Farnham does not explicitly disclose wherein the different types of foam are selected from: quick-rebound polyurethane foam; slow-rebound polyurethane foam; latex foam; expanded polyolefin foam; EVA foam; silicone foam; melamine foam; PVDF foam; polyethylene foam; shredded and then rebonded foam; and Energex foam.
Oh teaches wherein the different types of foam are selected from: quick-rebound polyurethane foam; slow-rebound polyurethane foam; latex foam; expanded polyolefin foam; EVA foam; silicone foam; melamine foam; PVDF foam; polyethylene foam; shredded and then rebonded foam; and Energex foam (paragraph 0025, where the top layer 31 may be memory foam, a slow-rebound polyurethane foam, and the bottom layer 32 may comprise high density polyurethane foam, a quick-rebound polyurethane foam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Farnham with Oh (both being directed to a layered mattress structure) such that the different types of foam are selected from: quick-rebound polyurethane foam; slow-rebound polyurethane foam; latex foam; expanded polyolefin foam; EVA foam; silicone foam; melamine foam; PVDF foam; polyethylene foam; shredded and then rebonded foam; and Energex foam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the softer upper layer of Oh allows portions of a user’s body to sink into the mattress at varying degrees, while still providing support via the firmer lower layer (paragraphs 0025 and 0032).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnham in view of Ingo (Patent Publication No. DE 10051747 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 12. Farnham does not disclose wherein gaps are also formed between the second layers and the first base.
Ingo teaches wherein gaps “a” are also formed between the second layers 18 and the first base (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Farnham with Ingo (both being directed to a layered mattress structure) such that gaps are also formed between the second layers and the first base. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the gaps of Ingo allow for the mattress to flex more easily without becoming too firm when used on an articulating bed frame (paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 15, Farnham, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1, 12, and 14. Farnham, as modified, further discloses wherein the first and second layers 16 and 23 have the same height (where the protrusions 16 and 23 of the first and second foam cushion components 11 and 22 may be in the range of 2.0-5.0” and 2.0”-6.0”, respectively, see Farnham Figure 3A and paragraph 0041, such that the heights may be the same in some embodiments).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnham in view of Nguyen (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0095806).
Regarding claim 16, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Farnham does not explicitly disclose wherein the ends of the first and second layers are rounded.
Nguyen teaches wherein the ends of the first and second layers 103 and 102 are rounded (Figures 1 and 3 and paragraph 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Farnham with Nguyen (both being directed to a layered mattress structure) such that the ends of the first and second layers are rounded. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the rounded shapes of Nguyen increase comfort of the mattress layer (paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 17, Farnham, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 16. Farnham, as modified, further discloses wherein portions of the first and second bases between the first and second layers respectively are rounded (see Nguyen, Figures 1 and 3 and paragraph 0015).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnham in view of
Fernandez (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0237082).
Regarding claim 20, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 19. Farnham further discloses wherein the height of the first base is approximately 2.5 inches (where the base of the first foam cushion component 11 may be in the range of 0.75-3.5”, see Figure 3A and paragraph 0041). Farnham does not disclose wherein the height of the second base is approximately 0.5 inches.
Fernandez teaches wherein the height of the second base 310 is approximately 0.5 inches (paragraph 0037, where the layer 310 may be 0.5 mm to 30cm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Farnham with Fernandez (both being directed to a layered mattress structure) such that the height of the second base is approximately 0.5 inches. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would merely amount to a change in the size of the second base that would not provide unexpected results, as changing the height of the second base would merely adjust how much support the second base provides within the mattress assembly (paragraph 0037). In this regard, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) are relevant.
Regarding claim 21, Farnham, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 19-20. Farnham, as modified, further discloses 21 wherein a height of the first and second layers is approximately 7.0 inches (see Farnham, Figure 3A, where the protrusions 16 and 23 of the first and second foam cushion components 11 and 22 may be in the range of 2.0-5.0” and 2.0”-6.0”, respectively, such that the layers may sum to 7.0 inches in some embodiments).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnham in view of Fernandez and further in view of Nguyen.
Regarding claim 22, Farnham, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 19-21. Farnham, as modified, does not disclose wherein ends of the first and second layers are rounded and have a radius of approximately 0.75 inches.
Nguyen teaches wherein the ends of the first and second layers 103 and 102 are rounded (Figures 1 and 3 and paragraph 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Farnham with Nguyen (both being directed to a layered mattress structure) such that the ends of the first and second layers are rounded. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the rounded shapes of Nguyen increase comfort of the mattress layer (paragraph 0015).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified Farnham, as modified such that the ends of the first and second layers to have a radius of approximately 0.75 inches. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would merely amount to a potential change in the size of the of the layers that would not provide unexpected results, as Farnham discloses that the protrusions may have a variety of sizes without departing from the scope of the invention, and that the mattress disclosed is not limited to the described dimensions (see Farnham, paragraph 0041). Moreover, applicant has not disclosed that having such a radius itself solves any stated problem, the claimed radius does not provide any unexpected result, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well where the radius is of another size, such as a radius of 0.5 inches, as used in the embodiment of Figure 13B. Overall, applicant has not established any criticality of the claimed radius, and thus selecting the claimed radius would be an obvious matter of design choice. In this regard, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) are relevant.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnham in view of Watanabe (Patent Publication No. JP 2006095067 A).
Regarding claim 33, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Farnham does not disclose wherein the first layers are separable from the first base.
Watanabe teaches wherein the first layers 12 are separable from the first base 13 (Figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Farnham with Nguyen (both being directed to a layered mattress structure) such that the first layers are separable from the first base. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the separable layers of Watanabe allow for the layers to be cleaned or replaced (paragraphs 0004 and 0021)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-29 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.
Regarding claims 25, Farnham discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 24. Farnham does not disclose wherein the second foam cushion comprises: a third foam cushion component having a third base and third layers that emanate from the third base; a fourth foam cushion component having a fourth base and fourth layers that emanate from the fourth base; wherein the third layers are alternated with and positioned between the fourth layers. The second foam cushion of Farnham is a singular piece of foam described as a high support layer. In the assembly of Farnham, there is only one foam cushion which comprises the claimed base and layer structure, cited as the first foam cushion as noted in the rejection of claim 1, above. Similar mattresses which comprise a foam cushion with a structure that is similar or identical to the claimed base and layer structure, such as Tarazona De La Asuncion (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0264571), Oh (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0237728), Nguyen (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0095806), and Schwenk (Patent Publication No. DE 19600435 A1), only disclose a single instance of this type of foam cushion within their respective mattress or cushion structures. Other cushions or mattresses disclose additional cushion layers attached to the first cushion component, such as Yang (Patent Publication No. CN 211212269 U) which teaches an additional foam cushion component 3 comprising a base and plurality of layers positioned below the first and second foam cushion components 1 and 2 (Figure 1), but Zang fails to the disclose the claimed fourth cushion component. Sportis (Patent Publication No. WO 2012/123499 A1) discloses both a third and fourth foam cushion component 307 and 309, however these are positioned adjacent to the first and second cushion components 306 and 308 to provide zoned areas along the length of the mattress (Figure 6), while claim 25 requires the first and second foam cushions be layered on top of one another. As such, there is no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion in the prior art such that a rejection of claim 25 may be reasonably maintained. Claims 26-29 are additionally objected to by virtue of their dependence from claim 25.
Claims 35-38, 40, and 42-45 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 35, Farnham discloses a cushioning article comprising: a first foam cushion 300 comprising opposing first and second foam cushion components 11 and 22, each of the first and second foam cushion components 11 and 22 including layers 16 and 23 that emanate from a base (defined by the portion of components 11 and 22 which extends from the top or bottom of the cushion 11 and 22, respectively to the recessions 14 and 24 and bases of the protrusions 16 and 23, respectively, Figure 3A) and the layers 16 of the first foam cushion component 11 are alternated with the layers 23 of the second foam cushion component along a length of the cushioning article (Figure 3A); wherein each layer of the first and second foam cushion components has a height (defined by the total heights of each of the cushion components 11 and 22, which are 2.0-5.0” and 2.0”-6.0” respectively) and a thickness (defined by the thickness of the each of the first and second bases, which are 0.75-3.5” and 1.0-3.0”, respectively), and wherein a ratio of the height to the thickness is at least 2.5 (where said ratio for the first and second cushion components would have a maximum of 6.67 and 6.0, respectively, determined by the ratio of the largest height to the smallest thickness).
Farnham does not disclose wherein an adhesive is applied between each layer of the first and second foam cushion components only to ends of the layers to thereby enable the layers to collapse. While Farnham does disclose the application of adhesive to the second layers 23, Farnham makes clear that the adhesive is only applied to the tops of the second layers, and that no adhesive exists between the layers 16 and the corresponding surfaces of the recesses 25 of the second foam cushion component 22 (paragraph 0040). This arrangement of adhesive allows for the protrusions 16 to sink into and eventually come in contact with the surfaces of the recesses 25, which provides a progressive support profile to the mattress (paragraph 0036). Modifying this adhesive arrangement would likely diminish the effect of or rid the mattress entirely of this progressive support, rendering Farnham unsuitable for its intended purpose. As such, there is no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion in the prior art such that a rejection of claim 35 may be reasonably maintained. Claims 36-38, 40, and 42-45 would additionally be allowable by virtue of their dependence from claim 35. Additionally, it is noted that claims 39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(a), respectively but would additionally be allowable if rewritten to overcome these rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Apperson (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0260060) which discloses a mattress comprising a first and second foam cushion component.
Larsen (U.S. Patent No. 9,259,099) which discloses a mattress comprising a first and second foam cushion component.
Swartzburg (U.S. Patent No. 7,334,280) which discloses a mattress comprising a first and second foam cushion component comprising differing IFDs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISON N LABARGE whose telephone number is (571)272-6098. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:00.
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 at (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.
/ALISON N LABARGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679