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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-14 are pending in this application. Claims 1-14 have been amended. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 6/18/2026.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (CN 107019375 A) in view of Cirjak (US 20090313763 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Fu discloses a mattress structure (“breathable air mattress”) (cushion 2) and a surrounding edge (outer frame 1) that is continuously arranged at a periphery of the mattress body (See Fig. 1-2, outer frame 1 arranged at edges of cushion 2); the mattress body being provided inside with a plurality of air bag components arranged by row (See Fig. 2, gas bags 21 arranged within cushion 2 in rows), the surrounding edge being provided at a bottom thereof (outer frame 1 having a bottom) with a main air channel communicating with each of the air bag components (See Fig. 2, main air flow channel 11 communicating with gas bags 21), the main air channel being arranged at the bottom or inside of the surrounding edge along the periphery of the mattress body (See Fig. 2, main air flow channel 11 within outer frame 1).
Fu fails to explicitly teach wherein, when the air bag components are inflated by means of the main air channel, the main air channel is configured to raise the surrounding edge such that an upper surface of the surrounding edge is maintained flush with an upper surface of the mattress body, thereby achieving regulation of the surrounding edge and the mattress body in a height direction in a linked manner.
However, Cirjak teaches wherein, when the air bag components are inflated by means of the main air channel (See Fig. 1-3, interconnection 36 permits inflation of the interior volume of the mattress 28 and interior volume of the frame 30), the main air channel is configured to raise the surrounding edge such that an upper surface of the surrounding edge is maintained flush with an upper surface of the mattress body, thereby achieving regulation of the surrounding edge and the mattress body in a height direction in a linked manner (See Fig. 1-3, “The frame 12 and the mattress 16 might be inflated in succession; however, with the interior volume of the frame 30 and the interior volume of the mattress 28 interconnected at the interconnection 36, the pump might be connected to just one of the frame 12 and the mattress 16 to simultaneously inflate both”; [0035], upper surface of mattress 16 and frame 18 linked in height manner on right edge).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Fu by adding the raised inflated surrounding edge taught by Cirjak. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the inflated frame 12 firms the inflated mattress 16”; (Cirjak, [0035]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 10, Fu, as modified, teaches the mattress structure (“breathable air mattress”)
Fu fails to explicitly teach wherein the surrounding edge comprises an elastic body in a long strip-shaped arrangement.
However, Cirjak teaches wherein the surrounding edge comprises an elastic body in a long strip-shaped arrangement (See Fig. 3, frame 12 having four long strip-shaped edges).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Fu by modifying the sidewall orientation as taught by Schwirian. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “constraining lateral movement”; (Cirjak, [0026]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (CN 107019375 A) in view of Cirjak (US 20090313763 A1), further in view of Balonick (US 7886386 B2).
Regarding Claim 2, Fu, as modified, teaches the mattress structure (“breathable air mattress”) (See Fig. 1-2, outer frame 1 limits and encloses the cushion 2).
Fu fails to explicitly teach the limiting formation is connected to the mattress body to limit the surrounding edge; and the main air channel is arranged between the bottom of the surrounding edge and the limiting formation.
However, Cirjak teaches the limiting formation is connected to the mattress body to limit the surrounding edge (plurality of connecting points 20 connected mattress 16 connected to frame 12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Fu by adding the connecting points taught by Cirjak. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to better keep the mattress 16 and frame 12 together”; (Cirjak, [0027]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Fu in view of Cirjak fails to explicitly teach the main air channel is arranged between the bottom of the surrounding edge and the limiting formation.
However, Balonick teaches the main air channel is arranged between the bottom of the surrounding edge and the limiting formation (See Fig. 5, tubes 40 passing under side rail 28).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Fu in view of Cirjak by arranging the air channel as taught by Balonick. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “minimize interface pressure focal points”; (Balonick, [Col. 4, Lines 29-30]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 4, Fu, as modified, teaches the mattress structure (“breathable air mattress”)
Fu in view of Cirjak fails to explicitly teach wherein the limiting formation is provided with a plurality of hollow formation.
However, Balonick teaches wherein the limiting formation is provided with a plurality of hollow formation (side rail 28 having cutouts 42).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Fu in view of Cirjak by adding the cutouts taught by Balonick. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “allow the tubes to pass through”; (Balonick, [Col. 4, Line 61]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (CN 107019375 A) in view of Cirjak (US 20090313763 A1), further in view of Wen (US 20200205579 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Fu, as modified, teaches the mattress structure (“breathable air mattress”)
Fu in view of Cirjak fails to explicitly teach wherein the limiting formation comprises a limiting piece continuously arranged along the surrounding edge, the limiting piece covering a surface of the surrounding edge that is out of contact with the mattress body, and two opposite edges of the limiting piece being connected with the mattress body through a connecting part, so as to secure the surrounding edge to a side of the mattress body.
However, Wen teaches wherein the limiting formation comprises a limiting piece continuously arranged along the surrounding edge (elastic braid bands 124 around frame 12), the limiting piece covering a surface of the surrounding edge that is out of contact with the mattress body (braids 124 extending to connector 125), and two opposite edges of the limiting piece being connected with the mattress body through a connecting part (connector 125 on both sides of frame 12), so as to secure the surrounding edge to a side of the mattress body (mattress 11 secured within edge of frame 12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Fu in view of Cirjak by adding the limiting piece taught by Wen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “reinforce the connecting strength”; (Wen, [0025]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 5-7, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (CN 107019375 A) in view of Cirjak (US 20090313763 A1), further in view of Deng (CN 208988218 U).
Regarding Claim 5, Fu, as modified, teaches the mattress structure (“breathable air mattress”)
Fu in view of Cirjak fails to explicitly teach wherein the mattress body further comprises a lining, the lining comprising a plurality of first accommodating grooves for placing the air bag components, and the air bag components located in each first accommodating groove being communicated with the main air channel via an auxiliary air channel, respectively.
However, Deng teaches wherein the mattress body further comprises a lining (outer frame part 101), the lining comprising a plurality of first accommodating grooves for placing the air bag components (See Fig. 1, assembly space 104), and the air bag components located in each first accommodating groove being communicated with the main air channel via an auxiliary air channel, respectively (See Fig. 2, airbag 112 connected to gas pipe 113).
PNG
media_image2.png
518
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
358
698
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Fu in view of Cirjak by adding the lining and airbag taught by Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to give the user better experience through the comfort layer”; (Deng). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 6, Fu, as modified, teaches the mattress structure (“breathable air mattress”)
Fu in view of Cirjak fails to explicitly teach wherein the lining is further provided with a plurality of second accommodating grooves on a side opposite to an upper surface of the mattress body, the second accommodating grooves being provided with an elastic filler inside for increasing softness of the upper surface of the mattress body.
However, Deng teaches wherein the lining is further provided with a plurality of second accommodating grooves on a side opposite to an upper surface of the mattress body (See Fig. 1, assembly space 105 opposite space 104), the second accommodating grooves being provided with an elastic filler inside for increasing softness of the upper surface of the mattress body (See Fig. 2, elastic member 12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Fu in view of Cirjak by adding the elastic component taught by Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to give the user better experience through the comfort layer”; (Deng). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 7, Fu, as modified, teaches the mattress structure (“breathable air mattress”)
Fu in view of Cirjak fails to explicitly teach wherein the elastic filler is a U-shaped structure, a direction of an opening of the U-shaped structure being arranged on a side opposite to the main air channel, and positions where two outer side walls and a bottom of the U-shaped structure are connected being provided with an inclined surface respectively for reducing deformation and protrusion of the mattress body in the height direction.
However, Deng teaches wherein the elastic filler is a U-shaped structure (See Fig. 8, elastic member 11), a direction of an opening of the U-shaped structure being arranged on a side opposite to the main air channel (See Fig. 8, opening of member 11 is into the page while opening of gas pipe (embodiment not shown in fig. 8 but, “elastic member 12 can respectively before the any one of the embodiments”) runs parallel to the page), and positions where two outer side walls and a bottom of the U-shaped structure are connected being provided with an inclined surface respectively for reducing deformation and protrusion of the mattress body in the height direction (See Fig. 8, edges of member 11 connected to bushing 10 leading to inclined surface).
PNG
media_image4.png
410
728
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Fu in view of Cirjak by adding the U-shaped structure taught by Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to give the user better experience through the comfort layer”; (Deng). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 11, Fu, as modified, teaches the mattress structure (“breathable air mattress”)
Fu in view of Cirjak fails to explicitly teach wherein the surrounding edge comprises an edge lining and a strip-shaped edge air bag group arranged by column inside the edge lining, and there is at least one layer of the edge air bag group in a height of the surrounding edge.
However, Deng teaches wherein the surrounding edge comprises an edge lining (outer frame part 101) and a strip-shaped edge air bag group arranged by column inside the edge lining (See Fig. 2, air bags 112 and 121 arranged by column within frame 101), and there is at least one layer of the edge air bag group in a height of the surrounding edge (See Fig. 2, airbags arranged height wise).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Fu in view of Cirjak by adding the strip-shaped air bag groups taught by Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to give the user better experience through the comfort layer”; (Deng). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 13, Fu, as modified, teaches the mattress structure (“breathable air mattress”)
Fu in view of Cirjak fails to explicitly teach wherein the air bag component comprises an inflatable air bag component and a spring set arranged on an upper surface or lower surface of the inflatable air bag component.
However, Deng teaches wherein the air bag component comprises an inflatable air bag component and a spring set arranged on an upper surface or lower surface of the inflatable air bag component (See Fig. 3, second elastic member 12 is a spring, first elastic member 12 comprising air bag 112).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Fu in view of Cirjak by adding a spring set and airbag taught by Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to give the user better experience through the comfort layer”; (Deng). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 8, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (CN 107019375 A) in view of Cirjak (US 20090313763 A1), in view of Deng (CN 208988218 U), further in view of Ahn (US 20070044244 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Fu, as modified, teaches the mattress structure (“breathable air mattress”)
Fu in view of Cirjak in view of Deng fails to explicitly teach wherein the lining is provided with a plurality of sound-absorbing holes distributed uniformly.
However, Ahn teaches wherein the lining is provided with a plurality of sound-absorbing holes distributed uniformly (See Fig. 12a, holes 38).
PNG
media_image5.png
310
500
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Fu in view of Cirjak in view of Deng by adding sound-absorbing holes as taught by Ahn. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to reduce a noise”; (Ahn, [0093]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 12, Fu, as modified, teaches the mattress structure (“breathable air mattress”)
Fu in view of Cirjak in view of Deng fails to explicitly teach at least one soft sound-absorbing layer arranged at least one of an upper surface of the air bag component, a lower surface of the air bag component, an upper surface of the elastic filler, and a lower surface of the elastic filler.
However, Ahn teaches at least one soft sound-absorbing layer arranged at least one of an upper surface of the air bag component, a lower surface of the air bag component, an upper surface of the elastic filler (See Fig. 11a, holes 38 at upper surface of springs 12), and a lower surface of the elastic filler.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Fu in view of Cirjak in view of Deng by adding sound-absorbing holes on top of the springs as taught by Ahn. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to reduce a noise of the spring itself”; (Ahn, [0093]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 14, Fu, as modified, teaches the mattress structure (“breathable air mattress”)
Fu in view of Cirjak in view of Deng fails to explicitly teach at least one soft sound-absorbing layer arranged on at least one of the upper surface of the inflatable air bag component, the lower surface of the inflatable air bag component, an upper surface of the spring set, and a lower surface of the spring set.
However, Ahn teaches at least one soft sound-absorbing layer arranged on at least one of the upper surface of the inflatable air bag component, the lower surface of the inflatable air bag component, an upper surface of the spring set (See Fig. 11a, holes 38 at upper surface of springs 12), and a lower surface of the spring set.
PNG
media_image6.png
340
488
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Fu in view of Cirjak in view of Deng by adding sound-absorbing holes on top of the springs as taught by Ahn. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to reduce a noise of the spring itself”; (Ahn, [0093]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (CN 107019375 A) in view of Cirjak (US 20150013073 A1), in view of Deng (CN 208988218 U), in view of Ahn (US 20070044244 A1), further in view of Carlitz (US 20070169276 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Fu, as modified, teaches the mattress structure (“breathable air mattress”)
Fu in view of Cirjak in view of Deng in view of Ahn fails to explicitly teach wherein the sound-absorbing holes are polygonal holes or irregular holes.
However, Carlitz teaches wherein the sound-absorbing holes are polygonal holes or irregular holes (See Fig. 1, slits 12).
PNG
media_image7.png
482
482
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Fu in view of Cirjak in view of Deng in view of Ahn by adding slits as taught by Carlitz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “reduce the noise generated by edge springs”; (Carlitz, [0018]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant’s Arguments:
Arguments for Non-Obviousness
“Fu relates to a ventilated mattress. Its outer frame 1 is a fixed structure for accommodating an air cushion. It neither discloses nor suggests any structure or need for linking the height of a surrounding edge/border with the mattress surface. Fu aims to solve a ventilation problem, not a height difference problem. Schwirian discloses a mattress with inflatable side walls 106A, 106B. However, these side walls are independent inflatable chambers, serving to provide edge support or act as independent air channels. Schwirian does not disclose that these side walls are driven by the same main air channel that supplies air to the central area of the mattress, nor does it disclose that the height of the side walls needs to be "linked" or "maintained flush" with the central area. Its side walls are independent support zones, not a "surrounding edge" that is integrally and linkedly lifted by the "main air channel" as claimed. The Office Action's proposed combination of Fu and Schwirian lacks proper motivation. Fu's outer frame is a fixed structure, and it contains no "zones" requiring maintenance. Schwirian's side walls are independent support/air channel structures. A person skilled in the art would have no motivation to incorporate Schwirian's independent inflatable side walls into Fu's fixed outer frame, and further modify them to be driven by Fu's main air channel, in order to solve a "height difference" problem not even mentioned in Fu. The proposed combination constitutes impermissible hindsight reconstruction based on the claimed invention as a roadmap, rather than a teaching, suggestion, or motivation present in the prior art. Accordingly, claim 1 is non- obvious. The dependent claims 2-14 recite additional features that further define specific optimized structures for achieving the above-mentioned linked adjustment. The rejections of these claims, which rely on additional references (Balonick, Deng, Ahn, and Carlitz), similarly lack proper motivation to combine for the reasons set forth below.
Claims 2-4 (Balonick)
“Balonick discloses an air bed with foam side rails 28 and notches 42 for allowing a pipe 40 to pass through. The Office Action may consider the notch as a "limiting structure." However, the notch 42 in Balonick is merely a static passage for a connecting pipe, functioning to avoid pipe pinching. In contrast, the "limiting structure" of the claimed invention is a component connected to the mattress body for accommodating and limiting the movement range of the surrounding edge, and the main air channel is fixed to this limiting structure to effectively transmit the expansion force to the surrounding edge. Balonick's notch lacks the functions of "fixing the main air channel" and "transmitting force to drive the surrounding edge." Balonick addresses a pipe routing problem, whereas the claimed invention addresses linkage and limitation of the surrounding edge. A person skilled in the art would have no motivation to modify Balonick's static pipe passage into a "limiting structure" that cooperates with a liftable surrounding edge for fixation and force transmission, and incorporate it into the combination of Fu and Schwirian.”
Claims 5-7, 11 and 13 (Deng)
“Deng relates to a pad body that uses a liner to divide space for convenient assembly of elastic members. The "outer frame portion 101" in Deng is a static frame for dividing internal space, whereas the "surrounding edge" of the claimed invention is a movable component for linked lifting. Their functions are fundamentally different. The "liner" and its "accommodating slot" in Deng are for modular assembly of internal support/comfort layers. The "liner" and its "accommodating slot" in the claimed invention are for accommodating air bag components and elastic filler strips, serving the entire mattress inflation adjustment system, which differs from Deng's purpose. The elastic members in Deng are independent support modules. The "U-shaped elastic filler strip" with its "beveled surface" in the claimed invention is a specific design to provide deformation space during inflation and reduce surface protrusions, which is not disclosed in Deng. Deng does not disclose "sound-absorbing holes" at all. The sound-absorbing holes in the claimed invention are specific structures that provide space for liner deformation and eliminate noise. There is no motivation to combine Deng's static frame, assembly liner, etc., with Fu and Schwirian to arrive at the specific structures (e.g., U-shaped beveled filler strip, sound- absorbing holes) in the claimed invention that serve the core function of "linked lifting." Deng solves an assembly convenience problem, not a height difference or linked adjustment problem.”
Claims 8, 12, and 14 (Ahn)
“Ahn relates to a manufacturing method for wrapping springs with foam using a perforated material, aiming to enhance bonding and reduce noise. The holes 21, 22 on the "air-permeable reinforcing material 20" in Ahn are for allowing foam material to flow through and wrap the springs during the manufacturing process. Its function is process-oriented, for bonding different materials. The "sound-absorbing holes on the liner" in the claimed invention are to provide space for liner deformation and eliminate friction noise during the inflation/deflation process. Its function is acoustic optimization. Their purposes and principles differ. Noise reduction in Ahn is achieved by the overall effect of foam material wrapping the springs. The "sound-absorbing holes" are specific structural features on the liner. Ahn does not disclose forming holes on a liner for sound absorption. Ahn's foam material 24 forms large-area cushion layers above and below the springs. The "U- shaped elastic filler body" of the claimed invention is an elastic strip of specific shape and specific placement in the upper layer of the mattress, with its U-shaped opening and beveled design cooperating with inflation deformation. Ahn does not disclose this specific structure. Those skilled in the art would have no motivation to modify Ahn's porous material used for manufacturing process bonding into "sound-absorbing holes" for reducing deformation noise in a finished product mattress, nor to redesign Ahn's overall foam cushion layer into the specific U-shaped elastic filler body of the claimed invention and apply it to a mattress structure aimed at achieving height linkage. Ahn addresses manufacturing bonding and spring noise, while the claimed invention addresses height difference and flatness during use.”
Claim 9 (Carlitz)
“Carlitz discloses an edge support structure with a foam border and inserted springs, aiming to reduce noise. Carlitz's noise reduction is achieved by the foam material 10 wrapping and separating the independent springs 15. Carlitz does not disclose forming any "holes" for sound absorption on any component, let alone "polygonal or irregular holes." The polygonal/irregular sound- absorbing holes of the claimed invention are a specific design on the liner, completely different from Carlitz's technical means. In the absence of any disclosure of "hole" structures in Carlitz, a person skilled in the art could not possibly be motivated to derive from it the teaching to form holes of specific shapes on a completely different component (the liner) to solve deformation noise.”
Examiner’s Response:
Arguments for Non-Obviousness
The examiner acknowledges the applicant’s argument that the proposed combination of Fu and Schwirian lacks proper motivation and is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction. The examiner notes that Fu fails to explicitly teach the amended features of claim 1, “wherein, when the air bag components are inflated by means of the main air channel, the main air channel is configured to raise the surrounding edge such that an upper surface of the surrounding edge is maintained flush with an upper surface of the mattress body, thereby achieving regulation of the surrounding edge and the mattress body in a height direction in a linked manner, see page 3 above. The examine relies on the prior art of Cirjak to teach these shortcomings, see pages 3-4 above. This argument is moot as the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection for the amended features and does not rely on the prior art of Schwirian. Motivation for the combination of Fu in view of Cirjak is provided above on page 4 and thus, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained. Similar arguments regarding dependent claims 2-14 will be responded to below.
Claims 2-4 (Balonick)
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., “fixing the main air channel” and “transmitting force to drive the surrounding edge”) are not recited in the rejected claims 2-4. 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). Further, the examiner notes that Fu fails to explicitly teach the features of claim 2, “teach the limiting formation is connected to the mattress body to limit the surrounding edge; and the main air channel is arranged between the bottom of the surrounding edge and the limiting formation.”, see page 5 above. The examiner does not rely on the prior art of Balonick to cure these deficiencies and instead relies on the prior art of Cirjak to teach the “limiting formation”, see page 5 above for the claim rejection as well as the proper motivation to combine the prior art of Fu in view of Cirjak. Thus, the rejections of Claims 2-4 are respectfully maintained.
Claims 5-7, 11 and 13 (Deng)
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine Deng with Fu and Cirjak (Schwirian no longer relied on in the rejections of claims 5-7, 11, and 13) is explicitly stated in the above rejection on pages 8-13. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Deng with Fu and Cirjak, “to give the user better experience through the comfort layer”; (Deng). Providing additional comfort to a user is a more than valid motivation to combine references with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, the claim rejections of claims 5-7, 11 and 13 are respectfully maintained.
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., “sound absorbing holes” and “beveled surface”) are not recited in the rejected claims 5-7, 11 and 13. 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).
Claims 8, 12, and 14 (Ahn)
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine Ahn with Fu, Cirjak, and Deng (Schwirian no longer relied on in the rejections of claims 8, 12, and 14) is explicitly stated in the above rejection on pages 14-16. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ahn with Fu, Cirjak, and Deng “to reduce a noise”; (Ahn, [0093]). The applicant refers to holes 21 and 22 of Ahn, inconsistent with the above rejections which rely on holes 38 of Ahn to teach sound-absorbing holes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, the claim limitations require “sound-absorbing” functions, which is sufficiently read upon by the holes 38 of Ahn. Even if the reduction of noise is achieved in different ways and the structure of the holes is different when comparing the applicant’s invention and the prior art of Ahn, the limitation of focus is still disclosed by the prior art. It is irrelevant if Ahn is addressing manufacturing bonding and spring noise, while the claimed invention addresses height difference and flatness during use. Thus, the claim rejections of claims 8, 12, and 14 are respectfully maintained.
Claim 9 (Carlitz)
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine Carlitz with Fu, Cirjak, Deng, and Ahn is explicitly state above in the rejection on page 17. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references to “reduce the noise generated by edge springs”; (Carlitz, [0018]). Further, the applicant argues that Carlitz does not disclose forming any polygonal or irregular holes for sound-absorption. This is not the case as under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, Carlitz disclose slits 12 which constitute irregular holes that reduce noise which reads upon the above limitation. Thus, the claim rejection of claim 9 is respectfully maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20180255939 A1: Deng discloses a mattress with adjustable hardness levels comprising a plurality of air bag units within a lining.
US 4991244 A: Walker discloses an air bed enclosed within a rectangular foam border.
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 GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights