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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-19, 24-26, 28, 31, 33 and 35-36 have been examined in this application. Claims 20-23, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 41-64 are canceled. Claims 37-40 are withdrawn. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 12/21/2023, 02/29/2024, 06/26/2024, 01/31/2025, 02/04/2025, 11/06/2025, 01/20/2026 have been acknowledged by the Office.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I Claims 1-19, 24-26, 28, 31, 33 and 35-36 in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 37-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/20/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to Claim 11 and Claim 13, the following element ‘a mattress’ is recited with primary antecedent basis, yet is requested to provide secondary antecedent basis for all recitations after the first. Therefore, due to the respective dependencies of Claims 11 and 13 to be dependent upon Claim 1, then each recitation must state ‘the mattress’.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-16, 24 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation in ‘wherein the one or more supplementary mattress modules comprises a plurality of substantially identically shaped supplemental mattress modules.’. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Notably, Claim 14 (which Claim 15 is dependent upon) requires that ‘each of the supplementary mattress modules having a different shape from said substantially identically shaped mattress modules’. Therefore, it is indefinite how the different shapes are further claimed in Claims 15 and 16 to be of substantially identically shapes.
In order to provide clarity to the claims to state in Claim 14, the following is suggested (other variations in the language can also be considered): “the one or more supplementary mattress modules include a shape, wherein the shape is configured to be substantially identical or different”.
Therefore, in the dependent Claim(s) 15 and 16, the Examiner could easily interpret what is presently claimed and no modification is necessary.
Claim 16 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (claim 15).
Claim 24 and 33 are rejected to as they are presently dependent upon a cancelled claim, therefore, the Examiner was unable to properly Examiner such claims with a prior art rejection and is further suggested to amend the preamble of each claim and provide proper dependency OR cancel the claims.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11, 14-15, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mason (WO 2011012928 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Mason teaches: A modular mattress system (1 - Fig. 1), comprising: a plurality of substantially identically shaped mattress modules ((3, 4, 6) - Fig. 3) configured to selectively form a first mattress module assembly (see annotated Fig. 2a.1 from Mason) having a first selected geometry (see annotated Fig. 2a.1 from Mason) and being reconfigurable to selectively form a second mattress module assembly (see annotated Fig. 2a.1 from Mason) having a second selected geometry (see annotated Fig. 2a.1 from Mason); and one or more couplers (7,8 - Fig. 3) configured to selectively secure the plurality of mattress modules to form a mattress (Figure 3 and 2a, indicate the couplers in Fig.3 selectively securing the mattress modules to form mattress '1' in Fig. 2a).
PNG
media_image1.png
445
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2a.1 from Mason
In regards to Claim 2, Mason teaches: A modular mattress system as recited in claim 1, wherein the plurality of mattress modules each have a width (x) and a length (y) (see annotated Fig. 3.1 from Mason), wherein the length (y) is substantially equal to the width (x) (see annotated Fig. 3.1 from Mason).
PNG
media_image2.png
353
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3.1 from Mason
In regards to Claim 3, Mason teaches: A modular mattress system as recited in claim 2, wherein the mattress modules have different stiffnesses ("the modules 3, 4 and 6 can be made from single- density or multi-density material, e.g., viscoelastic foam and flexible foam materials or gel and flexible foam, or multi-density flexible foams, or also a combination of all the above-mentioned materials and also others: gel, viscoelastic foam, flexible foam, etc."), such that a user can orient stiffer or more flexible modules at desired locations within the mattress ("For example, the mattress 2 can comprise various modules for the different areas of the user's body, i.e., it is possible to have specific modules for the lumbar region, for the leg region, for the torso region, for the head region, etc.").
In regards to Claim 11, Mason teaches: A modular mattress system as recited in claim 1, wherein the one or more couplers configured to selectively secure the plurality of mattress modules to form a mattress (1 - Fig. 12) comprises a casing configured to contain the plurality of mattress modules to form a mattress (17 - Fig. 12).
In regards to Claim 14, Mason teaches (as best understood by the 112(b) indicated above): A modular mattress system as recited in claim 1, further comprising one or more supplementary mattress modules configured to be combined with said plurality of substantially identically shaped mattress modules, each of the supplementary mattress modules having a different shape from said substantially identically shaped mattress modules (see annotated Fig. 3.2 from Mason and further noting "In general, the modules 3, 4, 6 according to the present invention can attain different degrees of elasticity and/or deformability by means of the use of different foams, with different shapes and sizes and/or with surface geometries and/or different inner recesses or cavities .").
PNG
media_image3.png
366
415
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
377
391
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
368
378
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3.2 (Three Parts Showing Formation of Different Shape(s)) from Mason
In regards to Claim 15, Mason teaches (as best understood by the 112(b) indicated above): A modular mattress system as recited in claim 14, wherein the one or more supplementary mattress modules comprises a plurality of substantially identically shaped supplemental mattress modules ("a plurality of modular elements, generally identical the one with the other, assembled so as to make up a mattress, a cushion or another supporting element.").
In regards to Claim 35, Mason teaches: A modular mattress system (1 - Fig. 1), comprising: a first plurality of mattress modules (see annotated Fig. 2a.1 from Mason, showing a first plurality of mattress modules) and a second plurality of mattress modules see annotated Fig. 2a.1 from Mason, showing a second plurality of mattress modules), the first and second pluralities of mattress modules configured to form a first mattress module assembly of a first selected geometry (see annotated Fig. 2a.1 from Mason, showing a first rectangular module assembly formed of a first rectangle) and being reconfigurable to form a second mattress module assembly of a second selected geometry (see annotated Fig. 2a.1 from Mason, showing a second larger rectangular module assembly formed of a second larger rectangle), each of the mattress modules of the first plurality of mattress modules and the second plurality of mattress modules having a width (x) and a length (y) (see annotated Fig. 2a.2 from Mason), wherein a stiffness of the second plurality of mattress modules has a different stiffness than the first plurality of mattress modules ("the modules 3, 4 and 6 can be made from single- density or multi-density material, e.g., viscoelastic foam and flexible foam materials or gel and flexible foam, or multi-density flexible foams, or also a combination of all the above-mentioned materials and also others: gel, viscoelastic foam, flexible foam, etc."); and wherein the second plurality of mattress modules are configured to be placed around a periphery of the first mattress module assembly (the second plurality of mattress modules shown in Fig. 2a.2 from Mason, is shown to be around a partial periphery of the first mattress module assembly); and one or more couplers (7,8 - Fig. 3) configured to selectively secure the plurality of mattress modules to form a mattress (Figure 3 and 2a, indicate the couplers in Fig.3 selectively securing the mattress modules to form mattress '1' in Fig. 2a).
PNG
media_image6.png
333
577
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2a.2 from Mason
In regards to Claim 36, Mason teaches: A modular mattress system as recited in claim 35, wherein the length (y) is substantially equal to two times the width (x) (see annotated Fig. 2a.2 from Mason).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4-10, 12-13 are 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. Claim 16 is rejected due to the 112(b) indicated above, yet includes allowable subject matter and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) rejection(s). The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to Claim(s) 4, 6, 8 and 16: Mason teaches a modular mattress system including a plurality of mattress modules having dimensions including a width (x) and a length (y) (see Fig. 7). However, Mason does not explicitly teach or suggest that the length (y) of the mattress modules is substantially equal to two times the width (x) as recited in claim 4, nor substantially equal to four times the width (x) as recited in claims 6, 8, and 16. Mason only discloses that each module can have a square base with a 16 cm side and 20 cm height, or a square base with a 13 cm side and 10 cm height, which does not teach or suggest the claimed proportional relationships between the module length and width. Accordingly, the specific dimensional relationships recited in claims 4, 6, 8, and 16 are not taught or suggested by Mason.
In regards to Claims 5, 7, 9, and 10, these claims depend from claims including the above-described dimensional limitations. Because Mason fails to teach or suggest mattress modules having a length substantially equal to two times or four times the width, Mason likewise fails to teach or suggest the further limitations recited in dependent claims 7, 9, and 10. Therefore, the subject matter of claims 7, 9, and 10 is also not taught or suggested by the prior art of record.
In regards to Claim(s) 12 and 13, Mason teaches a modular mattress system including mattress modules and casings. However, Mason does not teach or suggest the claimed configuration wherein one or more extenders are provided within the mattress casing for increasing the size of the mattress formed using the casing as recited in claim 12, nor does Mason teach or suggest one or more couplers comprising different casings having different sizes corresponding to different mattress configurations as recited in claim 13. Accordingly, the specific structural arrangement recited in claims 12 and 13 is not taught or suggested by Mason.
Claim(s) 17-19, 25-26, 28, and 31 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In regards to Claim 17, Mason teaches a modular mattress system including a plurality of mattress modules that can be arranged to form different mattress assemblies and couplers for securing the modules together. However, Mason does not teach or suggest that each of the mattress modules has dimensional relationships wherein the length (y) is substantially equal to two times the width (x) or substantially equal to four times the width (x) as specifically required by claim 17. As discussed above, Mason only discloses modules having square bases and does not disclose or suggest the claimed proportional relationships between module length and width.
In regards to Claim 26, Mason does not teach or suggest a modular mattress system wherein each mattress module has a width (x) and length (y) such that the length (y) is substantially equal to four times the width (x) as recited. Mason only discloses modules having square bases and therefore does not teach or suggest the claimed proportional relationship between module dimensions.
In regards to Claim 31, Mason fails to teach or suggest mattress modules having a length (y) that is substantially equal to two times the width (x) as required by the claim. Mason only discloses modules having square bases and therefore does not disclose or suggest the claimed proportional dimensional relationship.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ackley (US 5360653 A) teaches: A resilient panel comprising a first sheet having a plurality of pockets each having a resilient foam element located therein. Each of the foam elements is sized to substantially conform with the size of the pocket within which it is located. A second sheet is arranged over and attached to the first sheet so as to encapsulate the foam elements within the pockets in an uncompressed manner. This arrangement allows the panel to maintain a compression potential equal the entire compression range of the elastic elements. It also allows individual foam elements to be compressed without affecting adjacent foam elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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.
/MADISON MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673