DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Appeal Brief
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on October 28th, 2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. a new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Election/Restrictions
As previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed April 18th, 2025, claims 45-46 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
This application contains claims and figures directed to the following patentably distinct species:
I. Claims 22-31 and 33-44 alongside FIGS. 1A-10D, drawn to a single user interface operable bed with a single operable articulation scheme, classified in A47C17/24, among others.
II. Claims 45-46 alongside FIGS. 11A-11F, drawn to a double user interface operable bed with an individual operable articulation scheme thereof, classified in A47C17/32, A47C17/48, and A47C20/08 among others.
The species are independent or distinct because the species are mutually exclusive, as they are incapable of simple addition to each other, with species I necessitating only a bed frame of single actuable type and posing a considerable different mode of operation (a single bed) as compared to a dual-operative bed of species II which would necessitate further protocols and additional actuators and framework to use the same foundation over what is necessitated by species I. Furthermore, there are distinct features of either invention that are not necessary for patentability, where at least claim 24 of species I necessitates a wire that is not necessitated by 45 or 46 (or any antecedents thereof); while species II necessitates a second user interface that is not present in species I. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, a user interface with a mattress and a foundation and a frame are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: The species or groupings of patentably distinct species requires a different field of search, where Species I possesses features that are not in Species II such as a wire, while features in species II are not in species I such as a second controller and a second operable bed half with articulation means thereof. Where further a search burden is considered in searching in at least CPCs A47C17/24, among others for species I alongside a unique text search, and searching CPCs A47C17/32, A47C17/48, and A47C20/08 among others for species II alongside a unique text search..
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 45 and 46 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The Restriction is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 22, 24, 28-29 and 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grutta (U.S. Pub. No. 20240074591) in view of Brosnan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20150290059); hereafter “Bronsan”, alongside Chacon et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9131783); hereafter “Chacon”, with Chacon used as a teaching reference. (it is respectfully noted due to the manner applicant’s claims are ordered later claims (such as claim 24) may be addressed before earlier claims (such as 22 that now depend on claim 24 due to applicant’s amendments).
Regarding claim 24, Grutta discloses (FIGS. 1-5) a bed system (As illustrated in FIG. 5) comprising: an adjustable foundation ([paragraphs [0007] “The remote control may enable an individual to remotely operate one or more functions of a bed, such as the orientations of an adjustable base of the bed and of a mattress on the adjustable base…. of various portions of the mattress (e.g., its head end, its middle, its foot end, etc.)” [0050]: “adjust an orientation of a head portion of a bedframe of the bed, beneath the head portion 102h of the mattress 100,” [0051]: “adjust an orientation of a foot portion of the bedframe of the bed, beneath the foot portion 102f of the mattress 100”) comprising: a head section (102h; FIG. 5); a foot section (102f; FIG. 5); and an actuation system connected to the head section and the foot section (paragraphs [0050] and [0051]) and a mattress (100; As illustrated in FIG. 5) defining a mattress top and first and second mattress sides (as illustrated in FIG. 5), the mattress comprising: a mattress cover (paragraph [0015] and [0045]: “position of the support 20 on the mattress cover”); and a foundation user interface (20/40/50/60; FIGS. 1-5) and mounted to the mattress cover (as illustrated in FIG. 2-5; clarified in [0045]: “position of the support 20 on the mattress cover” and [0041]: “A fastener 22 may secure the support 20 to the mattress 100 or to any other part of a bed”) at the first mattress side (110; FIG. 5), wherein the foundation user interface is configured to control the adjustable foundation and comprises a wire extending from the foundation user interface to communicatively couple to the adjustable foundation.
However, although Grutta expresses a remote control and articulatable head/feet frames [0051], and does express the use of wires [0055]-[0056], Grutta does not explicitly disclose wherein the adjustable foundation is necessarily a separate entity (explicitly beneath the mattress) and where there is a wire between the user interface and the adjustable foundation.
Regardless, Bronsan teaches (FIG. 2 and 19), an articulated mattress with a remote control (388/386/370; FIGS. 2 and 19). Wherein the user interface is connected to the adjustable bedframe by wires (390-396; FIG. 19, clarified in 0140).
It would have been obvious before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the wires and the explicit adjustable foundation of Bronsan (FIG. 19) into the remote and actuatable systems of Grutta (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5). Where the results would have been predictable as Chacon expresses an additional similar wired controller that is operable with a removable remote (130: FIG. 3) that communicatively couples to the adjustable foundation through (180; FIG. 3), and activates an engaging deice (635: FIG. 6)and where particularly, Chacon demonstrates such technology for a bed (FIG. 5). Whereby it would have been simple combination as the features of Grutta would continue to be availed and facilitated by communicating a signal to the bed to operate (per Grutta: 0037), and the bed would continue to be articulated and supported (per Bronsan: FIG. 19), and where the bed would continue to both provide signal and actuation by a controller (per Chacon: FIGS. 3, 5, and 6).
Regarding claim 22, Grutta in view of Bronsan and Chacon discloses (Grutta: FIGS. 1-5; Bronsan: FIG. 19) the bed system of claim 24, wherein the foundation user interface is configured to send a signal to raise the adjustable foundation and also to reset the adjustable foundation. As set forth in [0054] “When an individual uses the controls 51-56 of such a secondary remote system 50, the controls 51-56 may generate signals. The signals generated by the controls 51-56 of the secondary remote system 50 of the cradle 40 may be received directly by the bed (e.g., a controller of the bedframe, a controller of or associated with the mattress 100 or a feature thereof, a controller associated with an accessory to the bed, etc.) or by the remote control 60 (FIG. 1), which may then generate and transmit corresponding signals to the controller(s) of the bed, mattress 100, or accessory.” And paragraphs [0050] and [0051] both establish control of the adjustable foundation. Where a plurality of prescribed memory positions (such as those further supported in Grutta’s provisional application 63/039281) would avail a position that could be considered the ‘reset’ arbitrarily in the ordinary use of the invention and another prescribed memory position of raising the head as set forth. Where Bronsan further avails the controller particularly preset positions [0049], which is a recognized form of ‘reset’.
Regarding claim 28, Grutta in view of Bronsan and Chacon discloses (Grutta: FIGS. 1-5; Bronsan: FIG. 19) the bed system of claim 24, wherein the foundation user interface comprises a button (As eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 1-5, the user interface comprises a plurality of buttons), and where Bronsan collaboratively demonstrates in FIG. 19.
Regarding claim 29, Grutta in view of Bronsan and Chacon discloses (Grutta: FIGS. 1-5) the bed system of claim 24, wherein the foundation user interface is positioned inside of the mattress cover. As expressed in [0011] the pocket of the mattress cover would thereby place and position the foundation user interface (A controller) inside the pocket and inside the mattress cover.
Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious with Grutta in view of Bronsan and Chacon in further view of Stinchcomb (U.S. Pub. No. 20100107339).
Regarding claim 43, Grutta in view of Bronsan and Chacon discloses (FIGS. 1-5) the mattress cover of claim 24, and further comprising: a piece of fabric sewn along three sides of the piece of fabric to connect the piece of fabric to the mattress cover at the foundation user interface, wherein the small piece of fabric is sized to create a pocket to receive the user interface. As expressed in [0011] a pocket is attached to the side of the mattress cover of which the user interface is placed within (and thereby ‘at’). Although fabric has not been explicitly stated, Grutta clearly expresses fabric covers through [0042] that further clarifies “the fastener 22 may comprise a so-called “hook fabric” (i.e., the rigid side of a hook-and-loop fastener (e.g., a VELCRO? hook-and-loop fastener, etc.)) on a backside of the support 20, which may be used to removably secure the support 20 to a cover of the mattress 100, with the cover serving as the “loop” side of the hook-and-loop fastener”, such materials as plastic or vinyl and other common closed cell materials would not properly function and must inherently be fabric to operate so with hook and loop fasteners
However, Grutta does not explicitly disclose wherein the fabric pocket is sewn to an interior surface of the mattress cover.
Regardless, Grutta discloses the claimed invention except for the fabric (pocket) being sewn explicitly to an inside instead of an outside of the mattress cover. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have sewn the fabric (pocket) of Grutta to the inside of the mattress, since it has been held that mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Where the results would have been predictable as Grutta already considers the use of magnets ([0043]: “the fastener 22 may comprise a magnet.”), pockets ([0011]: “a receptacle may comprise a pocket in a side of a cover of the mattress, into which the support may slide”) and a magnet of the support to secure the user interface ([0047]: “The support coupler 42 of the cradle 40 may engage a complementary coupler 24 of the support 20. In some embodiments, including those embodiments where the coupler 24 comprises a magnet, the support coupler 42 may comprise a ferromagnetic material. In other embodiments, including those embodiments where the coupler 24 of the support 20 comprises a ferromagnetic material, the support coupler 42 of the cradle 40 may comprise a magnet. A strength of the magnetic field generated by a magnetic support coupler 42 may enable it to hold the cradle 40 in place against the support 20,”). Where furthermore there is no criticality asserted to the fabric being located on the interior of the mattress as opposed to the outside, only that it may be located and sewn to the interior. Where Grutta further discloses [0008] “this disclosure relates to apparatuses and systems that secure the remote control (e.g., a dedicated remote control, a smart phone, etc.) to a bed without distracting from the aesthetic appearance of the bed”, where the fabric of the pocket may be considered to detract from the aesthetics of the bed if exteriorly exposed. While advantageously as taught by Kawtoski [4:8-9], being able to reverse the mattress cover (by making it reversible) “Reversibility allows even wear on both sides of the sheets and effectively doubles their useful life”; thereby the reversing of the mattress cover would extend the longevity of the cover itself. It is still further considered by Grutta that the ability to see the control is not necessary for operation, as set forth in [0050] “The first control 51 may enable an individual laying on the mattress 100 to reach down to a side of the mattress 100, recognize the first control 51 by feel without looking, and adjust an orientation of a head portion of a bedframe of the bed, beneath the head portion 102h of the mattress 100, by moving the first control 51 accordingly”. As such the operation of Grutta would be retained whether the user interface was placed directly into the pocket or not.
Claim(s) 23,25-27, 30-31, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grutta in view of Bronsan, Chacon, and Stinchcomb (U.S. Pub. No. 20100107339).
Regarding claim 26, Grutta discloses (FIGS. 1-5) a bed system (As illustrated in FIG. 5) comprising: an adjustable foundation ([paragraphs [0007] “The remote control may enable an individual to remotely operate one or more functions of a bed, such as the orientations of an adjustable base of the bed and of a mattress on the adjustable base…. of various portions of the mattress (e.g., its head end, its middle, its foot end, etc.)” [0050]: “adjust an orientation of a head portion of a bedframe of the bed, beneath the head portion 102h of the mattress 100,” [0051]: “adjust an orientation of a foot portion of the bedframe of the bed, beneath the foot portion 102f of the mattress 100”) comprising: a head section (102h; FIG. 5); a foot section (102f; FIG. 5); and an actuation system connected to the head section and the foot section (paragraphs [0050] and [0051]) and a mattress (100; As illustrated in FIG. 5) defining a mattress top and first and second mattress sides (as illustrated in FIG. 5), the mattress comprising: a mattress cover (paragraph [0015] and [0045]: “position of the support 20 on the mattress cover”); and a foundation user interface (20/40/50/60; FIGS. 1-5) and mounted to the mattress cover (as illustrated in FIG. 2-5; clarified in [0045]: “position of the support 20 on the mattress cover” and [0041]: “A fastener 22 may secure the support 20 to the mattress 100 or to any other part of a bed”) at the first mattress side (110; FIG. 5), wherein the foundation user interface is configured to control the adjustable foundation, wherein the foundation user interface is connected to the mattress cover to {side} of the mattress cover at a location configured to be touched by a user. Where paragraph [0011] expresses “The support may be removably received by a receptacle on the side of the cover of the mattress. As a non-limiting example, a receptacle may comprise a pocket in a side of a cover of the mattress,”. Although fabric has not been explicitly stated, Grutta clearly expresses fabric covers through [0042] that further clarifies “the fastener 22 may comprise a so-called “hook fabric” (i.e., the rigid side of a hook-and-loop fastener (e.g., a VELCRO? hook-and-loop fastener, etc.)) on a backside of the support 20, which may be used to removably secure the support 20 to a cover of the mattress 100, with the cover serving as the “loop” side of the hook-and-loop fastener”, such materials as plastic or vinyl and other common closed cell materials would not properly function and must inherently be fabric to operate so with hook and loop fasteners.
However, although Grutta expresses an articulatable head/feet frames [0051], Grutta does not explicitly disclose wherein the adjustable foundation is necessarily a separate entity (explicitly beneath the mattress).
Regardless, Bronsan teaches (FIG 2 and 19), an articulated mattress with a remote control (388/386/370; FIGS. 2 and 19).
It would have been obvious before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the explicit adjustable foundation of Bronsan (FIG. 19) into the remote and actuatable systems of Grutta (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5). Where the results would have been predictable as Chacon expresses an additional similar wired controller that is operable with a removable remote (130: FIG. 3) that communicatively couples to the adjustable foundation through (180; FIG. 3), and activates an engaging deice (635: FIG. 6)and where particularly, Chacon demonstrates such technology for a bed (FIG. 5). Whereby it would have been simple combination as the features of Grutta would continue to be availed and facilitated by communicating a signal to the bed to operate (per Grutta: 0037), and the bed would continue to be articulated and supported (per Bronsan: FIG. 19), and where the bed would continue to both provide signal and actuation by a controller (per Chacon: FIGS. 3, 5, and 6).
However, while Grutta does disclose a pocket (0011), and that a magnet may be used (FIG. 2, [0017]/[0042]-[0045]) still does not explicitly disclose wherein the fabric is sewn to an interior of the mattress cover.
Regardless, Stinchcomb teaches [0029] “magnets may be sewn into the opposite corners of the cover to secure a filler placed between the magnet mates. In such an embodiment, a magnet and its mate may be hidden from view”. Where a fabric pocket is particulary used ([0029]: “pieces of fabric”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the hidden magnets sewn into the mattress of Stinchcomb into the pocket of Grutta. Where the results would have been predictable as Grutta already considers a pocket in use and a magnet to secure, and magnets are expressed to magnetically retain in Grutta. Where additional predictability is demonstrated in Chacon where there are interior pockets and magnets within the cover of the apparatus in the wall in particular (as illustrated in FIG. 1-4), and magnetically retains a controller thereon. Where the remote would continue to avail use and access thereto as Grutta necessitates, while retaining the magnets within the mattress cover as Stinchcomb necessitates, and further while maintaining both a separable controller with a magnetic attachment with hidden magnets thereof (as Chacon necessitates).
It is additionally considered that, although Stinchcomb particularly addresses ‘sewn’, the pocket being “sewn” in the instant claim constitutes a product by process limitation that would not substantially differentiate from the pocket offered by Grutta, and the manner it is attached is not of patentable weight as other processes such as adhesives, sonic welding, grommeting does not offer non-obvious structures or functionality as the manner of attachment merely secures one fabric to another.
Regarding claim 23, Grutta in view of Bronsan, Chacon, and Stinchcomb discloses (Grutta: FIGS. 1-5) the bed system of claim 26, wherein the foundation user interface is configured to move the adjustable foundation to a preset position. Where [0050] and [0051] both express and establish “enables an individual to set the preselected position of the head/foot portion”. Where a plurality of prescribed memory positions (such as those further supported in Grutta’s provisional application 63/039281) would avail a position that could be considered the ‘reset’ arbitrarily in the ordinary use of the invention and another prescribed memory position of raising the head as set forth.
Regarding claim 25, Grutta in view of Bronsan, Chacon, and Stinchcomb discloses (Grutta: FIGS. 1-5; Bronsan: FIGS. 2 and 19) the bed system of claim 26, wherein the user interface is spaced up a side of the mattress cover so as to be spaced above a top of the adjustable foundation (as illustrated in FIG. 5, Grutta clarified in [0046], 110 is a side of the mattress). And wherein the inclusion of Bronses’ adjustable foundation (beneath the mattress (FIG. 2 and 19)
Regarding claim 27, Grutta in view of Bronsan, Chacon, discloses (FIGS. 1-5) the bed system of claim 24, and further comprising: a fabric pocket ([0011]: “pocket”) configured to retain the foundation user interface to the mattress cover (as set forth in [0011]). Although fabric has not been explicitly stated, Grutta clearly expresses fabric covers through [0042] that further clarifies “the fastener 22 may comprise a so-called “hook fabric” (i.e., the rigid side of a hook-and-loop fastener (e.g., a VELCRO? hook-and-loop fastener, etc.)) on a backside of the support 20, which may be used to removably secure the support 20 to a cover of the mattress 100, with the cover serving as the “loop” side of the hook-and-loop fastener”, such materials as plastic or vinyl and other common closed cell materials would not properly function and must inherently be fabric to operate so with hook and loop fasteners.
However, while Grutta does disclose a pocket (0011), and that a magnet may be used (FIG. 2, [0017]/[0042]-[0045]) still does not explicitly disclose wherein the fabric is at least partially sewn to an interior of the mattress cover.
Regardless, Stinchcomb teaches [0029] “magnets may be sewn into the opposite corners of the cover to secure a filler placed between the magnet mates. In such an embodiment, a magnet and its mate may be hidden from view”. Where a fabric pocket is particulary used ([0029]: “pieces of fabric”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the hidden magnets sewn into the mattress of Stinchcomb into the pocket of Grutta. Where the results would have been predictable as Grutta already considers a pocket in use and a magnet to secure, and magnets are expressed to magnetically retain in Grutta. Where additional predictability is demonstrated in Chacon where there are interior pockets and magnets within the cover of the apparatus in the wall in particular (as illustrated in FIG. 1-4), and magnetically retains a controller thereon. Where the remote would continue to avail use and access thereto as Grutta necessitates, while retaining the magnets within the mattress cover as Stinchcomb necessitates, and further while maintaining both a separable controller with a magnetic attachment with hidden magnets thereof (as Chacon necessitates).
It is additionally considered that, although Stinchcomb particularly addresses ‘sewn’, the pocket being “sewn” in the instant claim constitutes a product by process limitation that would not substantially differentiate from the pocket offered by Grutta, and the manner it is attached is not of patentable weight as other processes such as adhesives, sonic welding, grommeting does not offer non-obvious structures or functionality as the manner of attachment merely secures one fabric to another.
Regarding claim 30, Grutta in view of Bronsan and Chacon discloses (FIGS. 1-5) the bed system of claim 24, and further comprising: a small piece of {pocket} along three sides of the small piece of fabric to connect the small piece of fabric to the mattress cover at the foundation user interface, wherein the small piece of fabric is sized to create a pocket to receive the foundation user interface. As expressed in [0011] a pocket is attached to the side of the mattress cover of which the user interface is placed within (and thereby ‘at’). Although fabric has not been explicitly stated, Grutta clearly expresses fabric covers through [0042] that further clarifies “the fastener 22 may comprise a so-called “hook fabric” (i.e., the rigid side of a hook-and-loop fastener (e.g., a VELCRO? hook-and-loop fastener, etc.)) on a backside of the support 20, which may be used to removably secure the support 20 to a cover of the mattress 100, with the cover serving as the “loop” side of the hook-and-loop fastener”, such materials as plastic or vinyl and other common closed cell materials would not properly function and must inherently be fabric to operate so with hook and loop fasteners
However, while Grutta does disclose a pocket (0011), and that a magnet may be used (FIG. 2, [0017]/[0042]-[0045]) still does not explicitly disclose wherein the fabric is at least partially sewn to an interior of the mattress cover.
Regardless, Stinchcomb teaches [0029] “magnets may be sewn into the opposite corners of the cover to secure a filler placed between the magnet mates. In such an embodiment, a magnet and its mate may be hidden from view”. Where a fabric pocket is particulary used ([0029]: “pieces of fabric”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the hidden magnets sewn into the mattress of Stinchcomb into the pocket of Grutta. Where the results would have been predictable as Grutta already considers a pocket in use and a magnet to secure, and magnets are expressed to magnetically retain in Grutta. Where additional predictability is demonstrated in Chacon where there are interior pockets and magnets within the cover of the apparatus in the wall in particular (as illustrated in FIG. 1-4), and magnetically retains a controller thereon. Where the remote would continue to avail use and access thereto as Grutta necessitates, while retaining the magnets within the mattress cover as Stinchcomb necessitates, and further while maintaining both a separable controller with a magnetic attachment with hidden magnets thereof (as Chacon necessitates).
It is additionally considered that, although Stinchcomb particularly addresses ‘sewn’, the pocket being “sewn” in the instant claim constitutes a product by process limitation that would not substantially differentiate from the pocket offered by Grutta, and the manner it is attached is not of patentable weight as other processes such as adhesives, sonic welding, grommeting does not offer non-obvious structures or functionality as the manner of attachment merely secures one fabric to another.
Regarding claim 31, Grutta in view of Bronsan, Chacon, and Stinchcomb discloses (Grutta: FIGS. 1-5) the bed system of claim 26, wherein the foundation user interface comprises a magnet (22, clarified in [0043]: “Alternatively, the fastener 22 may comprise a magnet.”).
Claim(s) 36-37, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grutta in view of Stinchcomb.
Regarding claim 37, Grutta discloses (FIGS. 1-5) a mattress cover (paragraph [0015] and [0045]: “position of the support 20 on the mattress cover”) comprising: a fabric comprising a fabric top, a first fabric side, and a second fabric side (as illustrated in FIG. 5); and a user interface (20/40/50/60; FIGS. 1-5) configured to send a signal to one or more controllable systems to control the one or more controllable systems, wherein the user interface is connected to the mattress cover via fabric sewn to {a side} (as illustrated in FIG. 2-5; clarified in [0045]: “position of the support 20 on the mattress cover” and [0041]: “A fastener 22 may secure the support 20 to the mattress 100 or to any other part of a bed”) of the first fabric side at a location configured to be touched by the user (110; FIG. 5). As expressed in [0006] “The use of a smart phone to control one or more features of a bed may result in the added irritation of providing audible alarms (e.g., emergency alerts, notification chimes, phone call rings, etc.) and “silent,” but still audible, vibrating alarms while an individual rests or sleeps”. Where particularly [0041] expresses “A fastener 22 may secure the support 20 to the mattress 100 or to any other part of a bed of which the mattress 100 is a part. The fastener 22 may permanently secure the support 20 to a predetermined location on the mattress 100 or another part of the bed, it may removably secure the support 20 to one or more predetermined locations on the mattress 100 or other parts of the bed, or it may removably secure the support 20 to any location on the mattress 100 or the bed selected by an individual who may use a remote control 60”, and paragraphs [0050] and [0051] both express control of features of the mattress by the user, including the adjustable foundation (e.g. “adjust an orientation of a head portion of a bedframe of the bed, beneath the head portion” and “enables an individual to set the preselected position of the head portion 102h of the mattress 100”. Although fabric has not been explicitly stated, Grutta clearly expresses fabric covers through [0042] that further clarifies “the fastener 22 may comprise a so-called “hook fabric” (i.e., the rigid side of a hook-and-loop fastener (e.g., a VELCRO? hook-and-loop fastener, etc.)) on a backside of the support 20, which may be used to removably secure the support 20 to a cover of the mattress 100, with the cover serving as the “loop” side of the hook-and-loop fastener”, such materials as plastic or vinyl and other common closed cell materials would not properly function and must inherently be fabric to operate so with hook and loop fasteners.
However, while Grutta does disclose a pocket (0011), and that a magnet may be used (FIG. 2, [0017]/[0042]-[0045]) still does not explicitly disclose wherein the fabric is at least partially sewn to an interior of the mattress cover.
Regardless, Stinchcomb teaches [0029] “magnets may be sewn into the opposite corners of the cover to secure a filler placed between the magnet mates. In such an embodiment, a magnet and its mate may be hidden from view”. Where a fabric pocket is particulary used ([0029]: “pieces of fabric”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the hidden magnets sewn into the mattress of Stinchcomb into the pocket of Grutta. Where the results would have been predictable as Grutta already considers a pocket in use and a magnet to secure, and magnets are expressed to magnetically retain in Grutta. Where additional predictability is demonstrated in Chacon where there are interior pockets and magnets within the cover of the apparatus in the wall in particular (as illustrated in FIG. 1-4), and magnetically retains a controller thereon. Where the remote would continue to avail use and access thereto as Grutta necessitates, while retaining the magnets within the mattress cover as Stinchcomb necessitates, and further while maintaining both a separable controller with a magnetic attachment with hidden magnets thereof (as Chacon necessitates).
It is additionally considered that, although Stinchcomb particularly addresses ‘sewn’, the pocket being “sewn” in the instant claim constitutes a product by process limitation that would not substantially differentiate from the pocket offered by Grutta, and the manner it is attached is not of patentable weight as other processes such as adhesives, sonic welding, grommeting does not offer non-obvious structures or functionality as the manner of attachment merely secures one fabric to another.
Regarding claim 36 Grutta in view of itself and Kawtoski discloses (Grutta: FIGS. 1-5) the mattress cover of claim 37, wherein the user interface is configured to reset the one or more controllable systems and is also configured to adjust the one or more controllable systems to a preset position. Where the term “preselected position” [0050]/[0051] would in the course of use of the invention provide at least one point that is a known and returnable, or otherwise ‘resettable’ position. Where a plurality of prescribed memory positions (such as those further supported in Grutta’s provisional application 63/039281) would avail a position that could be considered the ‘reset’ arbitrarily in the ordinary use of the invention and another prescribed memory position of raising the head as set forth.
Regarding claim 40, Grutta discloses (FIGS. 1-5) the mattress cover of claim 37, wherein the user interface comprises a magnet (22, clarified in [0043]: “Alternatively, the fastener 22 may comprise a magnet.”).
Claim(s) 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grutta in view of Stinchcomb in further view of Bronsan and Chacon, with Chacon used as a teaching reference.
Regarding claim 33, Grutta in view Stinchcomb disclsoes (Grutta: FIGS. 1-5) the mattress cover of claim 37, wherein the one or more controllable systems comprises an adjustable foundation [as expressed in [0007] [0050] and [0051]) and wherein the user interface is configured to send a signal to raise the adjustable foundation (as clarified in [0050] and [0051] and [0056].
However, although Grutta expresses an articulatable head/feet frames [0051], Grutta does not explicitly disclose wherein the adjustable foundation is necessarily a separate entity (explicitly beneath the mattress).
Regardless, Bronsan teaches (FIG 2 and 19), an articulated mattress with a remote control (388/386/370; FIGS. 2 and 19).
It would have been obvious before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the explicit adjustable foundation of Bronsan (FIG. 19) into the remote and actuatable systems of Grutta (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5). Where the results would have been predictable as Chacon expresses an additional similar wired controller that is operable with a removable remote (130: FIG. 3) that communicatively couples to the adjustable foundation through (180; FIG. 3), and activates an engaging deice (635: FIG. 6)and where particularly, Chacon demonstrates such technology for a bed (FIG. 5). Whereby it would have been simple combination as the features of Grutta would continue to be availed and facilitated by communicating a signal to the bed to operate (per Grutta: 0037), and the bed would continue to be articulated and supported (per Bronsan: FIG. 19), and where the bed would continue to both provide signal and actuation by a controller (per Chacon: FIGS. 3, 5, and 6).
Regarding claim 34, Grutta in view Stinchcomb, Bronsan, and Chacon discloses (Grutta: FIGS. 1-5) a bed system comprising: the mattress cover of claim 33 (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-5); a mattress sized to be positioned inside the mattress cover (as expressed in [0045] concerning a mattress cover and a mattress 100; FIGS. 1-5); and the adjustable foundation, wherein the user interface is configured to move the adjustable foundation to a preset position. Where [0050] and [0051] both express control of features of the mattress by the user, including the adjustable foundation (e.g. “adjust an orientation of a head portion of a bedframe of the bed, beneath the head portion” and particularly “enables an individual to set the preselected position of the head {or foot} portion 102h {or 102f} of the mattress 100”. Where preselected is considered to be a preset.
Claim(s) 35, 38-39, 42, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grutta in view of Rawls-Meehan (U.S. Pub. No. 20130289770; hereafter “Rawls”.
Regarding claim 35, Grutta discloses (FIGS. 1-5) a mattress cover (paragraph [0015] and [0045]: “position of the support 20 on the mattress cover”) comprising: a fabric comprising a fabric top, a first fabric side, and a second fabric side (as illustrated in FIG. 5) and a user interface (20/40/50/60; FIGS. 1-5) mounted to the first fabric side (as illustrated in FIG. 2-5; clarified in [0045]: “position of the support 20 on the mattress cover” and [0041]: “A fastener 22 may secure the support 20 to the mattress 100 or to any other part of a bed”) at the first mattress side (110; FIG. 5), wherein the user interface is configured to send a signal to one or more controllable systems to control the one or more controllable systems, wherein the one or more controllable systems comprises an alarm system and wherein the user interface is configured to send a signal to control the alarm system. As expressed in [0006] “The use of a smart phone to control one or more features of a bed may result in the added irritation of providing audible alarms (e.g., emergency alerts, notification chimes, phone call rings, etc.) and “silent,” but still audible, vibrating alarms while an individual rests or sleeps”. Where particularly [0041] expresses “A fastener 22 may secure the support 20 to the mattress 100 or to any other part of a bed of which the mattress 100 is a part. The fastener 22 may permanently secure the support 20 to a predetermined location on the mattress 100 or another part of the bed, it may removably secure the support 20 to one or more predetermined locations on the mattress 100 or other parts of the bed, or it may removably secure the support 20 to any location on the mattress 100 or the bed selected by an individual who may use a remote control 60”, and paragraphs [0050] and [0051] both express control of features of the mattress by the user, including the adjustable foundation (e.g. “adjust an orientation of a head portion of a bedframe of the bed, beneath the head portion” and “enables an individual to set the preselected position of the head portion 102h of the mattress 100”. Where the Provisional application of Grutta further elucidates “wake up or bed time routines” which may include alarms. Although fabric has not been explicitly stated, Grutta clearly expresses fabric covers through [0042] that further clarifies “the fastener 22 may comprise a so-called “hook fabric” (i.e., the rigid side of a hook-and-loop fastener (e.g., a VELCRO? hook-and-loop fastener, etc.)) on a backside of the support 20, which may be used to removably secure the support 20 to a cover of the mattress 100, with the cover serving as the “loop” side of the hook-and-loop fastener”, such materials as plastic or vinyl and other common closed cell materials would not properly function and must inherently be fabric to operate so with hook and loop fasteners.
However, although Grutta expresses a number of devices that could operate as alarms ([0037]: vibrators/massagers, Google Home) and notes particularly a “wake up routine”, Grutta does not explicitly call the “wake up routines” an “alarm”.
Regardless, Ralws teaches [0448] “In an embodiment, the vibration and massage functions may function as a gentle-wake alarm, being activated in response to an alarm clock signal, which may be generated by the electronic facility 140 (e.g., by an alarm clock running in the controller 150 or the like) or may be received as a signal from an external source (e.g., from the remote control 118 or the like), and so on”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated or considered in the operation of Grutta’s ‘wake-up routines’ [0037], using the operable ‘gentle wake up alarm’ of Ralws [0448]. Where the results would have been predictable as Rawls uses vibration massagers and for a wake up routine, where Grutta particularly has both “wake up routines” and vibrations/massagers operable to a controller [0037]. Wherein Rawls explicitly teaches that such an alarm is a ‘gentle’ wake up that would make the wake up routines of Grutta more pleasant.
Claim(s) 38-39, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grutta in view of Rawls in further view of Stinchcomb.
Regarding claim 38, Grutta in view of Rawls discloses (FIGS. 1-5) the mattress cover of claim 35, and further comprising: a fabric pocket ([0011]: “pocket”) sewn to a {side} of the first fabric side and configured to retain the user interface to the mattress cover (as set forth in [0011]). Although fabric has not been explicitly stated, Grutta clearly expresses fabric covers through [0042] that further clarifies “the fastener 22 may comprise a so-called “hook fabric” (i.e., the rigid side of a hook-and-loop fastener (e.g., a VELCRO? hook-and-loop fastener, etc.)) on a backside of the support 20, which may be used to removably secure the support 20 to a cover of the mattress 100, with the cover serving as the “loop” side of the hook-and-loop fastener”, such materials as plastic or vinyl and other common closed cell materials would not properly function and must inherently be fabric to operate so with hook and loop fasteners
However, while Grutta does disclose a pocket (0011), and that a magnet may be used (FIG. 2, [0017]/[0042]-[0045]) still does not explicitly disclose wherein the fabric is at least partially sewn to an interior of the mattress cover.
Regardless, Stinchcomb teaches [0029] “magnets may be sewn into the opposite corners of the cover to secure a filler placed between the magnet mates. In such an embodiment, a magnet and its mate may be hidden from view”. Where a fabric pocket is particulary used ([0029]: “pieces of fabric”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the hidden magnets sewn into the mattress of Stinchcomb into the pocket of Grutta. Where the results would have been predictable as Grutta already considers a pocket in use and a magnet to secure, and magnets are expressed to magnetically retain in Grutta. Where additional predictability is demonstrated in Chacon where there are interior pockets and magnets within the cover of the apparatus in the wall in particular (as illustrated in FIG. 1-4), and magnetically retains a controller thereon. Where the remote would continue to avail use and access thereto as Grutta necessitates, while retaining the magnets within the mattress cover as Stinchcomb necessitates, and further while maintaining both a separable controller with a magnetic attachment with hidden magnets thereof (as Chacon necessitates).
It is additionally considered that, although Stinchcomb particularly addresses ‘sewn’, the pocket being “sewn” in the instant claim constitutes a product by process limitation that would not substantially differentiate from the pocket offered by Grutta, and the manner it is attached is not of patentable weight as other processes such as adhesives, sonic welding, grommeting does not offer non-obvious structures or functionality as the manner of attachment merely secures one fabric to another.
Regarding claim 39, Grutta in view of Rawls discloses (FIGS. 1-5) the mattress cover of claim 35, and further comprising: a small piece of fabric sewn along three sides of the small piece of fabric to connect the small piece of fabric to the mattress cover at the user interface, wherein the small piece of fabric is sized to create a pocket to receive the user interface. As expressed in [0011] a pocket is attached to the side of the mattress cover of which the user interface is placed within (and thereby ‘at’). Although fabric has not been explicitly stated, Grutta clearly expresses fabric covers through [0042] that further clarifies “the fastener 22 may comprise a so-called “hook fabric” (i.e., the rigid side of a hook-and-loop fastener (e.g., a VELCRO? hook-and-loop fastener, etc.)) on a backside of the support 20, which may be used to removably secure the support 20 to a cover of the mattress 100, with the cover serving as the “loop” side of the hook-and-loop fastener”, such materials as plastic or vinyl and other common closed cell materials would not properly function and must inherently be fabric to operate so with hook and loop fasteners
However, while Grutta does disclose a pocket (0011), and that a magnet may be used (FIG. 2, [0017]/[0042]-[0045]) still does not explicitly disclose wherein the fabric is at least partially sewn to an interior of the mattress cover.
Regardless, Stinchcomb teaches [0029] “magnets may be sewn into the opposite corners of the cover to secure a filler placed between the magnet mates. In such an embodiment, a magnet and its mate may be hidden from view”. Where a fabric pocket is particulary used ([0029]: “pieces of fabric”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the hidden magnets sewn into the mattress of Stinchcomb into the pocket of Grutta. Where the results would have been predictable as Grutta already considers a pocket in use and a magnet to secure, and magnets are expressed to magnetically retain in Grutta. Where additional predictability is demonstrated in Chacon where there are interior pockets and magnets within the cover of the apparatus in the wall in particular (as illustrated in FIG. 1-4), and magnetically retains a controller thereon. Where the remote would continue to avail use and access thereto as Grutta necessitates, while retaining the magnets within the mattress cover as Stinchcomb necessitates, and further while maintaining both a separable controller with a magnetic attachment with hidden magnets thereof (as Chacon necessitates).
It is additionally considered that, although Stinchcomb particularly addresses ‘sewn’, the pocket being “sewn” in the instant claim constitutes a product by process limitation that would not substantially differentiate from the pocket offered by Grutta, and the manner it is attached is not of patentable weight as other processes such as adhesives, sonic welding, grommeting does not offer non-obvious structures or functionality as the manner of attachment merely secures one fabric to another.
Regarding claim 44, Grutta in view of Rawls discloses (FIGS. 1-5) the mattress cover of claim 35, and further comprising: a piece of fabric sewn along three sides of the piece of fabric to connect the piece of fabric to a portion of the first side fabric at the user interface to retain the user interface. As expressed in [0011] a pocket is attached to the side of the mattress cover of which the user interface is placed within (and thereby ‘at’). Although fabric has not been explicitly stated, Grutta clearly expresses fabric covers through [0042] that further clarifies “the fastener 22 may comprise a so-called “hook fabric” (i.e., the rigid side of a hook-and-loop fastener (e.g., a VELCRO? hook-and-loop fastener, etc.)) on a backside of the support 20, which may be used to removably secure the support 20 to a cover of the mattress 100, with the cover serving as the “loop” side of the hook-and-loop fastener”, such materials as plastic or vinyl and other common closed cell materials would not properly function and must inherently be fabric to operate so with hook and loop fasteners.
However, while Grutta does disclose a pocket (0011), and that a magnet may be used (FIG. 2, [0017]/[0042]-[0045]) still does not explicitly disclose wherein the fabric is at least partially sewn to an interior of the mattress cover.
Regardless, Stinchcomb teaches [0029] “magnets may be sewn into the opposite corners of the cover to secure a filler placed between the magnet mates. In such an embodiment, a magnet and its mate may be hidden from view”. Where a fabric pocket is particulary used ([0029]: “pieces of fabric”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the hidden magnets sewn into the mattress of Stinchcomb into the pocket of Grutta. Where the results would have been predictable as Grutta already considers a pocket in use and a magnet to secure, and magnets are expressed to magnetically retain in Grutta. Where additional predictability is demonstrated in Chacon where there are interior pockets and magnets within the cover of the apparatus in the wall in particular (as illustrated in FIG. 1-4), and magnetically retains a controller thereon. Where the remote would continue to avail use and access thereto as Grutta necessitates, while retaining the magnets within the mattress cover as Stinchcomb necessitates, and further while maintaining both a separable controller with a magnetic attachment with hidden magnets thereof (as Chacon necessitates).
It is additionally considered that, although Stinchcomb particularly addresses ‘sewn’, the pocket being “sewn” in the instant claim constitutes a product by process limitation that would not substantially differentiate from the pocket offered by Grutta, and the manner it is attached is not of patentable weight as other processes such as adhesives, sonic welding, grommeting does not offer non-obvious structures or functionality as the manner of attachment merely secures one fabric to another.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious with Grutta in view of Bronsan and Chacon in further view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 42, Grutta in view of Bronsan and Chacon discloses (FIGS. 1-5) the mattress cover of claim 35, and further comprising means for retaining the user interface in place flush against the first fabric side such that sheets can be placed over the user interface. As illustrated in FIGS. 1-5, there are means provided for retaining the user interface in place flush against the first fabric side. Where it has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Similar consideration is taken to “such that sheets can be placed over the user interface” as being directed to intended use of the invention but would occur.
However, Grutta does not explicitly disclose wherein a sheet is used over the mattress and the mattress cover.
Regardless, Official Notice is taken of the fact that with the invention being a bed will naturally possess sheets in addition thereof, (whether blankets, bedspreads, duvets, etc.), a sheet is commonly used thereof and is well known in the art to drape over the side of the bed in the ordinary use of the invention. Although fabric has not been explicitly stated, Grutta clearly expresses fabric covers through [0042] that further clarifies “the fastener 22 may comprise a so-called “hook fabric” (i.e., the rigid side of a hook-and-loop fastener (e.g., a VELCRO? hook-and-loop fastener, etc.)) on a backside of the support 20, which may be used to removably secure the support 20 to a cover of the mattress 100, with the cover serving as the “loop” side of the hook-and-loop fastener”, such materials as plastic or vinyl and other common closed cell materials would not properly function and must inherently be fabric to operate so with hook and loop fasteners. Where Chacon further exemplifies through 160/122 in FIG. 5 an external cover that covers the controls, thereby providing predictability, where a fabric cover may be used for a myriad of common well known reasons including protecting the mattress from insult, extending the longevity of the surfaces from abrasions/frictions thereon.
In the alternate, claim(s) 35, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grutta in view of Rawls-Meehan (U.S. Pub. No. 20130289770); hereafter “Rawls”, itself, and Baker (U.S. Pub. No. 20050193497); where Baker is used as a teaching reference.
Regarding claim 35, Grutta discloses (FIGS. 1-5) a mattress cover (paragraph [0015] and [0045]: “position of the support 20 on the mattress cover”) comprising: a fabric comprising a fabric top, a first fabric side, and a second fabric side (as illustrated in FIG. 5) and a user interface (20/40/50/60; FIGS. 1-5) mounted to the first fabric side (as illustrated in FIG. 2-5; clarified in [0045]: “position of the support 20 on the mattress cover” and [0041]: “A fastener 22 may secure the support 20 to the mattress 100 or to any other part of a bed”) at the first mattress side (110; FIG. 5), wherein the user interface is configured to send a signal to one or more controllable systems to control the one or more controllable systems, wherein the one or more controllable systems comprises an alarm system and wherein the user interface is configured to send a signal to control the alarm system. As expressed in [0006] “The use of a smart phone to control one or more features of a bed may result in the added irritation of providing audible alarms (e.g., emergency alerts, notification chimes, phone call rings, etc.) and “silent,” but still audible, vibrating alarms while an individual rests or sleeps”. Where particularly [0041] expresses “A fastener 22 may secure the support 20 to the mattress 100 or to any other part of a bed of which the mattress 100 is a part. The fastener 22 may permanently secure the support 20 to a predetermined location on the mattress 100 or another part of the bed, it may removably secure the support 20 to one or more predetermined locations on the mattress 100 or other parts of the bed, or it may removably secure the support 20 to any location on the mattress 100 or the bed selected by an individual who may use a remote control 60”, and paragraphs [0050] and [0051] both express control of features of the mattress by the user, including the adjustable foundation (e.g. “adjust an orientation of a head portion of a bedframe of the bed, beneath the head portion” and “enables an individual to set the preselected position of the head portion 102h of the mattress 100”. Where the Provisional application of Grutta further elucidates “wake up or bed time routines” which may include alarms. Although fabric has not been explicitly stated, Grutta clearly expresses fabric covers through [0042] that further clarifies “the fastener 22 may comprise a so-called “hook fabric” (i.e., the rigid side of a hook-and-loop fastener (e.g., a VELCRO? hook-and-loop fastener, etc.)) on a backside of the support 20, which may be used to removably secure the support 20 to a cover of the mattress 100, with the cover serving as the “loop” side of the hook-and-loop fastener”, such materials as plastic or vinyl and other common closed cell materials would not properly function and must inherently be fabric to operate so with hook and loop fasteners.
However, although Grutta expresses a number of devices that could operate as alarms ([0037]: vibrators/massagers, Google Home) and notes particularly a “wake up routine”, Grutta does not explicitly call the “wake up routines” an “alarm”.
Regardless, Ralws teaches [0448] “In an embodiment, the vibration and massage functions may function as a gentle-wake alarm, being activated in response to an alarm clock signal, which may be generated by the electronic facility 140 (e.g., by an alarm clock running in the controller 150 or the like) or may be received as a signal from an external source (e.g., from the remote control 118 or the like), and so on”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated or considered in the operation of Grutta’s ‘wake-up routines’ [0037], using the operable ‘gentle wake up alarm’ of Ralws [0448]. Where the results would have been predictable as Rawls uses vibration massagers and for a wake up routine, where Grutta particularly has both “wake up routines” and vibrations/massagers operable to a controller [0037]. Wherein Rawls explicitly teaches that such an alarm is a ‘gentle’ wake up that would make the wake up routines of Grutta more pleasant.
However, it is considered that although Grutta by using the material of the mattress as the “loop side” of the hook and loop fastening system, and would by inherency only seem to avail fabric to avail such feature (necessitating both porosity and use in mattresses as Grutta explicitly necessitates “a cover of the mattress 100, with the cover serving as the “loop” side of the hook-and-loop fastener” [0042]. However it is considered in the alternate that Grutta does not explicitly use the word “fabric” to describe its material for the mattress cover.
Regardless, Grutta discloses the claimed invention except for the cover being made of explicitly a generic or arbitrary fabric material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have produced the mattress cover in a fabric 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. Where the results would have been predictable as fabric materials are well known to the art of bedding, and where Baker particularly identifies [0033] “The mattress cover 20 includes a material 21 that completely surrounds the inner components of the mattress 10. The material 21 of the mattress cover 20 is preferably made from a woven fabric, but may also include materials such as cotton and wool fibers, terry cloth fabric, synthetic fibers, vinyl, antibacterial fabric and other known materials.” Thereby identifying fabric as a known material to mattress covers.
It is considered in the interest of conciseness that the combination of Baker into any of the independent claims may be analogously considered as set forth previously as the combination is with Grutta’s exterior cover and such cover is disclosed as either of a fabric by inherency as set forth or is an arbitrary sheet material in the alternate consideration immediately previously set forth and would be applicable to any of the independent claims in the current condition of the claims (Claims 24, 26, 37).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 24, 26, 35, and 37 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 previously of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/LUKE HALL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673