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 1-3, 5-12, and 14-19 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. Claims 4 and 13 have been cancelled. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 9/28/2025.
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 1-3, 4-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Essers (US 20110283459 A1) in view of Omiste (US 20180249841 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Essers discloses a modular mattress (mattress 1) comprising: a first unit (base layer 2) having a front, a back, a first side, a second side, a top and a bottom (See Fig. 1, base layer having a front and back, two sides, and a top and bottom); a second unit (top layer 3) having a front, a back, a first side, a second side, a top and a bottom (See Fig. 1, top layer having a front and back, two sides, and a top and bottom); and wherein the first unit and the second unit are removably secured together (“base layer 2 and the top layer 3 are detachably connected to one another”; [0041]) via a securing mechanism (fixing element 15b); and wherein the bottom of the second unit is secured over the top of the first unit and wherein the bottom of the first unit rests on a bed frame (See Fig. 1, top layer 3 is secured over base layer 2 using fixing elements 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Essers fails to explicitly disclose the first side and the second side of the bottom of the first unit are tapered.
However, Omiste teaches the first side (“respective first side rails can be beveled”; [0088]) and the second side (“respective second side rails can be beveled”; [0087]) of the bottom of the first unit are tapered (See Fig. 10A).
PNG
media_image2.png
326
608
media_image2.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 Essers by adding the tapered sides taught by Omiste. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “provide side edge support to the mattress core”; (Omiste, [0081]). 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 2, Essers, as modified, teaches the modular mattress (mattress 1) of Claim 1 wherein the securing mechanism is a hook and loop fastener system (“fixing elements 15b in the form of hook and loop tapes”; [0047]).
Regarding Claim 3, Essers, as modified, teaches the modular mattress (mattress 1) of Claim 1 wherein the securing mechanism is a button (“detachable fixing elements, such as, for example, slipcovers, push buttons”; [0014]).
Regarding Claim 5, Essers, as modified, teaches the modular mattress (mattress 1) wherein the first side and the second side of the first unit (“base layer 2 is formed by a resilient shaped body 4…shaped body 4 consists of foam”; [0038]) are firmer than the second unit (“top layer 3 is formed by a knitted spacer fabric 7”; [0038]).
Regarding Claim 6, Essers, as modified, teaches the modular mattress (mattress 1) of Claim 1.
Essers fails to explicitly teach wherein the first unit has a central channel wherein the central channel of the first unit receives an extended ridge of the second unit.
However, Omiste teaches the first unit has a central channel (coupling channel 722) wherein the central channel of the first unit receives an extended ridge of the second unit (See Fig. 9C and 11, “first and second support pad assemblies 740 can be detachably and selectively coupled to the top portion of the base layer 720 via a coupling channel 722 in a top portion of the base layer 720”; [0080]).
PNG
media_image3.png
188
386
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 Essers by adding the central channel taught by Omiste. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “detachably and selectively coupled to the top portion of the base layer”; (Omiste, [0080]). 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, Essers, as modified, teaches the modular mattress (mattress 1) of Claim 1 further comprising a coating added to the second unit wherein the coating protects the second unit (“top layer cover lower part 9 consists, for example, of polyester with an outer polyurethane coating”; [0038]).
Regarding Claim 8, Essers, as modified, teaches the modular mattress (mattress 1) of Claim 1 further comprising: a sensor (moisture sensor 18) secured to the second unit (“top layer has a moisture sensor”; [0025]) wherein the sensor determines an environmental condition of the mattress (“moisture sensor 18 detects liquid or moisture”; [0048]).
Regarding Claim 9, Essers, as modified, teaches the modular mattress of Claim 1 (mattress 1) further comprising: a control unit (control unit 19) wherein the control unit is capable of controlling an environmental condition of the mattress (“control unit 19 controls the ventilation device 20 as needed. By means of the ventilation device 20, air adapted to the body temperature is pumped into the top layer 3c”; [0048]).
Regarding Claim 10, Essers discloses a modular mattress (mattress 1) comprising: a first unit (base layer 2) having a front, a back, a first side, a second side, a top and a bottom (See Fig. 1, base layer having a front and back, two sides, and a top and bottom); a second unit (top layer 3) having a front, a back, a first side, a second side, a top and a bottom (See Fig. 1, top layer having a front and back, two sides, and a top and bottom); wherein the second unit has multiple independent components (See Fig. 4, three separate components 3b of top layer 3); and wherein the first unit and the second unit are removably secured together (“base layer 2 and the top layer 3 are detachably connected to one another”; [0041]) via a securing mechanism (fixing element 15b); and wherein the bottom of the second unit is secured over the top of the first unit and wherein the bottom of the first unit rests on a bed frame (See Fig. 1, top layer 3 is secured over base layer 2 using fixing elements 15).
PNG
media_image4.png
256
512
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Essers fails to explicitly disclose the first side and the second side of the bottom of the first unit are tapered.
However, Omiste teaches the first side (“respective first side rails can be beveled”; [0088]) and the second side (“respective second side rails can be beveled”; [0087]) of the bottom of the first unit are tapered (See Fig. 10A).
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 Essers by adding the tapered sides taught by Omiste. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “provide side edge support to the mattress core”; (Omiste, [0081]). 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 11, Essers, as modified, teaches the modular mattress (mattress 1) of Claim 10 wherein the securing mechanism is a hook and loop fastener system (“fixing elements 15b in the form of hook and loop tapes”; [0047]).
Regarding Claim 12, Essers, as modified, teaches the modular mattress (mattress 1) of Claim 10 wherein the securing mechanism is a button (“detachable fixing elements, such as, for example, slipcovers, push buttons”; [0014]).
Regarding Claim 14, Essers, as modified, teaches the modular mattress (mattress 1) of Claim 10 wherein the first side and the second side of the first unit (“base layer 2 is formed by a resilient shaped body 4…shaped body 4 consists of foam”; [0038]) are firmer than the second unit (“top layer 3 is formed by a knitted spacer fabric 7”; [0038]).
Regarding Claim 15, Essers, as modified, teaches the modular mattress (mattress 1) of Claim 10.
Essers fails to explicitly teach wherein the first unit has a central channel wherein the central channel of the first unit receives an extended ridge of the second unit.
However, Omiste teaches the first unit has a central channel (coupling channel 722) wherein the central channel of the first unit receives an extended ridge of the second unit (See Fig. 9C and 11, “first and second support pad assemblies 740 can be detachably and selectively coupled to the top portion of the base layer 720 via a coupling channel 722 in a top portion of the base layer 720”; [0080]).
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 Essers by adding the central channel taught by Omiste. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “detachably and selectively coupled to the top portion of the base layer”; (Omiste, [0080]). 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 16, Essers, as modified, teaches the modular mattress (mattress 1) of Claim 10 further comprising a coating added to the second unit wherein the coating protects the second unit (“top layer cover lower part 9 consists, for example, of polyester with an outer polyurethane coating”; [0038]).
Regarding Claim 17, Essers, as modified, teaches the modular mattress (mattress 1) of Claim 10 further comprising: a sensor (moisture sensor 18) secured to the second unit (“top layer has a moisture sensor”; [0025]) wherein the sensor determines an environmental condition of the mattress (“moisture sensor 18 detects liquid or moisture”; [0048]).
Regarding Claim 18, Essers, as modified, teaches modular mattress (mattress 1) of Claim 10 further comprising: a control unit (control unit 19) wherein the control unit is capable of controlling an environmental condition of the mattress (“control unit 19 controls the ventilation device 20 as needed. By means of the ventilation device 20, air adapted to the body temperature is pumped into the top layer 3c”; [0048]).
Regarding Claim 19, Essers, as modified, teaches modular mattress (mattress 1) of Claim 10 wherein the multiple components of the second unit are not identical (See Fig. 4, middle component comprises germicidal material layer 16 whereas the right and left components do not).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant’s Argument:
Applicant has amended Claim 1 and 10 to require the limitations of a modular mattress "wherein the first side and the second side of the bottom of the first unit are tapered" and "wherein the bottom of the second unit is secured over the top of the first unit and wherein the bottom of the first unit rests on a bed frame." Neither Essers nor Omiste disclose a modular mattress having a tapered portion of the bottom unit. Instead, Omiste merely teaches that the side rail (748 of Omiste) of the top unit is beveled, not the bottom unit which contacts the actual bed frame. Omiste states "the respective first side rails 748 can be beveled and/or sized and shaped to receive a similarly beveled and/or sized and shaped comfort pad layer 760," So it is clear that the beveled portion of Omisite contacts that comfort pad (which is another layer of the mattress) and not the bed frame, as required by Applicant's amended claims.
Even further, Omiste teaches away from Applicant's claimed device. In particular, the illustrations of Omiste clearly show the that the sides of the bottom layer are not tapered, but form a perpendicular angle with respect to the bottom of the bottom unit.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant's argument that the proposed modification to Essers by adding the tapered bottom layer of Omiste merely teaches that the side rail of the top unit is beveled, not the bottom unit which contracts the bed frame, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Thus, these remarks in response to the obviousness rejections presented by the proposed modification of Essers in view of Omiste are respectfully found unpersuasive and the claim rejections are maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that Omiste actually teaches away from the tapered bottom layer, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion. The applicant refers to Figure 1 of Omiste, pointing to the bottom cover portion 110. However, the examiner is citing a separate embodiment of Omiste, support pad assembly 740, having beveled side rails 748 on the bottom of the support pad assembly. Thus, these remarks in response to Omiste teaching away from the Applicant’s claimed invention are respectfully found unpersuasive and the claim rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20060288490 A1: Mikkelsen discloses a body support composed of two different layers of material secured together by conventional fasteners including hook and loop fasteners.
US 20120017376 A1: Mikkelsen discloses a body support having two layers, a sensor to detect a parameter, and a controller in communication with the sensor to control a fan that provides air flow to different areas of the user.
US 10531746 B2: Vesey discloses a modular mattress comprising two layers that are distinct from each other that allows the user to create eight different mattress combinations by flipping a turning the two layers.
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 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