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 16-35 have been examined in this application. Claims 1-15 have been canceled. Claims 16-35 are newly added. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to Applicant’s “Amendments/Remarks” filed 11/28/2025.
Specification
The specification objections made in the Non-Final Rejection on 10/22/2025 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the abstract filed on 11/28/2025.
Claim Objections
The claim objections made in the Non-Final Rejection on 10/22/2025 are withdrawn in light of the new claims filed on 11/28/2025.
However, with the new claims filed on 11/28/2025 there are several issues with antecedent basis. Although the Examiner performed an extensive review of the claims, it is suggested to review the claims for other concerns not listed below:
Claim(s) 16, 17, 22, 29 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 states the following lacking proper antecedent basis:
‘prevent pressure transfer between chambers’ -> ‘prevent pressure transfer between the plurality of chambers’
‘response to signals from the controller’ -> ‘response to signals from a controller’
‘its stored target pressure’ -> ‘the stored target pressure’
‘to deliver pressurized air to the valves’ -> ‘to deliver pressurized air to a plurality of valves’ (Note: previously only one valve was stated, yet for clarity this is a recommendation for the Examiner – alternative amendments could be considered)
‘until the deviation’ -> ‘until a deviation’
‘a user-defined target pressure value for each air chamber regardless of external force’ -> ‘ the user-defined target pressure value for each air chamber regardless of external force’
Claim 17 states the following lacking proper antecedent basis:
‘the same manner’ -> ‘ a same manner’
Claim 22 states the following lacking proper antecedent basis:
‘the user input device’ -> ‘the integrated user input device’
Claim 29 includes improper dependent to Claim 16, it is suggested to amend the dependency to Claim 28.
Claim 34 states the following lacking proper antecedent basis:
‘beneath the mattress’ -> ‘beneath a mattress’
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 112(a) and 112(b) claim rejections made in the Non-Final Rejection on 10/22/2025 are withdrawn in light of the new claims filed on 11/28/2025.
However, with the new claims filed on 11/28/2025 there are at least one 112(a) concern and several 112(b) concerns. Although the Examiner performed an extensive review of the claims, it is suggested to review the claims for other concerns not listed below:
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 17 states the following:
"perimeter air chambers positioned around the plurality of inflatable air chambers, each perimeter air chamber being fluidly isolated and governed by the controller in the same manner as the plurality of air chambers of claim 16 to maintain a user-defined internal pressure responsive to external force, wherein the perimeter chambers collectively form a border structure that may be molded together or configured more tightly while still maintaining independent fluid isolation."
Specifically the Examiner notes that the instant inventions disclosure does not define ‘perimeter air chambers’, the drawings indicate air chambers 101a-e yet they do not emphasis the particular perimeter air chambers are separate and having required functions outside the standard plurality of air chambers. The claim language including ‘being fluidly isolated and governed by the controller in the same manner as the plurality of air chambers of claim 16 to maintain a user-defined internal pressure responsive to external force, wherein the perimeter chambers collectively form a border structure that may be molded together or configured more tightly while still maintaining independent fluid isolation’ are not shown, disclosed or otherwise within the original disclosure. Notably, 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is shown above.
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(s) 17-18, 29 and 32 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.
The term “may be’ in claim 17 introduces indefiniteness into the overall scope of protection sought by the claim. The Examiner is unsure if the limitation following after ‘may be’ is required or optional as the term "may be” could be interpreted to express possibility. As such, the Examiner suggests amending the claim to clarify or further remove the term from Claim 5. The examiner further suggests amending the claim to “… structure that is configured to be molded together …”
The term “more tightly” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “more tightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term ‘tightly’ is not defined by the disclosure, further it does not define a precise numerical boundary making its meaning dependent on context, subjective interpretation and specific (often subjective) user experiences rather than objective, universally defined measurement. One is unable to determine if something is considered more/less tight as it is dependent upon a user and their determination. Therefore, the Examiner suggests providing a quantitative analysis within the disclosure or removing the language entirely.
The term “a resilient enclosure” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “resilient” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term ‘resilient’ is not defined by the disclosure, further it does not define a precise numerical boundary making its meaning dependent on context, subjective interpretation and specific (often subjective) user experiences rather than objective, universally defined measurement. One is unable to determine if something is considered more/less resilient as it is dependent upon a user and their determination. Therefore, the Examiner suggests providing material types, properties or other explanation within the disclosure or claim on how the enclosure is considered ‘resilient’.
The term “optimal settings” in claim 29 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term ‘optimal’ is not defined by the disclosure, further it does not define a precise numerical boundary making its meaning dependent on context, subjective interpretation and specific (often subjective) user experiences rather than objective, universally defined measurement. One is unable to determine if something is considered optimal as it is dependent upon user and their determination. Therefore, the Examiner suggests providing a quantitative analysis within the disclosure or removing the language entirely.
The term “rapid chamber adjustments” in claim 32 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rapid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term ‘rapid’ is not defined by the disclosure, further it does not define a precise numerical boundary making its meaning dependent on context, subjective interpretation and specific (often subjective) user experiences rather than objective, universally defined measurement. One is unable to determine if something is considered more or less rapid (i.e. taking more or less time) as it is dependent upon user and their determination. Therefore, the Examiner suggests providing a quantitative analysis within the disclosure or removing the language entirely.
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) 16, 19-27, 31, 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Riley et al., hereinafter 'Riley' (US 20160242561 A1).
In regards to Claim 16, Riley teaches: An automatically adjusting sleep system (Figs. 5A-5B), comprising: a plurality of inflatable air chambers (501a, 501b, 501c - Figs. 5A-5B), each structurally independent of adjacent chambers and fluidly isolated to prevent pressure transfer between chambers (Para 0029 and Para 0045: "Likewise, the system of air mattress chambers can include six or more individually controlled zones and be segregated into sides or span the entire sleep surface.", and further noting Para 0043 and Figure 6B); a pressure-sensing element coupled to each of the plurality of inflatable air chambers (Para 0071: "Thus, while the airbed is articulating and the pressure adjustment is ongoing (or after the articulation has stopped and the pressure adjustment is still ongoing), the airbed control system will always have values for starting, current, and desired values for the articulation and pressure parameters. The decision at stage 613 to inflate (e.g., through pumping), deflate (e.g., through passive deflation or powered dumping), or do nothing (e.g., stopping the deflation/inflation operation and closing the valves to the chamber)—corresponding to stages 614-616, respectively—is made by the airbed control system based on inputting the current values for articulation and chamber pressure and the desired values for articulation and chamber pressure."), the pressure-sensing element comprising either (a) a pressure-sensitive valve configured to measure internal pressure and selectively admit or vent air in response to signals from the controller (Para 0071: "The decision at stage 613 to inflate (e.g., through pumping), deflate (e.g., through passive deflation or powered dumping), or do nothing (e.g., stopping the deflation/inflation operation and closing the valves to the chamber)—corresponding to stages 614-616, respectively—is made by the airbed control system based on inputting the current values for articulation and chamber pressure and the desired values for articulation and chamber pressure.", further noting Claim 14 of Riley discussing two types of controllers from control system), or (b) a pressure sensor in combination with a valve configured to measure internal pressure and selectively admit or vent air in response to control signals from the controller (Para 0071: "The decision at stage 613 to inflate (e.g., through pumping), deflate (e.g., through passive deflation or powered dumping), or do nothing (e.g., stopping the deflation/inflation operation and closing the valves to the chamber)—corresponding to stages 614-616, respectively—is made by the airbed control system based on inputting the current values for articulation and chamber pressure and the desired values for articulation and chamber pressure.", further noting Claim 14 of Riley discussing two types of controllers from control system); an air supply (Para 0074) configured to deliver pressurized air to the valves (Para 0071); a programmable controller operatively coupled to the pressure sensors and valves (Para 0071: "the airbed control system will always have values for starting, current, and desired values for the articulation and pressure parameters." and Para 0072 discussing programmed control system), the controller configured to: receive the real-time internal pressure measurements from each pressure sensor (Para 0071 and Para 0072); compare each real-time internal pressure to a stored target pressure value for the respective air chamber (Para 0071 and Para 0072); determine whether the internal pressure of any air chamber deviates from its stored target pressure value by more than a predetermined threshold (Fig. 6C - 636 to 638); output a control signal to the valve of the respective air chamber to adjust the internal pressure until the deviation is within the predetermined threshold (Fig. 6C - 636 to 639); the controller being configured to receive and store a user-defined target pressure value for each air chamber (Para 0071-0072); continuously perform the comparison and adjustment in real time to maintain a user-defined target pressure value for each air chamber regardless of external force (Para 0093); pressure correction is performed independently for each air chamber without averaging pressure values across adjacent chambers (Para 0093: "The articulation run check process at stage 619 checks if all articulations are complete after the entire sequence of chambers in the chamber indexing process 617 have been determined to be at the desired pressure."); and wherein each air chamber is configured for single self-adjusting isolation (Para 0093), such that pressure deviations caused by external forces are corrected in real time independently of adjacent chambers (Para 0044: "In yet another example, various triggers may be utilized by the airbed control system to perform an articulation of the airbed (and correspondingly adjust the pressure based on the articulation). The triggers may include time-related triggers (such as changing elevation and/or pressure based on time of day), biometric-related triggers (such as changing elevation and/or pressure based on detecting changes with respect to snoring, heart rate, respiration, lack of movement, etc.), interventional triggers (such as changing elevation and/or pressure based on someone other than the user of the airbed, e.g., a nurse attending to a patient), function-related triggers (such as changing elevation and/or pressure based on invocation or completion of a massage function), or other triggers (e.g., based on temperature, lighting, ambient sound, music, etc.).").
In regards to Claim 19, Riley teaches: The system of claim 16, wherein the controller is configured to receive user input specifying a revised target pressure for a selected air chamber, and to maintain the revised target pressure regardless of external force (Fig. 3, 302a - noting that although there might be changes in external forces occurring due to the articulation - the pressure is still adjusting to maintain the original pressure).
In regards to Claim 20, Riley teaches: The system of claim 16, wherein the controller implements a closed-loop control algorithm to minimize deviation from the stored target pressure value (Fig. 6B shows a closed-loop control algorithm with respect to inflation/deflation due to too low or high pressure and the ability to determine if the pressure is at the desired stored target pressure).
In regards to Claim 21, Riley teaches: The system of claim 16, wherein the controller samples each pressure sensor at defined intervals (Para 0048: "FIGS. 6A-6C and the corresponding description relate to a multi-zone system in which only one zone is operated on at a time, and in which only one actuation point is actuated at a time, it will be appreciated that the principles described herein may also be applied to systems where multiple zones are simultaneously operated on or when multiple actuation points are simultaneously actuated with appropriate modifications.", therefore the defined intervals would understandably be based off when one of the zones is properly inflated then it would go to the next, and so forth).
In regards to Claim 22, Riley teaches: The system of claim 16, wherein the controller is communicatively coupled to an integrated user input device, the user input device being configured for wired or wireless communication (Para 0002: "The related airbed control systems have evolved from simple wired hand remotes with up/down buttons to wireless hand controls operated on smart devices.").
In regards to Claim 23, Riley teaches: The system of claim 16, wherein the controller is communicatively coupled to a mobile device for receiving user input (Para 0002: "The related airbed control systems have evolved from simple wired hand remotes with up/down buttons to wireless hand controls operated on smart devices.").
In regards to Claim 24, Riley teaches: The system of claim 16, wherein the controller adjusts the internal pressure of the air chambers in a timed sequence of per-chamber adjustments without averaging or cross-chamber dependency (Para 0093: "The articulation run check process at stage 619 checks if all articulations are complete after the entire sequence of chambers in the chamber indexing process 617 have been determined to be at the desired pressure." and Para 0048: "FIGS. 6A-6C and the corresponding description relate to a multi-zone system in which only one zone is operated on at a time, and in which only one actuation point is actuated at a time, it will be appreciated that the principles described herein may also be applied to systems where multiple zones are simultaneously operated on or when multiple actuation points are simultaneously actuated with appropriate modifications.", therefore the defined intervals would understandably be based off when one of the zones is properly inflated then it would go to the next, and so forth).).
In regards to Claim 25, Riley teaches: The system of claim 16, wherein the controller is configured to apply a user-selected preset comprising a set of target pressure values individually assigned to each of a plurality of air chambers (Para 0039: "Likewise, a user may hit a button or otherwise input a command on a user remote corresponding to a pre-programmed “recline” setting or a user-programmed setting where the airbed is reclined, which may cause the adjustable base 502 to be adjusted to the reclined setting shown in FIG. 5B (and at the same time the airbed control system adjusts the pressure within the air mattress chambers 501a, 501b and 501c to achieve target pressures for each of those chambers corresponding to the reclined setting).").
In regards to Claim 26, Riley teaches: The system of claim 16, wherein the controller is configured to apply a user-defined target pressure value comprising values directly entered by the user (Para 0071: "The decision at stage 613 to inflate (e.g., through pumping), deflate (e.g., through passive deflation or powered dumping), or do nothing (e.g., stopping the deflation/inflation operation and closing the valves to the chamber)—corresponding to stages 614-616, respectively—is made by the airbed control system based on inputting the current values for articulation and chamber pressure and the desired values for articulation and chamber pressure.").
In regards to Claim 27, Riley teaches: The system of claim 16, wherein the controller is configured to apply a user-defined target pressure value comprising values authorized by the user and generated by the system (Para 0071-0072, Para 0036 and Para 0047 discusses input of pressure via user input).
In regards to Claim 31, Riley teaches: The system of claim 16, wherein the source of air pressure comprises an air pump (Para 0029: "The manifold 104b is connected to a pumping apparatus 104a which pumps air from atmosphere through the manifold 104b into the air mattress 101 (and may also be configured to dump air from the air mattress 101 out to atmosphere). The pumping apparatus 104a is controlled by a control unit 104c of the pump 104.").
In regards to Claim 33, Riley teaches: The system of claim 16, wherein the plurality of inflatable air chambers and associated components are configured to operate atop a separate support surface (102 - Fig. 1) having articulating sections (Fig. 5B showing articulating sections).
In regards to Claim 34, Riley teaches: The system of claim 16, wherein the sleep system includes an integrated support structure positioned beneath the mattress (102 - Fig. 1), the support structure comprising multiple articulating sections configured to vary the orientation of the mattress and the plurality of inflatable air chambers (Fig. 5B showing articulating sections, with Figs. 5A to 5B showing the varying orientation of the mattress and the chambers on the sections).
In regards to Claim 35, Riley teaches: The system of claim 16, wherein the plurality of inflatable air chambers and associated components are configured to operate within a seating structure (102 - Fig. 1 and the respective chambers in Figs. 5A - 5B shows the user transition from a laying configuration to a partial seated configuration).
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) 18 and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Riley' (US 20160242561 A1) in view of Rose (US 7389554 B1).
In regards to Claim 18, Riley teaches: The system of claim 16, but Riley does not explicitly teach, further comprising a resilient enclosure encircling the plurality of inflatable air chambers.
Rose teaches: further comprising a resilient enclosure encircling the plurality of inflatable air chambers (Col 4 Lines 50-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Riley to further comprise a resilient enclosure encircling the plurality of inflatable air chambers as taught by Rose. Doing so would have predictably provided structural support and protection for the air chambers while maintaining their arrangement, thereby improving durability and maintaining the intended configuration of the inflatable chambers within the system.
In regards to Claim 30, Riley teaches: The system of claim 16, but Riley does not explicitly teach, wherein the plurality of inflatable air chambers are fastened within a containment structure configured to maintain chamber isolation.
Rose teaches: wherein the plurality of inflatable air chambers are fastened within a containment structure configured to maintain chamber isolation (Col 4 Lines 54-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Riley such that the plurality of inflatable air chambers are fastened within a containment structure configured to maintain chamber isolation as taught by Rose. Such a modification would have predictably secured the inflatable air chambers in place while preventing interference between adjacent chambers, thereby improving stability and consistent operation of the system.
Claim(s) 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Riley' (US 20160242561 A1) in view of Autar (US 20210345968 A1).
In regards to Claim 28, Riley teaches: The system of claim 16, but Riley does not explicitly teach, wherein the programmable controller includes a machine learning module configured to be trained by supervised or unsupervised algorithms selected from regression, instance-based, decision tree, Bayesian, clustering, association rule learning, neural network, deep learning, dimensionality reduction, or ensemble algorithms, the trained model being stored by the controller and updated using historical per-chamber pressure data, user-defined presets, clinician programming or external datasets received via a mobile application communicatively coupled to the controller.
Autar teaches: wherein the programmable controller includes a machine learning module configured to be trained by supervised or unsupervised algorithms selected from regression (Para 0177), instance-based, decision tree, Bayesian, clustering, association rule learning, neural network, deep learning, dimensionality reduction, or ensemble algorithms, the trained model being stored by the controller and updated using historical per-chamber pressure data, user-defined presets, clinician programming or external datasets received via a mobile application communicatively coupled to the controller (Para 0176-0178).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Riley to include a programmable controller comprising a machine learning module configured to be trained using supervised or unsupervised algorithms, as taught by Autar. Such a modification would have predictably enabled the system to analyze historical pressure data and external inputs to improve pressure management and personalization, thereby enhancing automated control and adaptability of the inflatable air chamber system.
In regards to Claim 29, Riley in view of Autar teaches: The system of claim 16, Autar further teaches, wherein the machine learning module is further configured to autonomously generate or adjust user-defined target pressure values for each air chamber based on learned usage patterns and sensor data, thereby determining optimal settings without external input (Para 0203).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Riley in view of Autar such that the machine learning module is configured to autonomously generate or adjust user defined target pressure values for each air chamber based on learned usage patterns and sensor data. Implementing such functionality would have predictably allowed the system to determine optimal pressure settings automatically, thereby improving system responsiveness and reducing the need for manual input.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 17 and 32 are currently rejected to due the 112(b) rejections indicated above yet would d be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to Claim 17, Riley teaches a system including a plurality of inflatable air chambers that are controlled to adjust support characteristics. However, Riley does not teach or suggest one or more perimeter air chambers positioned around the plurality of inflatable air chambers that are fluidly isolated and governed by the controller in the same manner as the plurality of air chambers to maintain a user defined internal pressure responsive to external force, wherein the perimeter chambers collectively form a border structure that may be molded together or configured more tightly while still maintaining independent fluid isolation. Riley generally discloses inflatable chambers used to adjust support characteristics of a surface, but does not disclose or suggest perimeter chambers forming a structural border around the chamber array while simultaneously maintaining independent fluid isolation and pressure regulation comparable to the interior chambers. The cited reference therefore fails to teach or suggest the combination of a border forming perimeter chamber arrangement with independent pressure control responsive to external force as recited in Claim 17.
In regards to Claim 32, Riley teaches a system including an air pump for inflating air chambers. However, Riley does not explicitly teach or suggest an air pump coupled to an air storage tank configured to buffer pressure surges and maintain airflow stability during rapid chamber adjustments. Riley discloses pump driven air delivery to inflatable chambers but does not disclose or suggest a dedicated air storage tank arranged with the pump to act as a pressure buffer that stabilizes airflow during rapid chamber adjustments. The cited reference therefore fails to teach or suggest the use of an air storage tank specifically configured to mitigate pressure surges and maintain airflow stability during rapid system adjustments, as recited in Claim 32.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11/28/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Karschnik et al., (US 10441087 B2) teaches: A mattress including one or more layers of foam material, an adjustable air layer including an air bladder, and a valve. The valve can be fluidically connected to the air bladder and configured to regulate pressure of the air bladder in response to actuation. Some embodiments can include a foam material positioned inside the air bladder.
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 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