Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/377,932

MATTRESS REINFORCEMENT SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 09, 2023
Examiner
GINES, GEORGE SAMUEL
Art Unit
3673
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Sleep Number Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
29 granted / 41 resolved
+18.7% vs TC avg
Strong +40% interview lift
Without
With
+40.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
71
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
56.3%
+16.3% vs TC avg
§102
25.1%
-14.9% vs TC avg
§112
17.1%
-22.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 41 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Application Status Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-13, and 15-18 have been amended in this application. This action is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 1/22/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claims 1-3, 8-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Piana (US 20080134431 A1). Regarding Claim 1, Piana discloses a mattress defining a mattress periphery (See Fig. 1-2, mattress 20), the mattress comprising: a first mattress side edge at least partially defining the mattress periphery; a second mattress side edge at least partially defining the mattress periphery (See Fig. 1-2, mattress 20 having a first and second side edge defining the periphery of the mattress); a core positioned between the first mattress side edge and the second mattress side edge (See Fig. 1-2, mattress 20 being the core itself); a layer positioned under the core (See Fig. 1-2, adjustable base support 22 below the mattress 20 core); and a plurality of straps (mattress retainer 30) each having a first end connected to the layer below the core within the mattress periphery and a second end connected to a bottom surface of the mattress within the mattress periphery (See Fig. 1-3, mattress retainer 30 connected to support 22 and the bottom of mattress 20 core). PNG media_image1.png 454 636 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 456 558 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 2, Piana discloses the mattress (mattress 20) of claim 1, wherein the plurality of straps comprises: at least one first side strap connected proximal to the first mattress side edge within the mattress periphery and to the layer; and at least one second side strap connected proximal to the second mattress side edge within the mattress periphery and to the layer (See Fig. 1-3, mattress retainers 30 on both edges 40, 42 of the support 22 connected proximal to both edges of mattress 20 within the periphery of said mattress 20, “an alternative embodiment (not shown), the relative position of these components may be reversed such that the bracket is formed on the underside of the mattress and the loop is formed on the top surface of the adjustable base support”; [0022]). Regarding Claim 3, Piana discloses the mattress (mattress 20) of claim 2, wherein: the at least one first side strap extends from the layer and has (i) an end connected proximal to the first mattress side edge and (ii) an opposite end connected to the layer; and the at least one second side strap extends from the layer and has (i) an end connected proximal to the second mattress side edge and (ii) an opposite end connected to the layer (See Fig. 1-3, mattress retainers 30 on both edges 40, 42 of support 22 extend from said edges and connect to loop 36 of mattress 20, “an alternative embodiment (not shown), the relative position of these components may be reversed such that the bracket is formed on the underside of the mattress and the loop is formed on the top surface of the adjustable base support”; [0022]). Regarding Claim 8, Piana discloses the mattress (mattress 20) of claim 2, wherein the at least one second side strap aligns with the at least one first side strap along a transverse direction extending between the first mattress side edge and the second mattress side edge (See Fig. 3, mattress retainers 30 extending along a transverse direction in parallel). Regarding Claim 9, Piana discloses the mattress (mattress 20) of claim 2, wherein the at least one second side strap extends in parallel with the at least one first side strap (See Fig. 3, mattress retainers 30 extending along a transverse direction in parallel). Regarding Claim 10, Piana discloses the mattress (mattress 20) of claim 2, wherein a shortest length between the first mattress side edge and the second mattress side edge is longer than a total of a length of each of the at least one first side strap and a length of each of the at least one second side strap (See Fig. 1-3, mattress retainers 30 are shorter than the width of mattress 20). Regarding Claim 12, Piana discloses the mattress (mattress 20) of claim 3, further comprising a plurality of fastening elements configured to attach the plurality of straps [[to]] proximal the first mattress side edge, proximal the second mattress side edge, and to the layer (See Fig. 1-3, “ the elongated portion 52 is secured to the adjustable base support 22 and the engagement portion 58 adapted for releasably attaching the bracket 30 to the loop 36 of the mattress 26”; [0024]). Regarding Claim 13, Piana discloses the mattress (mattress 20) of claim 12, wherein the plurality of fastening elements comprises: a first fastening element configured to attach the end of the at least one first side strap [[onto]] proximal the first mattress side edge; and a second fastening element configured to attach the opposite end of the at least one first side strap onto the layer (See Fig. 1-3, “ the elongated portion 52 is secured to the adjustable base support 22 and the engagement portion 58 adapted for releasably attaching the bracket 30 to the loop 36 of the mattress 26”; [0024]). Regarding Claim 14, Piana discloses the mattress (mattress 20) of claim 12, wherein the plurality of fastening elements comprise at least one of an adhesive tape or a hook and loop fastener (“mattress retainer 30 may also include other releasable locking mechanisms in addition to the bracket and loop arrangement shown in the drawings, for instance, a hook and a loop”; [0022]). 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 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piana (US 20080134431 A1) in view of Whitney (US 3842455 A). Regarding Claim 4, Piana discloses the mattress (mattress 20) of claim 3. Piana fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one first side strap includes a first first-side strap and a second first-side strap that are positioned in a longitudinal middle section of the mattress with the second first-side strap being spaced from the first first-side strap. However, Whitney teaches wherein the at least one first side strap includes a first first-side strap and a second first-side strap that are positioned in a longitudinal middle section of the mattress with the second first-side strap being spaced from the first first-side strap (See Fig. 1, two sets of straps on each side of the under surface of mattress 10 for connecting to mattress 40). PNG media_image3.png 544 408 media_image3.png Greyscale Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Piana by adding multiple straps on either side of the mattress as taught by Whitney. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for attaching mattress”; (Whitney, [Col. 2, Lines 50-51]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable. Regarding Claim 5, Piana, as modified, teaches the mattress (mattress 20) of claim 4. Piana fails to explicitly teach wherein the first first-side strap extends in parallel with the second first-side strap. However, Whitney teaches wherein the first first-side strap extends in parallel with the second first-side strap (See Fig. 1, straps 38 extending in parallel with each other). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Piana by adding multiple parallel straps on either side of the mattress as taught by Whitney. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for attaching mattress”; (Whitney, [Col. 2, Lines 50-51]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable. Regarding Claim 6, Piana, as modified, teaches the mattress (mattress 20) of claim 4. Piana fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one second side strap includes a first second-side strap and a second second-side strap that are positioned in the longitudinal middle section of the mattress with the second second-side strap being spaced from the first second-side strap However, Whitney teaches wherein the at least one second side strap includes a first second-side strap and a second second-side strap that are positioned in the longitudinal middle section of the mattress with the second second-side strap being spaced from the first second-side strap (See Fig. 1, two sets of straps on each side of the under surface of mattress 10 for connecting to mattress 40). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Piana by adding multiple straps on either side of the mattress as taught by Whitney. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for attaching mattress”; (Whitney, [Col. 2, Lines 50-51]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable. Regarding Claim 7, Piana, as modified, teaches the mattress (mattress 20) of claim 6. Piana fails to explicitly teach wherein the first second-side strap and the second second-side strap align with the first first-side strap and the second first-side strap, respectively, along a transverse direction extending between the first mattress side edge and the second mattress side edge. However, Whitney teaches wherein the first second-side strap and the second second-side strap align with the first first-side strap and the second first-side strap, respectively, along a transverse direction extending between the first mattress side edge and the second mattress side edge (See Fig. 1, two sets of straps on each side of the under surface of mattress 10 that align with the opposing side straps for connecting to mattress 40). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Piana by adding aligned opposing straps on either side of the mattress as taught by Whitney. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for attaching mattress”; (Whitney, [Col. 2, Lines 50-51]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 11 is 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. Claims 15-20 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claims are allowable over the prior art of record because the teachings of references as a whole do not teach nor render obvious the combination set forth in Claim 11, Independent Claims 15 and 17. Regarding Claim 11, the prior art of Piana (US 20080134431 A1) teaches the mattress of claim 4. The prior art of Piana in view of Whitney (US 3842455 A) and other references of record fails to explicitly teach wherein the mattress defines a first cutout and second cutout with the two straps on each side of the mattress connecting on opposite sides of their supposed cutout. Regarding Independent Claim 15, the prior art of Piana teaches a bed comprising: a foundation and a mattress resting upon the foundation, the mattress comprising: a first side strap and a second side strap extending under the mattress with a mattress periphery connected to the mattress and a layer below the mattress. The prior art of Piana in view of Whitney and other references of record fails to explicitly teach, without impermissible hindsight, wherein a first end of the straps connect to a first and second foam rail within the mattress periphery while a second end of the straps connects to a second foam layer within the mattress peripehery. Regarding Independent Claim 17, the prior art of Piana teaches a bed comprising: a layerand a mattress resting upon the layer, the mattress comprising: a first side strap and a second side strap extending under the mattress with a mattress periphery connected to the mattress and a layer below the mattress. The prior art of Piana in view of Whitney and other references of record fails to explicitly teach, without impermissible hindsight, a first foam layer, wherein a first end of the straps connect to a first and second foam rail within the mattress periphery while a second end of the straps connects to a bottom layer positioned under a second foam layer. Therefore, with the prior art failing to disclose the instant invention and an additional search, it is the Examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at and/or claimed this specific combination of features in the designed configuration based on the teachings of the prior art. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20210038454 A1: Brykalski discloses a topper member for a bed assembly comprising straps to secure the member to the bed assembly. US 20200237108 A1: Alleto discloses a bedding system comprising an upside-down tub shaped assembly with multiple and straps the strengthen the chassis. US 20040128774 A1: Chen discloses a mattress base comprising multiple foam layers and a strap layer enhancing the resilience of the mattress. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm. 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. /GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673 /JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 09, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Aug 21, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 21, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 07, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 29, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 15, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 15, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 22, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 18, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599523
PATIENT SUPPORT APPARATUS WITH BARRIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599243
SOFA BED SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593929
Bedding or Seating Product and Method of Disassembling Product
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589042
SURFACE ADAPTATION FOR PATIENT PRONING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12564530
Inflatable Patient Positioner with Selectively Engaging Surface Gripping Zones
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+40.0%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 41 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month