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 .
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.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Appropriate correction of claim numbers including dependency as appropriate is required. The claim set skips claim number 5, proceeding instead from claim 4 to claim 6.
Claim 20 includes options for non-elected embodiments and is therefore objected to. The non-elected options should be removed from the claim or the claim should be withdrawn entirely.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the following in the reply filed on 12/12/25 is acknowledged:
Body support article / gel layer construction
Species A-I as represented by Figs. 1A-1B;
Quilted layer construction
Species B-I as represented by Fig. 1C;
Gel space construction
Species C-XV as represented by Figs. 21, 3J, and 3L in combination; and
Type of apparatus and arrangement thereof
Species D-I as represented by Fig. 8A.
Claims 1-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/12/25.
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 13-20 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “operatively coupled.” It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the recitation are as the meaning is not clear. There is no operation recited in the claim and it is not clear how “operatively coupled” may differ, if at all, from simply being “coupled.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a gel-type structure.” It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the recitation are as the meaning is not clear. It is not clear whether the recitation is only intended to cover gels or whether it is intended to cover similar materials or structures and, if so, what the extent and limit of that coverage may be. Additionally, in that sense, it appears that the recitation is merely exemplary, i.e. the phrase "gel-type" renders the claim indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). All other recitations throughout the claim set of “gel-type” suffer from the same deficiencies and issues as described above and are not identified separately for brevity.
Claim 13 recites “the gel-type structure” in the final paragraph of the claim. It is not clear whether this recitation refers to one of the previously introduced gel-type structures or whether it is intended to limit all of them. As written, it appears to only refer to a single one and it is not clear as to which one the recitation refers. All other recitations throughout the claim set of “the gel-type structure” suffer from the same deficiencies and issues as described above and are not identified separately for brevity.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein predetermined firmness.” This recitation lacks proper antecedent basis as it is not clear whether the recitation is referring the previously introduced “a predetermined firmness” or whether it is introducing a new predetermined firmness.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “operatively coupled.” It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the recitation are as the meaning is not clear. There is no operation recited in the claim and it is not clear how “operatively coupled” may differ, if at all, from simply being “coupled.”
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the first stress compression.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the second stress compression.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation that “each of the plurality of enclosed stitched segments is enclosed by a plurality of stitching lines.” It is unclear whether the recited “a plurality of stitching lines” is new stitching in addition that required by “enclosed stitch segments” such that there is essentially double-stitching, or whether it is merely intended to describe the “stitched” requirement as needing a plurality of stitching lines rather than, for example, a single stitch.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the first foam layer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the second foam layer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claims rejected below are rejected as best understood.
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.
Claim(s) 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Micklos et al. (US PG Pub No. US 20220110456 A1).
All claims are clearly anticipated in the reference provided. Nevertheless, the following explanation is provided. The reference plainly discloses the gel-type and foam being operatively coupled as well as stitching materials together with enclosing stitches. Additionally, the lattice structure which necessarily has a height, width, and length is plainly shown as well including the gaps. A predetermined firmness necessarily exists.
The reference discloses that it is known to have different compressive strengths and necessarily includes stress compressions and firmness values / characteristics which correspond to compression factors.
Regarding the materials claimed, see paragraphs 0063 – 0064 for example. See also 0095 etc. for the claim 19 layers.
Regarding claim 20, see 0002.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional body supports including gel layers are provided which are relevant to the claimed and/or disclosed invention, including pillows, mattresses, and pads. Lattices and arrays are included.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SOSNOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7944. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM and 9 PM through 11:59 PM Monday through Friday, generally.
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 (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.
/DAVID E. SOSNOWSKI/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673