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 .
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "mattress" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "orbital springs" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4, 5 and 12 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. It is unclear what Applicant is attempting to claim. It appears a portion of the claim is missing. Claims will be rejected as is. This appears to be a clerical error.
Claims 1-20 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. It is unclear to Examiner what applicant is referring to as “a honeycomb pattern”. Claims will be examined under the assumption a honeycomb pattern is referring to a offset pattern where adjacent elements do not align in the same way, where the rows of elements offset.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication US2019/0328150A1 hereinafter referred to as Nolte in view of US Patent Publication US2015/0082550A1 hereinafter referred to as Hui further in view of US Patent Publication US2016/0120330A1 hereinafter referred to as DeFranks.
Re-Claim 1
Nolte disclose a multilayered, adjustable mattress system 40 with orbital springs comprising: a removeable cover 68 fig.8 for enclosing the mattress 40 fig.1; a zipper track 112, 116 fig.8 having at least one zipper 112, 116 extending along at least one edge of the mattress; a rectangular mattress encasement 104 fig.8 having at least one section configured to contain at least one layer 76-92, 76’-92’ fig.8, 26, 184 fig.27; an orbital spring layer 184 fig.27 comprising a plurality of orbital springs 184; at least one foam layer 76-90.
However does not discloses a top foam cover or an orbital spring layer comprising a plurality of orbital springs arranged in a honeycomb pattern.
Hui teaches a multilayered, adjustable mattress system 1 fig.1A comprising: a removeable cover 6 fig.6 for enclosing the mattress; a zipper track 61, 62 fig.1B having at least one zipper 61, 62 extending along at least one edge of the mattress; a top foam cover 3 fig.6 [ [0093 “Preferably, the comfort layer 3 is made of latex or other resilient material such as memory foam.”]; a rectangular mattress encasement 2 fig.5 having at least one section configured to contain at least one layer 3-5 fig.6.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the multilayered mattress system of Nolte and the multilayered mattress having a top foam layer of Hui and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a multilayered mattress system with a top foam layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of providing the multilayered mattress system with a comfort layer for concealing unevenness of structure below and providing an even surface as taught in Hui [0036].
DeFranks teaches an orbital spring layer 10 fig.1 comprising a plurality of orbital springs 16 fig.1 arranged in a honeycomb pattern (see fig.1) [0017 “In other embodiments, the columns and rows of paired flat springs are arranged such that the paired flat springs are oriented with a 30 to 90 degree offset relative to an adjacent paired flat spring”].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the multilayered mattress system of Nolte and the orbital springs of DeFranks arranged in a honeycomb pattern and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a multilayered mattress system with orbital springs in a honeycomb pattern. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substituting the orbital springs of Nolte with orbital springs as taught by DeFranks, because such a combination would provide an improved spring which overcomes disadvantages present in metal coil and foam springs including excessive firmness, difficulty adjusting the firmness, durability, pressure points, and a lack of air flow through the foam core trapping body heat within the cushion as taught in DeFranks [0003-0004].
Re-Claim 2
Nolte as modified by Hui and DeFranks above discloses,
Hui teaches wherein the mattress encasement is divided into two head sections 26 fig.5, two body sections 27 fig.5, and two feet sections 28 fig.5; and wherein each section comprises at least one foam layer 5 fig.6.
Re-Claim 3
Nolte as modified by Hui and DeFranks above discloses,
wherein the at least one foam layer comprises two or more foam layers having different compressibility [0051-0055] Nolte.
Re-Claim 4
Nolte as modified by Hui and DeFranks above discloses,
DeFranks teaches wherein the orbital springs are arranged in a honeycomb pattern (fig.1).
Re-Claim 5
Nolte as modified by Hui and DeFranks above discloses,
wherein.
Re-Claim 6
Nolte as modified by Hui and DeFranks above discloses,
wherein the
Re-Claim 7
Nolte as modified by Hui and DeFranks above discloses,
wherein the orbital spring layer and the foam layers are vertically interchangeable [0056 “The layers 76-92 may be rearranged in differing orders from top to bottom to provide varying levels of support and comfort to the end user of the mattress assembly 40. In some embodiments, the top-to-bottom order of layers 76-92 does not match the top-to-bottom order of the layers 76′-92′. A differing order of the layers 76-92 and the layers 76′-92′ allow the end user to select two different levels of support and comfort within the mattress assembly 40.” Nolte].
Re-Claim 8
Nolte as modified by Hui and DeFranks above discloses,
wherein the layers of the mattress can be interchanged horizontally between the mattress sections [0056 “Additionally, the end user may decide to mix the layers 76-92 and the layers 76′-92′ between the two sides.” Nolte].
Re-Claim 9
Nolte as modified by Hui and DeFranks above discloses,
DeFranks teaches wherein the orbital spring layer further comprises an intercalating foam insert 14 fig.1.
Re-Claim 10
Nolte as modified by Hui and DeFranks above discloses,
DeFranks teaches wherein each of the orbital springs are secured to a base by a bolt and a washer [0019 “Attachment of the respective terminal ends of paired flat springs 16 as well as attachment of the lower flat spring 20 to the base sheet 14 can be effected by use of an adhesive, crimping, welding, taping, brazing, nut and bolt, pins, a rivet, a clamp, hook and loop fasteners, ties, screw anchor, combinations thereof, or the like. The particular means for attachment are not intended to be limited.”].
Re-Claim 11
Nolte as modified by Hui and DeFranks above discloses,
wherein the removeable cover is made from naturally, fire resistant wool ([0139 “Under severe cold weather, one can use a bed cover of thicker material such as down, wool, or even fur.”] Hui (Examiner notes wool is inherently fire resistant) / [0047 “In some embodiments, the top cover 68 is a quilted top cover and includes a top fabric, a quilt filler (e.g., 0.5 FR fire retardant fiber, 0.75 inches of poly fiber, and one inch of 1.5 pound/17 Indentation Load Deflection (ILD) foam), and a bottom fabric.”] Nolte).
Claim(s) 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolte in view of Hui, DeFranks and further in view of US Patent Publication US2017/0280886A1 hereinafter referred to as Truex.
Re-Claim 12
Nolte disclose a multilayered, adjustable mattress system 40 with orbital springs comprising: a removeable cover 68 fig.8 for enclosing the top of the mattress 40 fig.1; a zipper track 112, 116 fig.8 having at least one zipper 112, 116 along the edge of the mattress; wherein the zipper can unzip the removable cover in both directions, an open box rectangular mattress encasement 104 fig.8, an orbital spring layer 184 fig.27 comprising a plurality of orbital springs 184; multiple foam layers 76-92, 76’-92’ fig.8, 26, 184 fig.27of the same thickness and compressibility [0050 “In a dual sided mattress assembly 40, the layers 76-92 are duplicated in layers 76′-92′.”].
However does not discloses a top foam cover or a rubber spring deck; wherein the orbital springs are arranged in a honeycomb pattern.
Hui teaches a multilayered, adjustable mattress system 1 fig.1A comprising: a removeable cover 6 fig.6 for enclosing the mattress; a zipper track 61, 62 fig.1B having at least one zipper 61, 62 extending along at least one edge of the mattress; a top foam cover 3 fig.6 [ [0093 “Preferably, the comfort layer 3 is made of latex or other resilient material such as memory foam.”]; a rectangular mattress encasement 2 fig.5 having at least one section configured to contain at least one layer 3-5 fig.6.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the multilayered mattress system of Nolte and the multilayered mattress having a top foam layer of Hui and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a multilayered mattress system with a top foam layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of providing the multilayered mattress system with a comfort layer for concealing unevenness of structure below and providing an even surface as taught in Hui [0036].
DeFranks teaches a spring deck 14 fig.1, wherein orbital springs 16 fig.1 are arranged in a honeycomb pattern (see fig.1) [0017 “In other embodiments, the columns and rows of paired flat springs are arranged such that the paired flat springs are oriented with a 30 to 90 degree offset relative to an adjacent paired flat spring”].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the multilayered mattress system of Nolte and the orbital springs of DeFranks arranged in a honeycomb pattern and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a multilayered mattress system with orbital springs in a honeycomb pattern. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substituting the orbital springs of Nolte with orbital springs as taught by DeFranks, because such a combination would provide an improved spring which overcomes disadvantages present in metal coil and foam springs including excessive firmness, difficulty adjusting the firmness, durability, pressure points, and a lack of air flow through the foam core trapping body heat within the cushion as taught in DeFranks [0003-0004].
Truex teaches a rubber deck 104 fig.1 [0028 “The rigid plate 104 can be configured to be inserted into one of the interstitial pockets 112. The rigid plate 104 can be constructed of a rigid material, such as wood, plastic, hard foam rubber, or other conventional material with an element of rigidity.”]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select the material of the rigid spring deck to be rubber, since 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. Truex teaches it would be a matter of obvious design choice to select the material of the spring deck to be rubber.
Re-Claim 13
Nolte as modified by Hui, DeFranks and Truex above discloses,
Hui teaches wherein the open box is divided into is divided into two head sections 26 fig.5, two body sections 27 fig.5, and two feet sections 28 fig.5; and wherein each section comprises at least one foam layer 5 fig.6.
Re-Claim 14
Nolte as modified by Hui, DeFranks and Truex above discloses,
wherein the first three foam layers of the mattress are composed solely of soft foam, medium foam, firm foam, or a combination of all ([0051-0056] Nolte the bedding elements of Nolte can be arranged in any order/ (see fig.6 Hui the foam layers reside above the spring layer4)).
Re-Claim 15
Nolte as modified by Hui, DeFranks and Truex above discloses,
wherein the fourth layer of the mattress is the rubber spring deck with orbital springs (([0051-0056] Nolte the bedding elements of Nolte can be arranged in any order/ (see fig.6 Hui the foam layers reside above the spring layer4)).
Re-Claim 16
Nolte as modified by Hui, DeFranks and Truex above discloses,
wherein the layers of the mattress can be interchanged vertically within the mattress section [0056 “The layers 76-92 may be rearranged in differing orders from top to bottom to provide varying levels of support and comfort to the end user of the mattress assembly 40. In some embodiments, the top-to-bottom order of layers 76-92 does not match the top-to-bottom order of the layers 76′-92′. A differing order of the layers 76-92 and the layers 76′-92′ allow the end user to select two different levels of support and comfort within the mattress assembly 40.” Nolte].
Re-Claim 17
Nolte as modified by Hui, DeFranks and Truex above discloses,
wherein the layers of the mattress can be interchanged horizontally between the mattress sections [0056 “Additionally, the end user may decide to mix the layers 76-92 and the layers 76′-92′ between the two sides.” Nolte].
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolte in view of Hui, DeFranks, Truex and further in view of US Patent Publication US2019/0216226A1 hereinafter referred to as Yos.
Re-Claim 18
Nolte as modified by Hui, DeFranks and Truex above discloses the claimed apparatus. However does not disclose wherein the rubber spring deck includes a foam insert between the orbital springs.
Yos teaches a foam insert 18 fig.1 between the orbital springs 40 fig.1. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the multilayered mattress system of Nolte as modified above and the multilayered mattress having a foam insert between orbital springs and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a multilayered mattress system with a foam insert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of accommodating the orbital springs and providing the orbital springs with support in an upright position as taught in Yos [0027].
Re-Claim 19
Nolte as modified by Hui, DeFranks, Truex and Yos above discloses,
DeFranks teaches wherein the orbital springs are secured to the rubber spring deck with a bolt [0019 “Attachment of the respective terminal ends of paired flat springs 16 as well as attachment of the lower flat spring 20 to the base sheet 14 can be effected by use of an adhesive, crimping, welding, taping, brazing, nut and bolt, pins, a rivet, a clamp, hook and loop fasteners, ties, screw anchor, combinations thereof, or the like. The particular means for attachment are not intended to be limited.”].
Re-Claim 20
Nolte as modified by Hui, DeFranks, Truex and Yos above discloses,
wherein the removeable cover is made from naturally, fire resistant wool ([0139 “Under severe cold weather, one can use a bed cover of thicker material such as down, wool, or even fur.”] Hui (Examiner notes wool is inherently fire resistant) / [0047] Nolte).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see notice of references cited).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFEOLU A ADEBOYEJO whose telephone number is (571)270-3072. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10AM-5PM EST.
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.
/IFEOLU A ADEBOYEJO/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673