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 .
This action is in response to the documents received on December 18, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
590
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Diagram I
Applicant has amended the independent claims 1 and 15 to recite the limitation of “each of the transverse seams extending between top and bottom surfaces of the string. As shown in figure 16 of CODOS (see Diagram I above), the transverse seam extends between top and bottom surfaces (edges) of the fabric. It appears that Applicant’s arguments suggest that the transverse seam of CODOS fails to extend to the top and bottom surfaces of the fabric; however, this is not the limitation(s) recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.1
On page 7 of the remarks filed on December 18, 2025, Applicant further argues that neither CODOS nor SLOVENCIK disclose the claimed step of injecting a mixture of foam chemicals “through the fabric” defining the pocket(s). However, both CODOS and SLOVENVIK disclose the step of inserting foam, whether in a chemical form or solid form, through an opening formed by opposing first and second sides of the fabric.
During patent examination of the claims, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpreta-tion consistent with the specification.2 Moreover, while the claims of issued patents are inter-preted in light of the specification, prosecution his-tory, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.3 In this case, the term through is understood to be a function indicating movement into something at one side or point and into another (opposite) side or point.4 Applicant’s specification does not negate this interpretation; rather, the specification broadly allows for the possibility of the nozzle passing through openings defined by fibers of a fabric material.
With respect to claim 8, Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the amended limitation of “the spring pocket and the mini-pocket having the same width” have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of .
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, 4, 6-8, 12-15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CODOS (US 10,617,224) in view of SLOVENCIK (US 8,146,332).
In reference to claims 1 and 6, CODOS discloses a method of making a string of springs comprising: wrapping a first ply of a piece of fabric 405 to oppose a second ply of the piece of fabric 405 around a plurality of springs 422, 424 and joining 412 a first ply of the piece of fabric to a second ply of the piece of fabric with a longitudinal seam to define a plurality of pockets 408 joined by transverse seams (figure 16), at least one spring 422, 424 in each pocket; welding 419 the first and second plies to create mini-pockets 414; inserting foam 426 through (an opening of) the fabric into each of the mini-pockets 414. CODOS does not disclose injecting chemicals into the mini-pockets that react to form the foam.
SLOVENCIK teaches a method of making a string of packages comprising (figure 2): welding 24 a first and second ply of material 4 to form a longitudinal seam; injecting 14 the same chemicals 14a through an opening defined by the plies of material; and allowing the chemicals to react to create a foam pad (figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified the method of CODOS by replacing the step of inserting foam with the step of injecting (foam) chemicals since packaging prior art , such as CODOS and SLOVENCIK, recognizes the selection of any of these known steps to package foam within plies of film would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, figure 16 of CODOS further discloses the springs 422 in the spring pockets 408 are separated 420 from the mini-pockets 414.
With respect to claims 7 and 14, Figure 7 illustrates an embodiment of strings formed from the disclosed process; wherein a second/different foam is pocketed in the string of pockets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have further modified the method of CODOS, particularly the embodiment of inserting a second foam into a mini-pocket, by injecting a second/different foam into a mini-pocket since
In reference to claims 8, 12 and 13, CODOS discloses a method of making a string of springs comprising: wrapping a first ply of a piece of fabric 405 to oppose a second ply of the piece of fabric 405 around a plurality of springs 422, 424 and joining 412 a first ply of the piece of fabric to a second ply of the piece of fabric with a transverse seam 410 to define a plurality of pockets 408 (figure 16), at least one spring 422, 424 in each pocket; welding the plies of fabric along a longitudinal seam 434 extending along a side of the plies; welding 419 the first and second plies along a seam 420 parallel to the longitudinal seam 434 to create mini-pockets 414; inserting foam 426 through (an opening of ) the fabric into each of the mini-pockets 414. Although the embodiment of CODOS illustrated in figures 15 and 16 provides mini-pockets having a width that is smaller than the width of the pockets housing the springs, figure 5 and column 7 lines 2-20 discloses an alternative embodiment where the transverse seam forming the pockets of the springs is shared with the transverse seam forming the mini-pocket housing the foam. As such, CODOS supports the knowledge in the art to form a mini-pock having the same width as that of the pocket housing the spring.
CODOS does not disclose injecting chemicals into the mini-pockets that react to form the foam. SLOVENCIK teaches a method of making a string of packages comprising (figure 2): welding 24 a first and second ply of material 4 to form a longitudinal seam; injecting 14 the same chemicals 14a between the plies of material; and allowing the chemicals to react to create a foam pad (figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified the method of CODOS by replacing the step of inserting foam through an opening of the fabric with the step of injecting (foam) chemicals through an opening of the fabric since packaging prior art recognizes the selection of any of these known steps to package foam within plies of film would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 15, 18 and 19, CODOS discloses a method of making a string of springs comprising: wrapping a first ply of a piece of fabric 404 to oppose a second ply of the piece of fabric 404 around a plurality of springs 422, 424 such that the first ply is on an opposite side of the springs 422, 424 as the second ply; joining 412 the first ply of the piece of fabric to the second ply of the piece of fabric with a transverse seam 410 to define a plurality of (oversized) pockets 408 (figure 16), at least one spring 422, 424 in each pocket 408; further welding 444 the plies of fabric along a separating seam 420 to create mini-pockets 414; inserting foam through (an opening of) the fabric 426 into each of the mini-pockets 414.
CODOS does not disclose wrapping the springs into pockets formed by the plies prior to forming the mini-pockets in-which the foam is inserted. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wrap the springs and join the webs prior to forming the mini-pockets and inserting the foam therein; such that, the mini-pockets would be empty as claimed when the springs are wrapped within the pockets. It has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts or steps involves only routine skill in the art.5
CODOS also does not disclose injecting chemicals into the mini-pockets that react to form the foam. SLOVENCIK teaches a method of making a string of packages comprising (figure 2): welding 24 a first and second ply of material 4 to form a longitudinal seam; injecting 14 the same chemicals 14a through (an opening of) the material; and allowing the chemicals to react to create a foam pad (figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified the method of CODOS by replacing the step of inserting foam through an opening of the material with the step of injecting (foam) chemicals into the opening of the material since packaging prior art recognizes the selection of any of these known steps to package foam within plies of film would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CODOS (US 10,617,224) in view of SLOVENCIK (US 8,146,332), and further in view of PARKER et al. (US 8,623,931).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 11 and 16, CODOS in view of SLOVENCIK discloses injecting foam chemicals into pockets to form a packaged string of springs and foam; however, there is no disclosure of what chemicals create the foam.
PARKER et al. teaches packaging foam (column 1 lines 22-30) wherein the foam is formed from chemicals including blowing agents, polyols, silicone surfactant, water, amine catalyst, isocyanate, and tin additives (column 1 lines 36-44; column 3 lines 52-67; column 21 lines 42-65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to further modified the method of CODOS to provide a foam including the claimed chemicals since column 1 lines 22-35 of PARKER et al. suggests such compositions are known in the packaging art for purpose of various densities of foam and column 5 lines 11-15 states the inclusion of additives provides various advantages, including fire resistance and reinforcement. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (i.e. packaging).6
With respect to claims 5 and 17, CODOS in view of SLOVENCIK discloses injecting foam chemicals through an open end of fabric wrapped/folded and welded to form pockets; however, there is no disclosure of what chemicals create the foam.
PARKER et al. teaches packaging foam (column 1 lines 22-30) wherein the foam is formed from chemicals additives (column 5 lines 11-15; column 21 lines 42-65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to further modified the method of CODOS to provide a foam including an additive since column column 5 lines 11-15 states the inclusion of additives provides various advantages, including fire resistance and reinforcement. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (i.e. packaging).7
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached PTO-892 for a notice of references cited and recommended for consideration based on their disclosure of limitations related to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLORIA R WEEKS whose telephone number is (571)272-4473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-2pm & 5pm-7pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
Other helpful telephone numbers are listed for applicant's benefit:
Allowed Files & Publication (888) 786-0101
Assignment Branch (800) 972-6382
Certificates of Correction (703) 305-8309
Fee Questions (571) 272-6400
Inventor Assistance Center (800) PTO-9199
Petitions/special Programs (571) 272-3282
Information Help line 1-800-786-9199
/GLORIA R WEEKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
September 19, 2025
1 See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
2 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also MPEP § 2111.
3 In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also MPEP § 2111.01.
4 THROUGH Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
5 In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
6 In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
7 In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.