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. This communication is the first action on merits. Then Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 1/11/2024 has been considered by the office.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high flatness” in claims 1-14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high flatness” 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 structure of the mattress is rendered indefinite due to the descriptive term “high flatness” being used. The examiner suggests amending the claims to recite “a level mattress structure .
The term “jacking” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “jacking” 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 relationship between the main air channel and the surrounding edge is rendered indefinite as the term “jacking” is not sufficiently explained within the specification and comprises multiple different possible interpretations. The examiner suggests amending the claims to recite “the main air channel inflating up to the height of the mattress body”.
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 Schwirian (US 20150013073 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Fu discloses a mattress structure (“breathable air mattress”) with high flatness comprising: a mattress body (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 the main air channel jacking up the surrounding edge when the air bag components are inflated by means of the main air channel, thereby achieving regulation of the surrounding edge and the mattress body in a height direction in a linked manner.
However, Schwirian teaches the main air channel jacking up the surrounding edge when the air bag components are inflated by means of the main air channel (“side walls 106A, 106B…may comprise one or more air bladders”; [0054]), thereby achieving regulation of the surrounding edge and the mattress body in a height direction in a linked manner (See Fig. 4B, side walls and inflatable support sections 104 level).
PNG
media_image1.png
266
414
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 by adding the sidewalls taught by Schwirian. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “maintain each of the zones”; (Schwirian, [0015]). 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”) with high flatness according to claim 1.
Fu fails to explicitly teach wherein the surrounding edge comprises an elastic body in a long strip-shaped arrangement.
However, Schwirian teaches wherein the surrounding edge comprises an elastic body in a long strip-shaped arrangement (side rails 106A and 106B arranged in a long strip-shaped arrangement).
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 to “maintain each of the zones”; (Schwirian, [0015]). 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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (CN 107019375 A) in view of Schwirian (US 20150013073 A1), further in view of Balonick (US 7886386 B2).
Regarding Claim 2, Fu, as modified, teaches the mattress structure (“breathable air mattress”) with high flatness according to claim 1, wherein the surrounding edge is also provided with a limiting formation that is continuously arranged on an outside of the surrounding edge (See Fig. 1-2, outer frame 1 limits and encloses the cushion 2).
Fu in view of Schwirian 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, Balonick teaches the limiting formation is connected to the mattress body to limit the surrounding edge (See Fig. 5, side rail 28 in connection with air sector 18); and 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_image2.png
534
444
media_image2.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 Schwirian by connecting the limiting formation 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 3, Fu, as modified, teaches the mattress structure (“breathable air mattress”) with high flatness according to claim 2.
Fu 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, Schwirian teaches 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 (See Fig. 2, side rails 106A and 106B sit atop base 102), 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 (See Fig. 3, head end wall 108 connecting two side rails 106A and 106B).
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 limiting piece taught by Schwirian. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “maintain each of the zones”; (Schwirian, [0015]). 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”) with high flatness according to claim 2.
Fu in view of Schwirian 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 Schwirian 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.
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 Schwirian (US 20150013073 A1), further in view of Deng (CN 208988218 U).
Regarding Claim 5, Fu, as modified, teaches the mattress structure (“breathable air mattress”) with high flatness according to claim 1.
Fu in view of Schwirian 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_image3.png
518
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
358
698
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 Schwirian by adding the lining and airbag taught by Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “properly adjusting”; (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”) with high flatness according to claim 5.
Fu in view of Schwirian 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 Schwirian 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”) with high flatness according to claim 6.
Fu in view of Schwirian 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_image5.png
410
728
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 Schwirian 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”) with high flatness according to claim 1.
Fu in view of Schwirian 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 Schwirian 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”) with high flatness according to claim 1,
Fu in view of Schwirian 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 Schwirian 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 Schwirian (US 20150013073 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”) with high flatness according to claim 5.
Fu in view of Schwirian 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_image6.png
310
500
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 Schwirian 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”) with high flatness according to claim 6.
Fu in view of Schwirian 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 Schwirian 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”) with high flatness according to claim 13.
Fu in view of Schwirian 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_image7.png
340
488
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 Schwirian 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 Schwirian (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”) with high flatness according to claim 8.
Fu in view of Schwirian 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_image8.png
482
482
media_image8.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 Schwirian 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.
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.
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
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673