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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "wherein the first and second pleats abut one another" while parent claim 1 recites “a first pleat and a second pleat are physically separated” (emphasis added). In other words, claim 4 contradicts claim 1, thus making the scope of the claim unclear.
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 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Docker (GB 1554007) in view of Hutton (US 5,864,907).
Regarding Claim 1, Docker discloses a mattress assembly, comprising:
an interior region encapsulated with a cover, wherein the cover comprises a top panel, a bottom panel (see Claim 4 on page 3, lines 42-50), and a border panel (10) extending between the top and bottom panels,
wherein the top and bottom panels define horizontally oriented planar surface (see Claim 4 of Docker, common knowledge of a mattress when in use),
wherein the border panel comprises a fabric material having a length that exceeds a perimeter of the mattress assembly to define an excess portion (see Pg. 1, Lines 68-72),
wherein the excess portion of the fabric material is folded over in two spaced apart locations to form a first pleat (17a) and a second pleat (18a),
wherein perimeter edges associated with the border panel are attached to corresponding edges of the top and bottom panels (@19) to snugly fit the border panel about a perimeter of the interior region and define at least two integrated pockets (17 and 18) including an open end (17) and a closed end (17a) defined by the first pleat, and an open end (18) and a closed end (18a) defined by the second pleat. Docker fails to disclose a first pleat and a second pleat which are physically separated in a first direction that is orthogonal to a second direction in which the first pleat and the second pleat are vertically oriented with respect to the horizontally oriented planar surfaces of the top and bottom panels. Docker discloses on see pg. 2, Lines 97-102 that the two pleats “abut”. Applicant describes the pleats in para. [0022] of their specification, and implies that pleats can accomplish the same intended function by either abutting the pleats 40 or space them apart as shown in the drawings. No criticality is assigned to choosing either pleats that abut or pleats that are spaced apart, aside from pleats that abut can make a border panel that is “snugly fit about substantially all of the mattress assembly”. Hutton, in the same filed of endeavor, i.e. mattress handle, provides for two transverse seams (pleats) spaced apart lengthwise thereof. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a first pleat and second pleat that are physically separated in a first direction that is orthogonal to a second direction in which the first pleat and the second pleat are vertically oriented with respect to the horizontally oriented planar surfaces of the top and bottom panels as taught in the prior art since it would amount to applying a known technique (Hutton’s spaced apart seams connected by straps) to a known device ready for improvement (Docker’s pleats 17a and 18a) to yield predictable results (strengthen the pleats while also removing the step of pulling the pleats of the cover material taught toward each other, thus easing the manufacturing process.).
Regarding Claim 5, Docker discloses multiple pockets (17 and 18) along one or more selected sidewalls of the mattress assembly.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Docker (GB 1554007) in view of Fasanella (US 3,626,525).
Regarding Claim 3, Docker fails to explicitly disclose wherein the interior region comprises foam, spring coils, air bladders, or a combination thereof. Fasanella teaches a mattress with an interior region comprising foam, spring coils (12), air bladders, or a combination thereof. It would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the interior region of Docker with the innerspring of Fasanella. it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 6, Docker fails to disclose wherein the at least one integrated pocket is centrally located along a sidewall, and in another embodiment states that “these pockets are so positioned that they also will lie one on each longer side of the mattress inset by approximately eighteen inches. In a completed mattress there will thus be four pockets all of which open towards the ends of the mattress”, implying that the pockets are closer to the ends rather than centrally located along a sidewall. Fasanella further teaches at least one integrated pocket (26) is centrally located along a sidewall. It would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Docker with the centrally located pocket of Fasanella. The motivation would have been to provide another handle at a region that would useful for handling the mattress, thus increasing convenience for a user. Furthermore, rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Applicant provides an integrated handle in which a pair of pleats are physically separated. In other words, there is a gap between the pair of pleat edges in a direction orthogonal to the pleat folds […] This results in a structural difference between the integrated handle fabricated using the Docker manufacturing process, and the integrated handle using Applicant's manufacturing process. While both are perfectly suitable designs, they are not the same. Respectfully, Applicant finds the present design to be superior, as we do not require the additional centerline stiches 20 discussed, for example, in lines 104-115 of page 2, col. 2 of the Docker disclosure, which are used, presumably, to increase the stability of the double thickness material at the pleat interface resulting from the Docker technique. — Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Docker disclosure does not require the centerline stitches 20. They are not shown in Docker’s Fig. 3 and the hand grip can be secured by lines of stitching 19 “or in fact may be, in addition, a line of stitching 20 at the abutting closed inner ends 17a, 18a of the pockets” (Docker: see page 2, lines 102-09; emphasis added). Applicant describes the pleats in para. [0022] of their specification, and implies that pleats can accomplish the same intended function by either abutting the pleats 40 or space them apart as shown in the drawings. No criticality is assigned to choosing either pleats that abut or pleats are physically separated, aside from pleats that abut can make a border panel that is “snugly fit about substantially all of the mattress assembly”. The two options for the pleats, separated or abutting, are considered to be obvious variants, and as described in the 35 USC 103 analysis above, is considered obvious in view of the prior art.
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 ERIC J KURILLA whose telephone number is (571)270-7294. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7AM-6PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/ERIC J KURILLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619