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 arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the conductive material element 58 is or forms (1) supporting spacers, (2) is open structured, (3) is non-foam, (4) or consists of a three-dimensional elastic arrangement of polymer filaments that allows circulation of air and moisture.
Regarding supporting spacers, the term is broad and the specification provides no definition for it. The spacers which exist in the reference meet the limitations of the claim. They exist, they support themselves, they inherently must be able to in at least some manner and to some degree support a weight or applied force. They are, therefore, supporting spacers. The claim does not require, for example, that they support X object or Y force or have a particular characteristic such as hardness values or modulus of elasticity values, etc.
The element is plainly open-structured, non-foam, and consists of a three-dimensional elastic arrangement of polymer filaments that allows circulation of air and moisture. They are not embedded in another undisclosed material and are plainly described as being able to not be embedded in another material. See the mapping in the rejection below. See in particular – “58. Transversely oriented highly conductive fibers on top of, between air cells, or continuously configured in a cooling layer on air mattress,” “Highly conductive forms of carbon fiber, such as pitch-based carbon fiber, in the filament, yarn, or fabric form may be used. These may also comprise other linear thermally conductive materials such as conductive polymers, filaments, wires, or filaments of copper or aluminum,” see in particular Table 1 (not copied here for brevity) as described and referenced in the mapped paragraphs, etc. Applicant’s argument regarding air and moisture circulation appears to be premised upon the incorrect assertion that the fibers are embedded and is therefore not persuasive. The claim only requires “arrangement of polymer filaments allowing circulation of air and moisture.” The filaments do not prevent circulation of air and moisture. Air and moisture may circulate, at a minimum, around and upon the filaments or the surface of the apparatus or elsewhere. The claim does not require that air and moisture circulation is required between and among the filaments themselves. Applicant is arguing a narrower interpretation of the claim language than is necessary under the BRI standard. Applicant is arguing an interpretation of the limitation which is simply not present in the claims.
The claims are not allowable.
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) 23-25, 28-29, 34, and 42-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachenbruch (US PG Pub. No. 20070135878) in view of Official Notice.
Re Claim 23
Lachenbruch discloses:
A pressure redistribution mattress (see figs. 15A – 15B) comprising
an inner support structure (elements surrounding / on top of the assembly, see e.g. 57; see figs. 15A – 15B) housing a pressure redistribution assembly including a plurality of air cells (60) connected by means of a pressure redistribution system (see below),
wherein the air cells (60) are spaced apart from one another to form gaps (fig 15B) between the air cells (60), and wherein the gaps are filled (see fig. 15B and see additional paragraphs cited below) with supporting spacers (58) formed of an open-structured, non-foam supportive material consisting of a three-dimensional elastic arrangement of polymer filaments allowing circulation of air and moisture (58, see [0044], see [0183] – “58. Transversely oriented highly conductive fibers on top of, between air cells, or continuously configured in a cooling layer on air mattress”; see also [0102], [0103], [0104]).
Lachenbruch does not explicitly disclose that the pressure redistribution assembly includes the plurality of air cells being connected by means of a pressure redistribution system. Examiner hereby takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to have air mattress air cells connected by means of a pressure redistribution system for the purpose of ensuring comfort of the user by avoiding high pressure spots due to redistribution of pressure / weight / force through the plurality of air cells. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Lachenbruch to have a pressure redistribution assembly which connects the plurality of air cells by means of a pressure redistribution system for the purpose articulated above.
Re Claim 24
Lachenbruch as modified above discloses:
wherein the supporting spacers are separate from the air cells and interposed between the air cells (see fig 15B and see above).
Re Claim 25
Lachenbruch as modified above discloses:
wherein the inner support structure comprises a flexible supporting frame member (57 is a ticking which therefore meets this limitation) with a longitudinal space (see figs 15A – 15B) configured and dimensioned to receive the pressure redistribution assembly and supporting spacers (see figs. 15A – 15B).
Re Claims 28 and 29
Lachenbruch as modified above discloses all claim limitations, except:
wherein the flexible supporting frame member is made of a foam material.
wherein the foam material is a polyurethane foam.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have the flexible supporting frame member made of a foam material, wherein the foam material is a polyurethane foam 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. Such a modification would have been obvious for the purpose of, for example, providing comfort and support.
Re Claim 34
Lachenbruch as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the polymer filaments are made of a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to select the recited material, 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. The choice would have been obvious for the purpose of selecting a material which achieves the stated purpose of support / heat transfer / cooling.
Re Claim 42
Lachenbruch as modified above discloses:
wherein the air cells are transverse air cells extending in a width direction of the mattress and wherein the supporting spacers are transverse supporting spacers filling the gaps between the air cells ([0044]).
Re Claims 43, 44, and 45
Lachenbruch as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
further comprising a removable cover housing the inner support structure.
wherein the removable cover is made of an air-permeable, multi-directional stretch fabric reducing shear and friction.
wherein the air- permeable, multi-directional stretch fabric is a polyurethane coated nylon fabric.
Examiner hereby takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to have a removable cover housing the inner support structure, wherein the removable cover is made of an air-permeable, multi-directional stretch fabric reducing shear and friction, wherein the air- permeable, multi-directional stretch fabric is a polyurethane coated nylon fabric for the purpose of providing a breathable, comfortable cover which can be washed and cleaned. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Lachenbruch to include the limitations at issue for the purpose as articulated above. Examiner also notes that to the extent necessary, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to select the recited material, 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. The choice would have been obvious for the purpose of selecting a material which achieves the stated purpose of support / heat transfer / cooling.
Claim(s) 30, 31, 32, 33 and 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachenbruch (US PG Pub. No. 20070135878) in view of Official Notice and further in view of Chirackal et al. (US PG Pub No. 20190053632 and hereinafter “Chirackal”).
Re Claims 30 and 31
Lachenbruch as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the inner support structure comprises a supporting layer overlying the pressure redistribution assembly and supporting spacers.
wherein the supporting layer is likewise made of an open-structured, non-foam supportive material consisting of a three-dimensional elastic arrangement of polymer filaments allowing circulation of air and moisture.
Chirackal teaches, for the purpose of providing improved cooling, wherein the inner support structure (combined with the above) comprises a supporting layer overlying the pressure redistribution assembly and supporting spacers (see supporting layer 104), and wherein the supporting layer is likewise made of an open-structured, non-foam supportive material consisting of a three-dimensional elastic arrangement of polymer filaments allowing circulation of air and moisture (104; see [0030] and [0034] for example). It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Lachenbruch as modified above with the teachings of Chirackal for the articulated purpose (see above).
Re Claims 32 and 33
Lachenbruch as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the supporting layer extends in the mattress apart from a head section and a foot section of the mattress.
wherein the supporting layer extends, in the width direction, all the way between the lateral sides of the mattress.
The product of Chirackal may be a mattress, mattress topper, cushion, lumbar support, back support, etc. ([0013]). Therefore, it is contemplated that it may focus upon the back, extending fully laterally and excluding the head and foot section as is commonly known. Regardless or in addition to the above, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to change the size such that the supporting layer extends in the mattress apart from a head section and a foot section of the mattress, and wherein the supporting layer extends, in the width direction, all the way between the lateral sides of the mattress. since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). Such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date for the purpose of comfortably supporting / cooling the back of a user, including without interfering with any other head and foot area supports.
Re Claims 35 and 36
Lachenbruch as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the inner support structure comprises a heel zone supporting element provided in a foot section of the mattress.
wherein the heel zone supporting element includes an upper supporting element made of spacer fabrics.
Chirackal teaches wherein the inner support structure (combined with the above) comprises a heel zone supporting element provided in a foot section of the mattress (e.g. 106 and 104 combined too), and wherein the heel zone supporting element includes an upper supporting element made of spacer fabrics (e.g. 104) for the purpose of comfortably supporting / cooling a user. It would therefore have been obvious to modify Lachenbruch as modified above to include the teachings above for the articulated purpose.
Claim(s) 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachenbruch (US PG Pub. No. 20070135878) in view of Official Notice and further in view of Roma (US PG Pub No. 20220039560).
Re Claims 37 and 38
Lachenbruch as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the inner support structure comprises a soft top layer provided in a top portion of the inner support structure.
wherein the soft top layer extends over the entire top portion of the inner support structure apart from a head section of the mattress.
Roma teaches, for the purpose of suiting user support and comfort preferences as well as facilitating replacement and repair etc., modular supports in mattress layer structures including wherein the inner support structure comprises a soft top layer provided in a top portion of the inner support structure, wherein the soft top layer extends over the entire top portion of the inner support structure apart from a head section of the mattress (see all figs. and note the various locations of the customizable / modular nature of the layer. The teachings provide for the soft top layer extending over the entire top portion of the inner support structure apart from a head section of the mattress by, for example, providing one of the modular types in all of the sections except the head section where a different type would be provided. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Lachenbruch as modified above to include the limitations at issue for the purpose as articulated above.
Claim(s) 39-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachenbruch (US PG Pub. No. 20070135878) in view of Official Notice and further in view of Rose (US Patent No. 5134735).
Re Claims 39, 40, and 41
Lachenbruch as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the inner support structure comprises a head zone supporting element provided in a head section of the mattress.
wherein the head zone supporting element is made of a foam material and includes a castellated upper surface.
wherein the foam material is a polyurethane foam.
Rose teaches wherein the inner support structure (combined with the above to include 20, in at least the head zone) comprises a head zone supporting element (30) provided in a head section of the mattress (fig. 1), wherein the head zone supporting element is made of a foam material and includes a castellated upper surface (fig. 1; “In the most preferred embodiment, mattress cushion 20 is formed of a polyurethane foam material either in the form of polyurethane foam sold by E.R. Carpenter, Inc. under the trademark RICHFOAM having code number R45XR or, alternatively, the polyurethane foam sold by E.R. Carpenter, Inc. under the trademark RICHFOAM having code number L32XD.”), wherein the foam material is a polyurethane foam (“In the most preferred embodiment, mattress cushion 20 is formed of a polyurethane foam material either in the form of polyurethane foam sold by E.R. Carpenter, Inc. under the trademark RICHFOAM having code number R45XR or, alternatively, the polyurethane foam sold by E.R. Carpenter, Inc. under the trademark RICHFOAM having code number L32XD.”). Rose teaches all of the above for the purpose of supporting a particular portion of a human body so as to avoid the formation of decubitus ulcers, poor body alignment and discomfort. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Lachenbruch as modified above with the teachings of Rose (see above) for the reasons in the articulated purpose above (see above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-27 are allowed.
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