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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
Argument # 1: “Independent claim 1 presently recites, inter alia, "[a] mattress comprising: a support core formed from a high-density foam, wherein: the support core comprises a top face, a bottom face, a first lateral face, and a second lateral face, the bottom face comprises a cranial flexion channel positioned proximal a first end of the mattress, a caudal flexion channel positioned proximal a second end of the mattress, and at least two stress relief channels position between the cranial flexion channel and the caudal flexion channel, ... each of the at least two stress relief channels being formed entirely from a single slice in the high-density foam extending between the first lateral face and the second lateral face of the support core and to a stress relief channel depth such that the high-density foam has a residual thickness of uncut high-density foam of 1 inch to 3 inches aligned with the at least one stress relief channel, the support core comprises a maximum thickness of 6 inches to 8 inches, the cranial flexion channel is positioned 14 inches to 20 inches from the first end of the mattress, the caudal flexion channel is positioned 14 inches to 20 inches from the second end of the mattress, and one of the at least two stress relief channels is positioned 8 inches to 18 inches from the cranial flexion channel and one of the at least two stress relief channels is positioned 8inches to 18 inches from the caudal flexion channel." (emphasis added) The Office Action cites to Smiderle (WO 2022/204052) discloses a mattress with voids to allow flexion of the mattress. However, the examiner acknowledges that Smiderle does not disclose that the support core is formed from a high-density foam and further cites to Howes (GB 2309896) which discloses a mattress which can flex and has a core of high-density foam. The examiner asserts it accordingly would be obvious to replace the material of Smiderle with the high- density foam material of Howes to arrive at the present claims. However, the amended claims as presented distinguish Smiderle and Howes and it is not immediately obvious to simply swap in the high-density foam of Howes into Smiderle as described below. As amended, claim 1 recites "each of the at least two stress relief channels being formed entirely from a single slice in the high-density foam extending between the first lateral face and the second lateral face of the support core and to a stress relief channel depth." Such is defined at paragraph [0022] of the original disclosure which indicates "the at least one stress relief channel 70 is formed by slicing the high-density foam across the width of the mattress 10 on the bottom face 24 of the support core 20." The cranial and caudal flexion channels remain as channels with a defined width, but the stress relief channels are expressly specified as being a simple slice in the amended claims. The examiner cites to voids 214 in Smiderle as disclosing stress relief channels, but such voids are defined as being 0.1 to 6 inches in width (preferably about 4 inches). It will be appreciated and understood by one skilled in the art that a void and a slice behave in different and distinct manners. Specifically, the voids 214 of Smiderle allow for opening and expansion in a distinct manner than simple slices as presently claimed.”
Argument # 2: “Specifically, claim 1 is amended to specify the support core comprises a maximum thickness of 6 inches to 8 inches (claim 2), the cranial flexion channel is positioned 14 inches to 20 inches from the first end of the mattress (adjusted claim 4), the caudal flexion channel is positioned 14 inches to 20 inches from the second end of the mattress (adjusted claim 5), and one of the at least two stress relief channels is positioned 8 inches to 18 inches from the cranial flexion channel and one of the at least two stress relief channels is positioned 8inches to 18 inches from the caudal flexion channel (claim 8 along with adjusted claim 9). Limiting the maximum thickness of the high-density foam to 6 to 8 inches distinguishes Howes where the core being limited to 4 inches allows the flexion. Applicant notes that the term "maximum thickness" is defined as (T) as shown in the figures and represents the measured thickness of the mattress at its maximum (i.e. where there are no channels or slices) and not the largest value that the mattress may be. As Howe only discloses a core layer of up to 4 inches and the claimed thickness in accordance with claim 1 is 6 to 8 inches, the behavior of any high-density foam would be expected to be different.”
Argument # 3: Applicant argues that “Further, amended claim 1 specifying the positioning of the cranial flexion channel and caudal flexion channel as 14 to 20 inches from ends of the mattress distinguishes the cited art where Howes positions flexion points 21 inches from each end. Similarly, positioning the stress relief channels 8 to 19 inches from the flexion channels distinguishes Howes where such separation is defined as 6 inches. These spacings and sizing by Howes are not mere design choices as Howes defines each parameter for a reason and accordingly deviating from the same would not be obvious to one skilled in the art. Howes positions the gaps (9) in the harder core to allow for flexion of the softer material on the top surface while still providing support. Further, one skilled in the art would not be motivated to swap in the high-density foam of Howes into the system of Smiderle. Specifically, the geometry and layout of the mattress of Howes is unique to that of Smiderle so it is not readily apparent that the material of Howes may simply be swapped into Smiderle without introducing undesirable outcomes. For example, Howes specifically includes gaps in the soft foam on each surface (both top and bottom) of the mattress and includes a precise geometry for the modifications in the harder foam core with a hole (9) connected to a slit (8). Howes indicates the harder foam core includes defined circular holes along with slits. This geometry does not align with that defined by the present claims or disclosed in Smiderle. This difference in geometry is important as Howes unambiguously indicates "The combination of the sectioned softer foam layers and the eight slits and holes in the central core foam enable the core foam to bend without deforming either of the outer layers of softer foam" (Howes, page 3, lines 3-6) ---- accordingly, the absence of such arrangement is indicated as undesirable and resulting in deforming the outer layers of softer foam. Further, the holes (9) on the top and bottom of Howes (not present in Smiderle) allows for compression at the pinch point and thus allows for the high-density foam in Howes. It is not readily apparent that such would be acceptable in Smiderle where such top holes and/or gaps are not present and thus one skilled in the art would not readily swap such material into Smiderle.”
Examiner’s Remarks:
-Examiner’s Response #1: The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First the Applicant states “’The cranial and caudal flexion channels remain as channels with a defined width, but the stress relief channels are expressly specified as being a simple slice in the amended claims” but the Examiner finds that elements 70 are consistently referred to as “stress relief channels” throughout the specification and claims. Additionally, the term “formed entirely from a single slice” is not a measurable feature or one which clearly limits the size of the resulting channel. For example, a slice of the foam with a hot tool will melt a portion of the material creating a channel which would likely be different in size than a channel formed by a slice of a different type of cutting device. Applicant’s disclosure states “Further, while the at least one stress relief channel 70 is described as a cut in the high-density foam it will be appreciated that the stress relief channel 70 may form a channel having a width of up to 0.1 inches.” It is unclear if the cut formed from the slicing of the material would then have a width greater than or less than 0.1 inches. For this reason, the Examiner maintains that Smiderle reasonably teaches a void which can be considered equivalent to a channel formed by a single slice.
-Examiner’s Response to #2: The arguments are moot in view of the new rejection in view of Jones. See below.
-Examiner’s Response #3: These arguments are moot based on the new rejection below which no longer relies on the teachings of Howes.
Claim Interpretation
The current claims require a “high-density foam.” The term “high density” is defined in paragraph [0027] of the originally filed disclosure on 24 January 2024 as “considered as 1.5 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) or greater.”
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 8, the phrase “relief channels position” should be changed to read - - relief channels positioned - - . Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-7 and 9-10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smiderle et al. (WO 2022/204052 – hereinafter Smiderle) in view of Jones (NPL – The Sleep Judge dated 2021) further in view of Sportis (FR 2972615).
Regarding Claim 1:
Smiderle discloses a mattress (mattress 200 and 400 of Smiderle) comprising: a support core (second layer 230 of mattress 200 of Smiderle) [formed of a polymer] (paragraph [0048] of Smiderle – “For instance, the total depth D1 of the polymer of the mattress 200 may be 10 total inches, with the 4 inches most proximate to the upper surface 201 having one or more layers and the lowermost 6 inches of the polymer including a base material (e.g. polymeric foam, an elastomer, etc.) into which the first plurality of voids 214 are cut”) […], wherein: the support core comprises a top face (uppermost face of layer 230 which is shown covered by layers 232/234 in Fig. 2 of Smiderle), a bottom face (bottommost face of layer 230 of Smiderle as viewed in Fig. 2), a first lateral face (shown in annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Smiderle), and a second lateral face (the lateral face opposite from the first lateral face of Smiderle which is shown in annotated copy of Fig. 2), the bottom face comprises a cranial flexion channel (void 214 annotated in the annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Smiderle) positioned proximal a first end of the mattress (elevated end as shown in Fig. 2 of Smiderle), a caudal flexion channel (void 214 annotated in the annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Smiderle) positioned proximal a second end of the mattress (non-elevated end of Smiderle), and at least two stress relief channels position between the cranial flexion channel and the caudal flexion channel (as shown in annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Smiderle), the cranial flexion channel being formed from a gap having a width of 0.5 to 2.5 inches (paragraph [0047] of Smiderle – “According to various embodiments, the voids 214 may be parallel channels that traverse the width of the mattress, and the thickness of the parallel channels may be within a range of about 0.1 inch to about 6 inches, a range of about 1 inch to about 5 inches, a range of about 2 inches to about 4 inches, or more specifically about 4 inches thick”) in the [….] foam extending between the first lateral face and the second lateral face of the support core (paragraph [0047] of Smiderle – “According to various embodiments, the voids 214 may be parallel channels that traverse the width of the mattress”) and to a cranial channel depth such that the high-density foam has a residual thickness of 1 inch to 3 inches aligned with the cranial flexion channel (paragraph [0048] of Smiderle - “Further, one or more of the voids of the first plurality of voids 214 may extend in a depth direction corresponding to the depth D1 a distance/height within a range of about 1 inch to about 5 inches, or more particular a distance of about 5 inches. For instance, the total depth D1 of the polymer of the mattress 200 may be 10 total inches, with the 4 inches most proximate to the upper surface 201 having one or more layers and the lowermost 6 inches of the polymer including a base material (e.g. polymeric foam, an elastomer, etc.) into which the first plurality of voids 214 are cut. One or more of the first plurality of voids 214 may extend the entire height of the 6-inch base, or may only extend a height of 5 inches extending from the lower surface 203 towards the upper surface 201.”), the caudal flexion channel being formed from a gap having a width of 0.5 to 2.5 inches (paragraph [0047] of Smiderle – “According to various embodiments, the voids 214 may be parallel channels that traverse the width of the mattress, and the thickness of the parallel channels may be within a range of about 0.1 inch to about 6 inches, a range of about 1 inch to about 5 inches, a range of about 2 inches to about 4 inches, or more specifically about 4 inches thick”) in the [….] foam extending between the first lateral face and the second lateral face of the support core (paragraph [0047] of Smiderle – “According to various embodiments, the voids 214 may be parallel channels that traverse the width of the mattress”) in the […] foam extending between the first lateral face and the second lateral face of the support core (paragraph [0047] of Smiderle – “According to various embodiments, the voids 214 may be parallel channels that traverse the width of the mattress”) and to a caudal channel depth such that the high-density foam has a residual thickness of 1 inch to 3 inches aligned with the caudal flexion channel (paragraph [0048] of Smiderle - “Further, one or more of the voids of the first plurality of voids 214 may extend in a depth direction corresponding to the depth D1 a distance/height within a range of about 1 inch to about 5 inches, or more particular a distance of about 5 inches. For instance, the total depth D1 of the polymer of the mattress 200 may be 10 total inches, with the 4 inches most proximate to the upper surface 201 having one or more layers and the lowermost 6 inches of the polymer including a base material (e.g. polymeric foam, an elastomer, etc.) into which the first plurality of voids 214 are cut. One or more of the first plurality of voids 214 may extend the entire height of the 6-inch base, or may only extend a height of 5 inches extending from the lower surface 203 towards the upper surface 201.”), the at least two stress relief channel being formed from a single slice in the high-density foam extending between the first lateral face and the second lateral face of the support core (void 214 annotated in the annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Smiderle – considered equivalent to a structure formed from a single slice as discussed in the response to arguments above) and to a stress relief channel depth such that the high-density foam has a residual thickness of uncut high-density foam of 1 inch to 3 inches aligned with the at least one stress relief channel (paragraph [0048] of Smiderle - “Further, one or more of the voids of the first plurality of voids 214 may extend in a depth direction corresponding to the depth D1 a distance/height within a range of about 1 inch to about 5 inches, or more particular a distance of about 5 inches. For instance, the total depth D1 of the polymer of the mattress 200 may be 10 total inches, with the 4 inches most proximate to the upper surface 201 having one or more layers and the lowermost 6 inches of the polymer including a base material (e.g. polymeric foam, an elastomer, etc.) into which the first plurality of voids 214 are cut. One or more of the first plurality of voids 214 may extend the entire height of the 6-inch base, or may only extend a height of 5 inches extending from the lower surface 203 towards the upper surface 201.”); the support core (230 of Smiderle) comprises a maximum thickness of 6 inches to 8 inches (paragraph [0048] of Smiderle teaches the thickness of the lowermost layer 230 being 6 inches - “the lowermost 6 inches of the polymer including a base material (e.g. polymeric foam, an elastomer, etc.) into which the first plurality of voids 214 are cut”)),[….]; one or more comfort layers positioned adjacent the top face of the support core (layers 234 and 232 of Smiderle); and a mattress cover encasing the support core and the one or more comfort layers (paragraph [0044] of Smiderle – “Although not depicted in FIG. 2, the one or more polymer may be at least partially enclosed by a mattress cover according to various embodiments. For instance, the one or more polymer may be fully enclosed by the mattress cover”).
PNG
media_image1.png
650
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Smiderle does not disclose that the support core is formed from a high-density foam, the cranial flexion channel is positioned 14 inches to 20 inches from the first end of the mattress, the caudal flexion channel is positioned 14 inches to 20 inches from the second end of the mattress, and one of the at least two stress relief channels is positioned 8 inches to 18 inches from the cranial flexion channel and one of the at least two stress relief channels is positioned 8 inches to 18 inches from the caudal flexion channel.
In the same field of endeavor, mattresses (see the clarifications section of Jones), Jones teaches a mattress core formed of a high density foam (High Density Polyfoam section of Jones – “If you do come across a product with a 1.5 lbs./ft³ mattress foam density, I would advise that you ensure this layer is thin or the product is two-sided. As you shop, never hesitate to contact customer service to ask about these qualities. Often, you will find that they are hesitant to delve too much into density levels, there’s a good chance their manufacturing process takes shortcuts that decrease the durability you can expect to achieve.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined Smiderle (directed to a foam mattress with voids) and Jones (directed to mattress densities) and arrived at a mattress capable of bending made of a high-density foam core. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Jones makes it clear that 1.5 pcf is the absolute minimum density required for forming a quality foam mattress and even 1.5 pcf is lower than recommended. For this reason one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select a high density foam, above 1.5 pcf, for the purpose of creating a long lasting, supportive and comfortable mattress (see the teachings of Jones above).
Smiderle in view of Jones do not disclose or make obvious the cranial flexion channel is positioned 14 inches to 20 inches from the first end of the mattress, the caudal flexion channel is positioned 14 inches to 20 inches from the second end of the mattress, and one of the at least two stress relief channels is positioned 8 inches to 18 inches from the cranial flexion channel and one of the at least two stress relief channels is positioned 8 inches to 18 inches from the caudal flexion channel.
However, in the same field of endeavor, mattresses (abstract of Sportis), Sportis teaches the cranial flexion […] [region] is positioned 14 inches to 20 inches from the first end of the mattress (Fig. 2 of Sportis shows different support regions as annotated by the Examiner - 50 cm equates to 19.7 inches), the caudal flexion […] [region] is positioned 14 inches to 20 inches from the second end of the mattress (Fig. 2 of Sportis shows different support regions as annotated by the Examiner - 50 cm equates to 19.7 inches), and one of the at least two stress relief […] is positioned 8 inches to 18 inches from the cranial flexion […][region] (Fig. 2 of Sportis shows different support regions as annotated by the Examiner - 30 cm equates to 11.8 inches) and one of the at least two stress relief channels is positioned 8 inches to 18 inches from the caudal flexion […] [region] (Fig. 2 of Sportis shows different support regions as annotated by the Examiner - 30 cm equates to 11.8 inches).
Although Sportis does not explicitly disclose locations of channels, the teachings of the different zones are pertinent to Smirdele’s invention because both Sportis and Smirdele teach different zones of support located at different locations to correspond to different parts of a user’s body.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Smiderle (directed to a foam mattress with voids), Jones (directed to high density foam for mattresses) and arrived at a mattress capable of bending made of a high-density foam core, and Sportis (directed to a foam mattress with different zones of support) with a reasonable expectation of success by positioning the voids of Smiderle to correspond to the transition of the zones of Sportis. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make such a combination because the location of the transitions of the zones of Sportis are positioned to correspond to (English translation of Sportis - “The zones A and A 'allow the rest of the head, the zones B and B' allow the rest of the shoulders, the zones C and C 'allow the rest of the lumbar vertebrae and the zone of junction contributes to the rest of the pelvis.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
449
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3:
Smiderle in view of Jones and Sportis make obvious the mattress of claim 1, wherein the width of the gaps forming the cranial flexion channel and the caudal flexion channel are in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 inches (paragraph [0047] of Smiderle – “According to various embodiments, the voids 214 may be parallel channels that traverse the width of the mattress, and the thickness of the parallel channels may be within a range of about 0.1 inch to about 6 inches, a range of about 1 inch to about 5 inches, a range of about 2 inches to about 4 inches, or more specifically about 4 inches thick”).
See MPEP 2144.05 - In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 4:
Smiderle in view of Jones and Sportis make obvious the mattress of claim 1, wherein the cranial flexion channel is positioned 16 inches to 20 inches from the first end of the mattress (50 cm equates to 19.6 inches as taught by Sportis – see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 5:
Smiderle in view of Jones and Sportis make obvious the mattress of claim 1, wherein the caudal flexion channel is positioned 16 inches to 20 inches from the second end of the mattress (50 cm equates to 19.6 inches as taught by Sportis – see the rejection of claim 1 above).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Smiderle (bendable mattress) and Jones (directed to high density foam for mattresses) with a reasonable expectation of success by positioning at least some of the voids of Smiderle 21 inches from the first and second ends of the mattress. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “so as to be capable of bending [the mattress] in the vicinities of said lines for the mattress to become adapted to different forms of support on which it may be located” (page 1, lines 20-21 of Smiderle).
Regarding Claim 6:
Smiderle in view of Jones and Sportis make obvious the mattress of claim 1, wherein one of the at least one stress relief channels is positioned 10 inches to 14 inches from the cranial flexion channel (see the rejection of claim 1 above which points to the regions in the annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Sportis and note that 30 cm equals 11.9 inches).
Regarding Claim 7:
Smiderle in view of Jones and Sportis make obvious the mattress of claim 1, wherein one of the at least one stress relief channels is positioned 10 inches to 14 inches from the caudal flexion channel (see the rejection of claim 1 above which points to the regions in the annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Sportis and note that 30 cm equals 11.9 inches).
Regarding Claim 9:
Smiderle in view of Jones and Sportis make obvious the mattress of claim 1. Smiderle does not disclose wherein one of the at least two stress relief channels is positioned 10 inches to 14 inches from the cranial flexion channel (see the rejection of claim 1 above which points to the regions in the annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Sportis and note that 30 cm equals 11.9 inches). and one of the at least two stress relief channels is positioned 10 inches to 14 inches from the caudal flexion channel (see the rejection of claim 1 above which points to the regions in the annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Sportis and note that 30 cm equals 11.9 inches).
Regarding Claim 10:
Smiderle in view of Jones and Sportis make obvious the mattress of claim 1, wherein the high density foam comprises polyurethane (Smiderle paragraph [0044] “the one or more polymer may include polyisocyanurate and/or polyurethane” but does not further specify a particular density of foam. Jones teaches foams forming mattresses being above 1.5 pcf for quality mattresses).
Regarding Claim 15:
Smiderle in view of Jones and Sportis make obvious the mattress of claim 1, wherein the one or more comfort layers comprise a panel of foam (paragraph [0045] of Smiderle – “For example, the first layer 234 may include a polymeric foam, and the second layer 230 and/or third layer 232 may include an elastomer”), microcoils, a bat of natural fiber, or their combinations.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smiderle et al. (WO 2022/204052 – hereinafter Smiderle) in view of Jones (The Sleep Judge NPL - 2021) in view of Sportis (FR 2972615) further in view of Higgins et al. (US Patent No. 5,475,881 – hereinafter Higgins).
Regarding Claim 11:
Smiderle in view of Jones and Sportis make obvious the mattress of claim 1.
Smiderle, Jones and Sportis do not disclose or make obvious wherein the mattress cover comprises a quilted panel having a ticking material, a backing material, and a support material having a degree of compression provided between the ticking and backing materials, the ticking material, the support material and the backing material all being quilted together.
In the same field of endeavor, mattresses (see the abstract of Higgins), Higgins teaches wherein the mattress cover comprises a quilted panel having a ticking material (top ticking layer 30 of Higgins), a backing material (backing scrim material 36 of Higgins), and a support material (foam material 34 of Higgins) having a degree of compression (note that foam includes a degree of compression and also see Col. 5, lines 33-35 of Higgins which describes the foam material as a “cushioning foam”) provided between the ticking and backing materials, the ticking material (Fig. 3 of Higgins), the support material and the backing material all being quilted together (as shown in Fig. 3 of Higgins and taught in Col. 5, lines 35-40 - “The bottom ply 36 of backing scrim material may be either a woven or unwoven material. It functions solely as a backing to facilitate quilting of the topper pad. These four plies are sewn together approximately 1" inwardly from the outer edge of the materials by a sewn seam 38.”).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Smiderle (directed towards a mattress for bending), Jones (directed towards foam for mattresses), Sportis (directed towards foam mattresses with defined support zones) and Higgins (directed towards a mattress cover) with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “The mattress cover includes a covering topper pad so constructed as to permit the direct application of and distribution of pressure from atop the mattress through the covering topper pad and into the resilient core without significant distortion of that pressure or weight and particularly without distortion which is normally caused by hammocking of the fabric or covering pad” (abstract of Higgins).
Regarding Claim 12:
Smiderle in view of Jones, Sportis and Higgins make obvious the mattress of claim 11, wherein the ticking material comprises an upholstery ticking (the Examiner considers the ticking 30 of Higgins to be an upholstery ticking since the ticking is used in an item considered to be upholstery and is described as a conventional decorative fabric material – Col. 5, lines 29-30 of Higgins).
Regarding Claim 13:
Smiderle in view of Jones, Sportis and Higgins make obvious the mattress of claim 11, wherein the backing material comprises a non-woven fabric (Col. 5, lines 35-37 of Higgins – “The bottom ply 36 of backing scrim material may be either a woven or unwoven material”).
Regarding Claim 14:
Smiderle in view of Jones, Sportis and Higgins make obvious the mattress of claim 11, wherein the support material comprises a polymer foam (Col. 5, line 28 of Higgins – “third ply of urethane foam 34”) or fill layer.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smiderle et al. (WO 2022/204052 – hereinafter Smiderle) in view of Jones (The Sleep Judge NPL - 2021) in view of Sportis (FR 2972615) further in view of Grinstead et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2011/0035879 – hereinafter Grinstead).
Regarding Claim 16:
Smiderle in view of Jones and Sportis make obvious the mattress of claim 15, wherein one or more of the one or more comfort layers comprises a panel of foam (paragraphs [0008] and paragraph [0045] of Smiderle which disclose “In particular, disclosed herein are mattresses, cushions, and body-support pads or mats that include a polymer such as a polymeric” and “Various embodiments of the polymer may include one or more layers such as a first layer 234 proximate the upper surface 201 and a second layer 230 proximate the lower surface 203” respectively).
Smiderle and Jones and Sportis do not disclose the panel of foam formed from one or more of a latex foam, a cooling foam, an open-celled foam, and a memory foam.
In the same field of endeavor, mattresses (see the abstract of Grinstead), Grinstead teaches wherein one or more of the one or more comfort layers comprises a panel of foam (support layer 30 or 50 of Grinstead – Fig. 2B), the panel of foam formed from one or more of a latex foam (paragraph [0020] of Grinstead – “the mattress 20 may be formed of a memory foam, latex rubber foam, […] high density foam, [….] open cell foam”), a cooling foam (paragraph [0023] of Grinstead – “air vents 34 may be uniformly distributed through the support layer 30 to provide uniform cooling”), an open-celled foam (paragraph [0020] of Grinstead – “the mattress 20 may be formed of a memory foam, latex rubber foam, […] high density foam, [….] open cell foam”), and a memory foam (paragraph [0020] of Grinstead – “the mattress 20 may be formed of a memory foam, latex rubber foam, […] high density foam, [….] open cell foam”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined Smiderle (directed to a foam mattress with voids), Jones (directed to high density foam for mattresses), Sportis (directed towards foam mattresses with defined support zones) and Grinstead (directed to a mattress with comfort layers having cooling properties and memory elasticity properties) and arrived at a foam mattress capable of bending with layers of foam selected for added comfort, support, and cooling properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (selecting a known material for forming the comfort layers of Smiderle) with no change in their respective functions (the mattress would still bend and support a person as taught by Smiderle) with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the foam comfort layers taught by Grinstead can be selected to add different desired comfort properties such as firmness, memory foam support, and cooling properties).
Regarding Claim 17:
Smiderle in view of Jones, Sportis, and Grinstead make obvious the mattress of claim 16, wherein the mattress includes a memory foam layer (paragraph [0020] of Grinstead – “the mattress 20 may be formed of a memory foam, latex rubber foam, […] high density foam, [….] open cell foam”).
Regarding Claim 18:
Smiderle in view of Jones, Sportis, and Grinstead make obvious the mattress of claim 17, wherein the memory foam layer is a polyurethane foam with a bulk density ranging from 2.6 to 4.0 pounds per cubic foot (paragraph [0021] of Grinstead – “For example, in one implementation the support layer may have a 4 lb density, the convection layer may have a 2 lb density, and the base layer may have a 2 lb density. Similarly, the mattress 20 layers may be constructed from the same type of foam material or alternatively, each layer may be constructed from a different type of foam.”).
The Examiner notes that although the density described by Grinstead does explicitly describe pounds per cubic foot, one having ordinary skill in the art would know that the density described is being discussed in pounds per cubic foot. The only other reasonable option would be pounds per cubic inch but since the density of titanium is 4.5 pounds per cubic inch one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that when discussing foam, the density being referred to is in pounds per cubic foot.
Regarding Claim 19:
Smiderle in view of Jones, Sportis, and Grinstead make obvious the mattress of claim 16, wherein the mattress includes a cooling foam layer (paragraph [0023] of Grinstead – “air vents 34 may be uniformly distributed through the support layer 30 to provide uniform cooling”).
Regarding Claim 20:
Smiderle in view of Jones, Sportis, and Grinstead make obvious the mattress of claim 16, wherein the mattress includes an open-celled foam layer (paragraph [0020] of Grinstead – “the mattress 20 may be formed of a memory foam, latex rubber foam, […] high density foam, [….] open cell foam”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US PG Pub No. 2018/0042395 to Bosley and US PG Pub. No. 2019/0000700 to Daniels are cited for teaching bendable foam mattresses.
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 AMANDA L BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/A.L.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
6/18/2026
Prosecution Insights