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 .
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 2 and 3 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 “substantially” in claims 2 and 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jewett (US Patent Application Publication 20180049559) in view of Joergensen (WO 2014016108) further in view of Barber (US Patent 6398199).
Regarding claim 1, Jewett teaches a pocket spring core for a mattress (Figure 1b; 12), comprising barrel springs (Figure 1b; 26) in the pockets, characterised in that the ratio of the free length (H) of the spring to the height (h) of the core is in the range 1.3 -1.8 (Paragraph 66, 270/203 is 1.33), and the number of coils is 4.5-5.5 (Figure 3; as shown). Jewett does not specifically teach the external diameter of the central coil (De1) of the spring is 85 mm (+/-10%), the ratio of the external diameter of the outermost coils (De2) to the external diameter of the central coil (De1) is less than 1. Joergensen teaches the external diameter of the central coil (De1) of the spring is 85 mm (+/-10%) (Page 4, lines 13-16). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Jewett (directed to pocketed barrel springs) and Joergensen (directed to barrel springs with 85 mm central diameters) and arrived at a barrel spring with an 85 mm central diameter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Barber teaches the ratio of the external diameter of the outermost coils (De2) to the external diameter of the central coil (De1) is less than 1 (Paragraph 5). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Jewett (directed to pocketed barrel springs) and Joergensen (directed to barrel springs with 85 mm central diameters) and Barber (directed to a barrel spring with a ratio of central to outer turns less than 1) and arrived at a barrel spring with an 85 mm central diameter and a ratio of outer and central turns that is less than 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2 Jewett does not teach the wire diameter of the spring is substantially 1.85 mm. Joergensen teaches the wire diameter of the spring is substantially 1.85 mm (Page 4; lines 9-11). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Jewett (directed to pocketed barrel springs) and Joergensen (directed to barrel springs with 85 mm central diameters and 1.85 wire gauges) and arrived at a barrel spring with an 85 mm central diameter and a 1.85 wire gauge. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Jewett teaches it is provided with a covering fabric (T), top and bottom (Figure 1b; 18 top and bottom).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jewett (US Patent Application Publication 20180049559) in view of Joergensen (WO 2014016108) further in view of Barber (US Patent 6398199) in view of Pearce (US Patent Application Publication 20190150632).
Regarding claim 3, Jewett does not teach the height (h) of the core is substantially 180 mm. Pearce teaches the height of the core is substantially 180 mm (Paragraph 67). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Jewett (directed to pocketed barrel springs) and Joergensen (directed to barrel springs with 85 mm central diameters) and Barber (directed to a barrel spring with a ratio of central to outer turns less than 1) and Pearce (directed to a spring core with a 180 mm height) and arrived at a barrel spring with an 85 mm central diameter and a ratio of outer and central turns that is less than 1 and a 180 mm height. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jewett (US Patent Application Publication 20180049559) in view of Joergensen (WO 2014016108) further in view of Barber (US Patent 6398199) in view of Pearce (US Patent Application Publication 20190150632) further in view of Thomas (US Patent Application Publication 20190000239) further in view of Ahlqvist (US Patent Application Publication 20040025257).
Regarding claim 4, Jewett does not specifically teach the height (h) of the core is 180 mm, the outer diameter of the central coil (De1) is 85 mm, the outer diameter of the outermost coils (De2) is 54 mm, the free length (H) of the spring is 235 mm, the number of coils is 4.8, the diameter of the spring wire is 1.85 mm. Joergensen teaches the outer diameter of the central coil (De1) is 85 mm (Page 4, lines 13-16), and the diameter of the spring wire is 1.85 mm (Page 4; lines 9-11). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Jewett (directed to pocketed barrel springs) and Joergensen (directed to barrel springs with 85 mm central diameters and 1.85 wire gauges) and arrived at a barrel spring with an 85 mm central diameter and a 1.85 wire gauge. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Barber teaches the outer diameter of the outermost coils (De2) is 54 mm (Paragraph 5). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Jewett (directed to pocketed barrel springs) and Joergensen (directed to barrel springs with 85 mm central diameters and 1.85 wire gauges) and Barber (directed to a barrel spring with 54 mm outer diameters) and arrived at a barrel spring with an 85 mm central diameter, 1.85 wire gauge, and a 54 mm outer end diameter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Pearce teaches the height of the core is 180 mm (Paragraph 67). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Jewett (directed to pocketed barrel springs) and Joergensen (directed to barrel springs with 85 mm central diameters and 1.85 wire gauges) and Barber (directed to a barrel spring with 54 mm outer diameters) and Pearce (directed to a spring core with a 180 mm height) and arrived at a barrel spring with an 85 mm central diameter, 1.85 wire gauge, a 54 mm outer end diameter, and a 180 mm height. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Thomas teaches the free length (H) of the spring is 235 mm (Paragraph 29). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Jewett (directed to pocketed barrel springs) and Joergensen (directed to barrel springs with 85 mm central diameters and 1.85 wire gauges) and Barber (directed to a barrel spring with 54 mm outer diameters) and Pearce (directed to a spring core with a 180 mm height) and Thomas (directed to a spring with a length of 235 mm) and arrived at a barrel spring with an 85 mm central diameter, 1.85 wire gauge, a 54 mm outer end diameter, and a 180 mm height with 235 mm free length. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Ahlqvist teaches the number of coils is 4.8 (Paragraph 24). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Jewett (directed to pocketed barrel springs) and Joergensen (directed to barrel springs with 85 mm central diameters and 1.85 wire gauges) and Barber (directed to a barrel spring with 54 mm outer diameters) and Pearce (directed to a spring core with a 180 mm height) and Thomas (directed to a spring with a length of 235 mm) and Ahlqvist (directed to a spring with 4-10 turns) and arrived at a barrel spring with an 85 mm central diameter, 1.85 wire gauge, a 54 mm outer end diameter, 4-10 turns, and a 180 mm height with 235 mm free length. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORGAN J MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)270-0362. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesdays 12pm-10pm and Thursdays 12pm-10pm.
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 5712728525. 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.
/MORGAN J MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3673