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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previously set forth claim objections and 112(b) rejections, however a new claim objection has been made regarding claim 11 in view of the amendment. Applicant's arguments relating to the art rejection filed 3/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant argues that the reference describes channels that segment a mattress into zones of differing compressive strength, but that it does not disclose or suggest polymer feet formed by voids, nor does it disclose or suggest that such feet vary in size such that feet in a second region span a greater distance along the length of the mattress than feet in a first region as required in claim 1. Respectfully, applicant is paraphrasing and not using the exact claim language from claim 1. All limitations actually in the claim are met as shown in the mapping below.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the entirety of applicant’s argument in the final two paragraphs on page 6 of the remarks) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant points to and argues using the specification / disclosure of the instant invention rather than the claim language and fails to describe or allege any issues regarding the claim language and the rejection as set forth. Applicant is arguing limitations which are simply not present in the claims.
Applicant presents an argument regarding In re Leshin regarding “varying the size of the feet.” In re Leshin was not used with regard to varying the size of the feet.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 11 as amended recites the limitation “where at least one void of first plurality of voids…” It appears as if the amendment added and deleted “a.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WESTELYNCK (FR 2928074 A1).
Re Claim 1
Westelynck discloses:
A body support cushion (1), comprising:
one or more polymer layers (4 either individually or in combination with 2 and/or 3, but see also below) at least partially defining a length and a width of the cushion (see all figs.), wherein the one or more polymer layers span a depth that is perpendicular to the length and the width of the cushion and extend from an upper surface of the one or more polymer layers which is configured to support a user to a lower surface of the one or more polymer layers that is opposite the upper surface (figs. 1-3);
a plurality of voids in at least one polymer layer of the one or more polymer layers (see voids at 6), the plurality of voids fully traversing the width of the cushion (the channels 6 are described as transverse), wherein the plurality of voids extend from the lower surface and form polymer walls of the at least one polymer layer (see figs. 1-3);
a plurality of polymer feet (7) formed by the at least one polymer layer via the plurality of voids (figs. 1-3), wherein each polymer foot is defined by adjacent polymer walls (figs. 1-3); and
a plurality of lower surface regions formed of the plurality of voids and the plurality of polymer feet (see fig. 1 which discloses various regions, e.g. 1a-1g, although it is noted that the regions need not be exactly as labeled in fig. 1 as they could be delineated in other sections / dimensions / areas), the plurality of lower surface regions comprising a first region that includes a plurality of first feet of a first size (e.g. 1b), and a second region that includes a plurality of second feet of a second size (e.g. 1c-1e),
wherein each second foot of the second size spans a greater distance along the length of the cushion than each first foot of the first size (fig. 1).
Regarding the layers in the reference being one or more polymer layers, the reference is not explicitly clear throughout the disclosure. The reference discloses that it is known that mattresses utilize polyurethane (i.e. polymer) foams and that resilient foam is often based on polyurethane – “Mattresses for bedding in one or more layers of more or less resilient foam, often based on polyurethane” and that the layer 2 is viscoelastic foam as well as layer 3 being viscoelastic foam, but only states resilient foam with regard to layer 4. It is therefore disclosed in the reference that polyurethane / polymer foams are used as mattress layers and that resilient foams are often based on polyurethane (i.e. a polymer). It is noted that polyurethane as described in the reference, or other types of polymer layers, are resilient and would satisfy the description of resilient layer 4. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have any or all of the layers, individually or in combination, including layer 4, be polymer layers for the purpose of providing a comfortable, supportive, and/or resilient surface to the user. It is noted that polymer layers would include known polymers such as polyurethane, polyisocyanurate layer, and polyol.
Alternatively or in addition to the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have the layers be polymer layers, 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. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have any or all of the layers, individually or in combination, including layer 4, be polymer layers for the purpose of providing a comfortable, supportive, and/or resilient surface to the user. It is noted that polymer layers would include known polymers such as polyurethane, polyisocyanurate layer, and polyol.
Re Claim 2
Westelynck as modified above discloses:
wherein the first and second regions are adjacent to each other along the length of the cushion (fig. 1).
Re Claim 3
Westelynck as modified above discloses:
wherein the plurality of lower surface regions further comprises a third region (e.g. 1f) that includes at least one third foot of a third size that spans a distance along the length of the cushion that differs from at least one of the first and second sizes (fig. 1).
Re Claim 4
Westelynck as modified above discloses:
wherein each third foot of the third size spans a smaller size along the length of the cushion than each second foot of the second size (fig. 1).
Re Claim 5
Westelynck as modified above discloses:
wherein the third size is substantially the same as the first size (fig. 1).
Re Claim 6
Westelynck as modified above discloses:
wherein the second region is arranged between and adjacent to the first and third regions along the length of the cushion (fig. 1).
Re Claim 7
Westelynck as modified above discloses:
wherein the first region is positioned at a first end of the cushion along the length direction (fig. 1, e.g. the first end being the area of 1a-1b), the third is positioned at a second end of the cushion along the length direction (fig. 1, the second end being the area of 1f-1g), and the second region extends between the first and second regions along the length direction (fig. 1).
Re Claim 8
Westelynck as modified above discloses:
wherein the plurality of voids extend parallel to each other (figs. 1-3).
Re Claim 9
Westelynck as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the plurality of voids remove between 10% volume and 30% volume of the one or more polymer layers defined by the length and the width of the cushion.
While the voids in the reference clearly remove volume, the exact number / range is not explicitly discussed in the reference. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have the plurality of voids remove between 10% volume and 30% volume of the one or more polymer layers defined by the length and the width of the cushion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is noted that the void volume impacts firmness, spring effect, and/or comfort, which are recognized characteristics in the reference.
Re Claim 10
Westelynck as modified above discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of voids extend in a depth direction corresponding to the depth of at least one inch from the lower surface towards the upper surface (figs. 1-3 and note that the reference discloses “The circular upper part 8 of the channels of the second set 6 has an inner diameter of about 12 mm. The height h of the channels of the second set 6 is of the order of 35 mm.”).
Re Claim 11
Westelynck as modified above discloses:
where at least one void of a first plurality of voids extends in a depth direction corresponding to the depth a first distance from the lower surface towards the upper surface (e.g. one of the voids in 1b) and at least one other void of the first plurality of voids extends in the depth direction a second distance from the lower surface towards the upper surface (e.g. one of the voids in 1f), wherein a third void of the first plurality of voids extends in the depth direction a third distance from the lower surface towards the upper surface (e.g. one of the voids in 1d), wherein the third distance is longer than both the first distance and the second distance (fig. 1).
Re Claim 12
Westelynck as modified above discloses:
wherein the one or more polymer layers comprise one or more of a polyurethane layer, a polyisocyanurate layer and a polyol layer (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Re Claim 13
Westelynck as modified above discloses:
wherein the one or more polymer layers include a first polymer layer proximate the upper surface (e.g. 2 or 3), and a second polymer layer (e.g. 4) proximate the lower surface that differs from the first polymer layer (figs. 1-4 and note also that a cover is disclosed), wherein the plurality of voids extend into the second polymer layer and not the first polymer layer (fig. 1), and wherein the plurality of polymer feet are formed of the second polymer layer (fig. 1).
Re Claim 14
Westelynck as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the first polymer layer and the second polymer layer comprise different densities and are formed of differing polymer materials.
See the rejection above of claim 1 and particularly note that the reference discloses the use of polymers / polyurethane / resilient layers. Therefore, as discussed above (see also the abstract which discusses the layers 2 and 3 being visco-elastic foam with different properties and 4 being a third type of layer which is resilient, discussed in greater detail throughout the disclosure as having different properties such as compressive strength properties which is readily related to density), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the first polymer layer and the second polymer layer comprise different densities and are formed of differing polymer materials for the purpose of providing a comfortable, supportive, and/or resilient surface to the user.
Alternatively or in addition to the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have the first polymer layer and the second polymer layer comprise different densities and are formed of differing polymer materials, 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. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have the first polymer layer and the second polymer layer comprise different densities and are formed of differing polymer materials for the purpose of providing a comfortable, supportive, and/or resilient surface to the user. It is noted that the reference discusses throughout the disclosure the ability to yield different comfort characteristics by varying the properties of the layers.
Re Claim 20
Westelynck as modified above discloses:
wherein the body support cushion is configured as a mattress (abstract), a body-support pad or a body-support mat.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DAVID E SOSNOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7944. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM and 9 PM through 11:59 PM Monday through Friday, generally.
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.
/DAVID E. SOSNOWSKI/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673