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 Amendment
The Amendments filed October 16th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 21-40 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments have overcome one of several double patenting rejections (specifically concerning previous reference application 15/789369) previously set forth in the Final Office action mailed April 22nd, 2025, and are hereby withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments; however the remainder of double patenting rejections remain maintained for reasons set forth in the pertinent section.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: "a plurality of springs" (positioned within a pocket) should read as "[[a]] the plurality of springs". Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Additionally, applicant’s claims 21-22, 24-26, 28-32 and 29-32 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 40 of U.S. Pub. No. 16/293029 (Pat. No: 11246426) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application (18/672233) is anticipated by the subject matter set forth in the reference publication (16293029)/patent (11246426).
Notably, the subject matter of claim 40 in the prior reference publication (16293029)/patent (11246426) appears to completely anticipate the instant application (18672233). Wherein there is provided: a chassis comprising a bottom wall.. first and second side walls and first and second end walls that each extend upwardly from the bottom wall…the walls defining a cavity…a cover covering outer surfaces of the walls …first and second spring packs positioned in the cavity, the spring pack comprising first and second spring assemblies, the spring assemblies each directly engaging the ends walls….. a plurality of springs disposed in the pocket…the first spring assembly being removable from the cavity independent of the second spring assembly…a topper coupled to the cover… the topper being removably coupled to the cover by a zipper.. an outer layer positioned over the topper, the outer layer being attached directly to the cover such that the outer layer is removable relative to the cover. The only difference seeming to be that the instant claims are broader than the reference (omitting the first and second sections of the first and second side walls and being movable relatively therebetween, and the permanent joining), but the instant claims are nonetheless anticipated by the reference patent. Additionally, the difference of ‘first and second side walls’ and ‘first and second end walls’ appears to obviously be analogous to ‘first, second, third, and fourth’ walls in opposite sets (first-second/third-fourth), alongside the difference of ‘outer layer’ (a cover) appears to obviously be analogous to ‘second cover’. Therefore, claim 21 is respectfully rejected under nonstatutory double patenting.
Claim 22 of the instant application is considered to be anticipated by claim 40 of the reference publication (16293029)/patent (11246426), wherein claim 40 establishes the movability of the walls relative to each other through the “movable relative to” language and limitations thereof
With regards to claims 24 of the instant application, identical, anticipating language is recited in claim 40 of the reference publication (16293029)/patent (11246426).
With regards to claims 25 of the instant application, identical, anticipating language is recited in claim 40 of the reference publication (16293029)/patent (11246426).
With regards to claims 26 of the instant application, identical, anticipating language is recited in claim 40 of the reference publication (16293029)/patent (11246426).
With regards to claims 28 of the instant application, identical, anticipating language is recited in claim 40 of the reference publication (16293029)/patent (11246426).
With regards to claims 29 of the instant application, identical, anticipating language is recited in claim 40 of the reference publication (16293029)/patent (11246426).
With regards to claims 30 of the instant application, identical, anticipating language is recited in claim 40 of the reference publication (16293029)/patent (11246426).
With regards to claims 31 of the instant application, identical, anticipating language is recited in claim 40 of the reference publication (16293029)/patent (11246426) Where it is considered that the arbitrary naming of “first” and “second” zipper holds no patentably distinguishing features over the reference publication (16293029)/patent (11246426), where there are simply provided ‘two zippers’ one attributed to the topper and the other to the barrier layer.
With regards to claims 32 of the instant application, identical, anticipating language is recited in claim 40 of the reference publication (16293029)/patent (11246426). Wherein the claim sets forth “the cavity defining a perimeter” and “A barrier layer” is also considered in the absence of a claimed third covering entity in the instant application (18/672233) to reasonable constitute a ‘topper layer’ that tops the spring pack, connected by a zipper, and the zipper extending entirely around the barrier.
Claims 21, and 34-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21, and 31-32, and 36-38 of U.S. Pub. No. 17/563311 Patent No. 12137812. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application (18/672233) is anticipated by the subject matter set forth in the reference publication (17563311) patent (12137812).
Notably, the subject matter of claim 21 with claim 21 in the prior reference publication (17563311)/patent (12137812) appears to completely anticipate the instant application (18672233). Wherein there is provided: a chassis comprising a base layer and opposite first and second side walls and first and second end walls... the base layer and the inner walls being permanently joined, defining a cavity…a cover covering (and thereby coupled) to outer surfaces of the walls…a spring pack positioned in the cavity…a topper is positioned over the spring assembly (And the outer layer is positioned over the topper, and attached thereto thereby rendering ‘removably coupled’ indirectly). Alongside an outer layer positioned over the topper such that the outer layer would inherently prevent shifting relative to the chassis in the ordinary use of the invention. Where claim 31 further establishes “the spring pack comprises first and second spring assemblies each extending continuously from the first endwall to the second end wall, where the spring pack/spring assemblies so positioned and secured in the cavity through the topper and removable outer layer would removably couple them together indirectly. The only difference seeming to be that the instant claims are broader than the reference (omitting the first and second sections of the first and second side walls and being movable relatively therebetween, and the permanent joining), but the instant claims are nonetheless anticipated by the reference patent. Additionally, the difference of ‘first and second side walls’ and ‘first and second end walls’ appears to obviously be analogous to ‘first, second, third, and fourth’ walls in opposite sets (first-second/third-fourth). Therefore, claim 21 is respectfully rejected under nonstatutory double patenting.
With regards to claims 34 of the instant application, identical, anticipating language is recited in claim 32 of the reference publication (17563311)/patent (12137812).
With regards to claims 35 of the instant application, identical, anticipating language is recited in claim 33 of the reference publication (17563311)/patent (12137812).
With regards to claims 36 of the instant application, identical, anticipating language is recited in claim 36 of the reference publication (17563311)/patent (12137812).
With regards to claims 37 of the instant application, identical, anticipating language is recited in claim 37 of the reference publication (17563311)/patent (12137812).
With regards to claims 38 of the instant application, identical, anticipating language is recited in claim 38 of the reference publication (17563311)/patent (12137812).
Additionally, applicant’s claims 40 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 40 of U.S. Pub. No. (16/293064)/Pat. No (11259644) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application (18/672233) is anticipated by the subject matter set forth in the reference publication (16293064)/patent (11259644).
Notably, the subject matter of claim 40 in the prior reference publication (16293064)/patent (11259644) appears to completely anticipate the instant application (18672233). Wherein there is provided: a chassis comprising a bottom wall.. first and second side walls and first and second end walls that each extend upwardly from the bottom wall…the walls defining a cavity…a cover covering outer surfaces of the walls …first and second spring packs positioned in the cavity (such that they are alongside each other by positing alongside the ends walls and a respective side wall)….. … a topper removably coupled over the spring packs to the cover by zipper. (and attached thereto thereby rendering spring packs ‘removably coupled’ to each other indirectly by constraint of the topper). Alongside a second cover/outer layer removably coupled to the first cover such that the second cover can be completely separated from the first cover. Where claim 33 and 34 further establishes “wherein the spring packs each include a plurality of springs positioned within a pocket, the pockets being coupled to one another to form a string of pockets that each include one of springs therein” and “wherein the strings of pockets each include a slit between adjacent pockets to allow the springs to move independently of one another”. The only difference seeming to be that the instant claims are broader than the reference (omitting the first and second sections of the first and second side walls and being movable relatively therebetween, and the permanent joining), but the instant claims are nonetheless anticipated by the reference patent. Additionally, the difference of ‘first and second side walls’ and ‘first and second end walls’ appears to obviously be analogous to ‘first, second, third, and fourth’ walls in opposite sets (first-second/third-fourth), and the difference of an ‘outer layer’ (a cover) appears to obviously be analogous to the ‘second cover’. Therefore, claim 40 is respectfully rejected under nonstatutory double patenting.
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 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 21-27, 29-34, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (U.S. Pub. No. 20080201856) in view of Lava et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20160353907); hereafter “Lava” and Madigan (U.S. Pat. No. 6886197).
Regarding claim 21, Howard discloses (FIGS. 1-5) a bedding system (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5) comprising: a chassis (22; FIG. 2) comprising a base layer (24a) opposite first (22a) and second walls (22b) and opposite third (22c) and fourth walls (22d) extending upwardly from the base layer (as illustrated in FIG. 2), the chassis defining a cavity (22e);
a cover (20) coupled to the walls (through 20aa-20ad; FIG. 2);
first and second spring assemblies (26a-26h/26i-26p; FIG. 2) positioned in the cavity (as illustrated in FIG. 2), the second spring assembly being positioned alongside the first spring assembly (as illustrated between FIGS. 2; clarified in [0033] “In an exemplary embodiment, fastening systems, devices and/or techniques, such as, for example, Velcro.RTM. fasteners, are employed to couple adjacent pairs of the core cartridges 26a-26p together, and/or to couple the core cartridges 26a-26p to the encasement 22”), the spring assemblies each comprising a plurality of springs (as illustrated in FIG. 3);
a topper (18; FIG. 1) positioned over the spring assemblies (as illustrated through FIG. 1), the topper being attached to the first cover (by a second {fastener}; paragraph 0043: “the removable coupling between the topper unit 18 and the core unit 16 is formed by one or more fasteners extending between the topper unit 18 and the core unit 16, such as one or more straps or Velcro.RTM. fasteners extending between the topper unit 18 and the core unit 16”).
However, although Howard discloses a fastener used to attach the topper to the cover, Howard still does not explicitly disclose wherein the topper is attached to the first cover by a first zipper
Regardless, Lava teaches (FIGS. 2 and 3) a bedding assembly wherein a top portion (12; FIG. 2) is attached to a lower section (FIG. 3), wherein there is a zipper used to attach the topper to the lower section (as illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed through simple substitution to have replaced the arbitrary (or strap/hook and loop fasteners) of Howard (paragraph 0043) with the zipper fastening means of Lava (as illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3). Wherein Lava already discloses to the art the attachment of a topper section to a lower section (As illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3) where the results would have been predictable as Lava already contemplates multiple zippers being present and more particularly a zipper between a topper section and a lower section (As illustrated in FIG. 2/3) and it would result in the topper layer remaining being releasably coupled with the lower section as Howard already contemplates through assorted fastening means (Paragraph 0024).
However, Howard still does not explicitly disclose a second cover removably coupled to the first cover.
Regardless, Madigan teaches (FIGS. 3-4) a mattress assembly that comprises a second cover (12; FIG. 4 or 20; FIG. 3) fitted over the entire bedding assembly (84; FIGS. 3-4) and attached to a first cover (10; FIGS. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have combined and used the second cover of Madigan (12; FIG. 4 or 20; FIG. 3) with the assembly of Howard (as illustrated in FIG. 2). Wherein the second cover of Madigan would continue to avail protection to the mattress/bedding assembly thereunder, while the assembly of Howard would continue to support the user. Where the results would have been predictable as Madigan is used in concert with a multi-tiered bedding assembly, and would further advantageously prevent the contamination of sweat and dead skin upon the mattress components and thereby prolong the lifespan of the mattress. Where furthermore the combination of Madigan countenances the covering/zippered elements of Howard in view of Lava and Madigan where both Lava and Madigan use multiple topping elements secured to the chassis/cover (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-4 in Madigan and FIGS. 2-3 in Lava).
Regarding claim 22, Howard in view of Lava and Madigan discloses (Howard: FIGS. 1-5) the bedding system recited in claim 21, wherein the third and fourth walls are each movable relative to the first and second walls (as considered in [0025]).
Regarding claim 23, Howard in view of Lava and Madigan discloses (Howard: FIGS. 1-5) the bedding system recited in claim 21, wherein the second spring assembly has a firmness that is different than that of the first spring assembly. Notably, the construction of Howard is predicated on the designs and desire of the user in the ordinary course of the invention, where it is eminently demonstrated the symbols of the packs of both the first and second spring assemblies (26a-26h and 26i-26p respectively in FIG. 2) differ and therefore possess disparate firmnesses therebetween (as elaborated upon in paragraph 0028: “a label 32 is coupled to the sides 30e, 30a and 30f, thereby wrapping around the side 30a. The label 32 is color coded, that is, the color of the label corresponds to, and identifies, the specific pressure resistance and/or firmness/support characteristic of the core cartridge”).
Regarding claim 24, Howard in view of Lava and Madigan discloses (Howard: FIGS. 1-5) the bedding system recited in claim 21, wherein the cover covers outer surfaces of the walls (through 20aa-20ad; FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 25, Howard in view of Lava and Madigan discloses (Howard: FIGS. 1-5) the bedding system recited in claim 24, wherein opposite inner surfaces of the walls define a portion of the cavity (As illustrated in FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 26, Howard in view of Lava and Madigan discloses (Howard: FIGS. 1-5) the bedding system recited in claim 21, wherein the topper is positioned over the spring assemblies (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-5)
Regarding claim 27, Howard in view of Lava and Madigan discloses (Howard: FIGS. 1-5) the bedding system recited in claim 21, wherein the base layer extends continuously from the first wall to the second wall and continuously from the third wall to the fourth wall (As illustrated and conveyed in FIG. 2)
Regarding claim 29, Howard in view of Lava and Madigan discloses (Howard: FIGS. 1-5) the bedding system recited in claim 21, further comprising a barrier layer (20b; FIG. 2) positioned between the topper and the spring assemblies (As illustrated/conveyed between FIGS. 1, 2, and 5).
Regarding claim 30, Howard in view of Lava and Madigan discloses (Howard: FIGS. 1-5) the bedding system recited in claim 29, wherein the barrier layer is removably attached to the first cover (Howard: a zipper (20c; FIG. 2)).
Regarding claim 31, Howard in view of Lava and Madigan discloses (Howard: FIGS. 1-5) the bedding system recited in claim 29, wherein the zipper is a first zipper (Howard: a zipper (20c; FIG. 2)) and the barrier layer is removably attached to the first cover by a second zipper (Howard: as set forth in [0043]).
Regarding claim 32, Howard in view of Lava and Madigan discloses (Howard: FIGS. 1-5) the bedding system recited in claim 21, wherein the cavity defines a perimeter, the zipper being positioned about the perimeter such that the zipper extends entirely around the perimeter (Lava: As illustrated in FIGS. 3 and 4)
Regarding claim 33, Howard in view of Lava and Madigan discloses (Howard: FIGS. 1-5) the bedding system recited in claim 21, wherein the spring assemblies each extend continuously from the first wall to the second wall (as illustrated and conveyed in FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 34, Howard in view of Lava and Madigan discloses (Howard: FIGS. 1-5) the bedding system recited in claim 21, wherein the first spring assembly is removable from the cavity independent of the second spring assembly (Howard: As illustrated in FIG. 2)
Regarding claim 39, Howard discloses (FIGS. 1-5) a bedding system (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5) comprising: a chassis (22; FIG. 2) comprising a base layer (24a) opposite first (22a) and second walls (22b) and opposite third (22c) and fourth walls (22d), the third and fourth walls are each movable relative to the first and second walls (as considered in [0025]), the walls each extending upwardly from the base layer (as illustrated in FIG. 2), and inner surfaces of the walls defining a cavity (22e);
a cover (20) coupled to the outer surfaces of the walls (through 20aa-20ad; FIG. 2);
first and second spring assemblies (26a-26h/26i-26p; FIG. 2) positioned in the cavity (as illustrated in FIG. 2), the second spring assembly having a firmness that is different than that of the first spring assembly (as elaborated upon in paragraph 0028: “a label 32 is coupled to the sides 30e, 30a and 30f, thereby wrapping around the side 30a. The label 32 is color coded, that is, the color of the label corresponds to, and identifies, the specific pressure resistance and/or firmness/support characteristic of the core cartridge”), the second spring assembly being positioned alongside the first spring assembly (as illustrated between FIGS. 2; clarified in [0033] “In an exemplary embodiment, fastening systems, devices and/or techniques, such as, for example, Velcro.RTM. fasteners, are employed to couple adjacent pairs of the core cartridges 26a-26p together, and/or to couple the core cartridges 26a-26p to the encasement 22”), the spring assemblies each comprising a plurality of springs (as illustrated in FIG. 3);
a topper (18; FIG. 1) positioned over the spring assemblies (as illustrated through FIG. 1), the topper being removably coupled to the first cover (by a second {fastener}; paragraph 0043: “the removable coupling between the topper unit 18 and the core unit 16 is formed by one or more fasteners extending between the topper unit 18 and the core unit 16, such as one or more straps or Velcro.RTM. fasteners extending between the topper unit 18 and the core unit 16”).
However, although Howard discloses a fastener used to attach the topper to the cover, Howard still does not explicitly disclose wherein the topper is attached to the first cover by a first zipper
Regardless, Lava teaches (FIGS. 2 and 3) a bedding assembly wherein a top portion (12; FIG. 2) is attached to a lower section (FIG. 3), wherein there is a zipper used to attach the topper to the lower section (as illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed through simple substitution to have replaced the arbitrary (or strap/hook and loop fasteners) of Howard (paragraph 0043) with the zipper fastening means of Lava (as illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3). Wherein Lava already discloses to the art the attachment of a topper section to a lower section (As illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3) where the results would have been predictable as Lava already contemplates multiple zippers being present and more particularly a zipper between a topper section and a lower section (As illustrated in FIG. 2/3) and it would result in the topper layer remaining being releasably coupled with the lower section as Howard already contemplates through assorted fastening means (Paragraph 0024).
However, Howard still does not explicitly disclose a second cover removably coupled to the first cover by a second zipper that extends about an entire perimeter of the second cover.
Regardless, Madigan teaches (FIGS. 3-4) a mattress assembly that comprises a second cover (12; FIG. 4 or 20; FIG. 3) fitted over the entire bedding assembly (84; FIGS. 3-4) and attached to a first cover (10; FIGS. 3-4) by a second zipper (per claims 2 and 6) that extends about an entire perimeter of the second cover (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have combined and used the second cover of Madigan (12; FIG. 4 or 20; FIG. 3, alongside per claims 2 and 6) with the assembly of Howard (as illustrated in FIG. 2). Wherein the second cover of Madigan would continue to avail protection to the mattress/bedding assembly thereunder, while the assembly of Howard would continue to support the user. Where the results would have been predictable as Madigan is used in concert with a multi-tiered bedding assembly, and would further advantageously prevent the contamination of sweat and dead skin upon the mattress components and thereby prolong the lifespan of the mattress. Where furthermore the combination of Madigan countenances the covering/zippered elements of Howard in view of Lava where both Lava and Madigan use multiple topping elements secured to the chassis/cover (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-4 in Madigan and FIGS. 2-3 in Lava).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard in view of Lava and Madigan in further view of itself.
Regarding claim 28, Howard in view of Lava and Madigan discloses the bedding system recited in claim 26, wherein the walls are each coupled to the base layer (as illustrated in FIG. 2).
However, Howard in view of Lava and Madigan does not explicitly disclose wherein the walls are permanently coupled to the base layer (or otherwise integral).
Regardless, Howard (in view of Lava) discloses the claimed invention except for the base layer being permanently coupled to each of the walls. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have made the base layer permanently coupled to each of the walls, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Notably, there is no criticality associated to the permanent coupling of the base layer where movement is not concerned (applicant’s Specification: [0089] “This allows base layer 60 to move with walls 34, 36 and/or sidewalls 38, 40 as sections 34a, 34b of wall 34 move relative to one another and sections 36a, 36b of wall 36 move relative to one another and/or sidewalls 38, 40 move relative to walls 34, 36, as discussed herein”). Notably ‘movement’ (or similar ‘movable’, ‘pivotable’, ‘rotatable’) is not recited by the instant claim and is not of pertinence to the instant claimed invention. Where the results would have been predictable as producing foams and cavities thereof as tub configurations is well known in the art. Where particularly, the base layer being permanently coupled to the walls would maintain the parts together, eradicating capability to be misplaced, lost, or otherwise missing in concert with the walls/chassis.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard in view of Lava and Madigan in further view of itself.
Regarding claim 35, Howard in view of Lava and Madigan discloses the bedding system recited in claim 21, wherein the spring assemblies are {present} (Howard: as illustrated in FIG. 2).
However, Howard (in view of Lava) does not disclose wherein the (first and second) spring assemblies are explicitly identical.
Regardless, Howard (in view of Lava) discloses the claimed invention except for having a duplicate second spring assembly identical to the first. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have duplicated the second spring assembly identical to the first, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Where there is a lack of criticality in applicant’s disclosure concerning the spring packs/assemblies be identical since several claims possess limitations that expressly differentiate the first and second spring assemblies.
Claims 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard in view of Lava and Madigan in further view of Eigenmann et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0359349); hereafter “Eigenmann”
Regarding claim 36, Howard in view of Lava and Madigan discloses the bedding system recited in claim 35, wherein the spring assemblies each include a plurality of springs positioned within a pocket (as illustrated in FIG. 3).
However, Howard in view of Lava and Madigan does not explicitly disclose the pockets being coupled to one another to form a string of pockets that each include one of springs therein
Regardless, Eigenmann teaches (FIG. 3A) pockets of springs being coupled to one another to form a string of pockets that each include one of springs therein (as illustrated in FIG. 3A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have simply modified the pocketed springs of Howard (FIG. 3) into being coupled to one another to form a string of pockets that each include one of springs therein as Eigenmann demonstrates (FIG. 3A). Where the results would have been predictable as the springs are both used analogously in a bedding configuration, and further wherein the placement of the springs in Howard would be expedited in placing a string of springs rather than each spring individually, advantageously expediting assemblage of the combination.
Regarding claim 37, Howard in view of Lava, Madigan, and Eigenmann discloses (Eigenmann: FIG. 3A) the bedding system recited in claim 36, wherein the strings of pockets each include a slit between adjacent pockets to allow the springs to move independently of one another (as illustrated in FIG. 3A)
Regarding claim 38, Howard in view of Lava, Madigan, and Eigenmann discloses (Eigenmann: FIG. 3A) the bedding system recited in claim 37, wherein the slits extend through top surfaces of the strings of pockets between adjacent pockets (as illustrated in FIG. 3A)
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard in view of Lava, Madigan, and Eigenmann.
Regarding claim 40, Howard discloses (FIGS. 1-5) a bedding system (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5) comprising: a chassis (22; FIG. 2) comprising a base layer (24a) opposite first (22a) and second walls (22b) and opposite third (22c) and fourth walls (22d), the third and fourth walls are each movable relative to the first and second walls (as considered in [0025]), the walls each extending upwardly from the base layer (as illustrated in FIG. 2), and inner surfaces of the walls defining a cavity (22e);
a cover (20) coupled to the outer surfaces of the walls (through 20aa-20ad; FIG. 2);
first and second spring assemblies (26a-26h/26i-26p; FIG. 2) positioned in the cavity (as illustrated in FIG. 2) the second spring assembly being positioned alongside the first spring assembly (as illustrated between FIGS. 2; clarified in [0033] “In an exemplary embodiment, fastening systems, devices and/or techniques, such as, for example, Velcro.RTM. fasteners, are employed to couple adjacent pairs of the core cartridges 26a-26p together, and/or to couple the core cartridges 26a-26p to the encasement 22”), the spring assemblies each comprising a plurality of springs (as illustrated in FIG. 3);
a topper (18; FIG. 1) positioned over the spring assembly(as illustrated through FIG. 1, 2, and 5), the topper being attached to the first cover (by a second {fastener}; paragraph 0043: “the removable coupling between the topper unit 18 and the core unit 16 is formed by one or more fasteners extending between the topper unit 18 and the core unit 16, such as one or more straps or Velcro.RTM. fasteners extending between the topper unit 18 and the core unit 16”);
However, although Howard discloses a fastener used to attach the topper to the cover, Howard still does not explicitly disclose wherein the topper is attached to the first cover by a first zipper.
Regardless, Lava teaches (FIGS. 2 and 3) a bedding assembly wherein a top portion (12; FIG. 2) is attached to a lower section (FIG. 3), wherein there is a zipper used to attach the topper to the lower section (as illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed through simple substitution to have replaced the arbitrary (or strap/hook and loop fasteners) of Howard (paragraph 0043) with the zipper fastening means of Lava (as illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3). Wherein Lava already discloses to the art the attachment of a topper section to a lower section (As illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3) where the results would have been predictable as Lava already contemplates multiple zippers being present and more particularly a zipper between a topper section and a lower section (As illustrated in FIG. 2/3) and it would result in the topper layer remaining being releasably coupled with the lower section as Howard already contemplates through assorted fastening means (Paragraph 0024).
However, Howard in view of Lava and Madigan does not explicitly disclose the pockets being coupled to one another to form a string of pockets that each include one of springs therein, wherein the strings of pockets each include a slit between adjacent pockets to allow the springs to move independently of one another.
Regardless, Eigenmann teaches (FIG. 3A) pockets of springs being coupled to one another to form a string of pockets that each include one of springs therein (as illustrated in FIG. 3A), wherein the strings of pockets each include a slit between adjacent pockets to allow the springs to move independently of one another (as illustrated in FIG. 3A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have simply modified the pocketed springs of Howard (FIG. 3) into being coupled to one another to form a string of pockets that each include one of springs therein with a slit there between as Eigenmann demonstrates (FIG. 3A). Where the results would have been predictable as the springs are both used analogously in a bedding configuration, and further wherein the placement of the springs in Howard would be expedited in placing a string of springs rather than each spring individually, advantageously expediting assemblage of the combination.
However, Howard still does not explicitly disclose a second cover removably coupled to the first cover such that the second cover can be completely separated from the first cover.
Regardless, Madigan teaches (FIGS. 3-4) a mattress assembly that comprises a second cover (12; FIG. 4 or 20; FIG. 3) fitted over the entire bedding assembly (84; FIGS. 3-4) and attached to a first cover (10; FIGS. 3-4); such that the second cover can be completely separated from the first cover (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5, and per claims 2 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have combined and used the second cover of Madigan (12; FIG. 4 or 20; FIG. 3, alongside per claims 2 and 6) with the assembly of Howard (as illustrated in FIG. 2). Wherein the second cover of Madigan would continue to avail protection to the mattress/bedding assembly thereunder, while the assembly of Howard would continue to support the user. Where the results would have been predictable as Madigan is used in concert with a multi-tiered bedding assembly, and would further advantageously prevent the contamination of sweat and dead skin upon the mattress components and thereby prolong the lifespan of the mattress. Where furthermore the combination of Madigan countenances the covering/zippered elements of Howard in view of Lava and Madigan where both Lava and Madigan use multiple topping elements secured to the chassis/cover (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-4 in Madigan and FIGS. 2-3 in Lava). Where furthermore, the topper layer is identified as 18, and further confirms in paragraph 0043: “the removable coupling between the topper unit 18 and the core unit 16 is formed by one or more fasteners extending between the topper unit 18 and the core unit 16, such as one or more straps or Velcro.RTM. fasteners extending between the topper unit 18 and the core unit 16”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 9th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Particularly with respect to the matters of non-statutory double patenting, applicants seek to set forth that the amendments overcome the previous double patenting rejections. However, upon evaluation of the claims in light of the reference patents, the amendments only appear to obviate the 15/789369 reference application, while the remainder respectfully appear to be covered by the respective reference patents/applications previously cited, wherein an ‘outer layer’ is considered to be a ‘cover’ that is not the ‘first cover’ defined by the claims, but is in fact a ‘second cover’ and such are either coupled as previously and appear to either be broader from the previous set of claims received April 9th, 2025, but still appear to be anticipated or otherwise made obvious by the reference applications cited for reasons set forth in the pertinent sections. As such, the double patenting rejections are maintained at the present time and a terminal disclaimer should be filed or otherwise limitations that delineate from applicant’s prior applications.
However it is considered that at least reference patent/application 15/789369 is obviated from double patenting, but applicant’s other reference patents/applications are maintained.
It is additionally noted applicants have not responded to the matter of Claim objection for claim 36, and maintaining the nature of the claim would respectfully necessitate a 112b if not amended or clarified due to “a plurality of springs” already in claim 21 to which claim 36 is dependent upon. Respectfully the claim objection is maintained.
With respect to applicants arguments concerning 103 and that the TSM/Graham v Deere standard was not employed, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As examiner point by point identifies what is in the patent with appropriate mapping, and thereafter identifies what the prior art is lacking, thereafter identifying other prior art pertinent to the field and where applicable identifying the relation of the field (such as by two beds, or cover systems, or fasteners, etc), and thereafter identifying a rationale or reason to combine or modify, and where necessary identifying several prior art that address assorted limitation.
With regard to applicant’s allegation (Remarks: pages 9-10) concerning that a cover portion 20b is not removably coupled. Examiner is confused, as examiner does not identify 20b as a cover, but instead identifies the element as a ‘barrier layer’, and instead uses lava and/or Madigan to provide a cover with multiple covers attachable thereon in nesting/stacking/encompassing capacity. Wherein the covers of Lava/Madigan are indeed removable (FIGS. 1-5 Madigan, and FIG. 10-13 Lava). Furthermore, the topper is indeed ‘removably coupled by a first zipper’ because the cover uses a zipper (thereby ‘by a zipper’ and the removable coupling is achieved by zipping the barrier layer of the cover to shut, thereby securing or otherwise coupling the topper to the first cover by tension.
With regards to applicant’s allegation that modifying Howard to provide removable covers of Lava/Madigan because it would make Howard ‘unsatisfactory for its intended purposes as it would eliminate the hinge at or near the top edge of side (20ac) of open top portion (20a) that allows pivoting of the second cover’ is respectfully not persuasive. Particularly because Howard respectfully does not avail any criticality or teaching that the hinge is necessary. With Howard only seeming to note “A cover portion 20b is hingedly coupled at or near the top edge of the side” and “the edge 20bc being hingedly coupled at or near the top edge of the side 20ac of the open-top portion 20a.” However, a cover such as that in Lava or Madigan would likewise facilitate access and enclosure which are the objectives of the cover, not that it particularly hinges for any particular other than to enclose the region, however a cover would respectfully facilitate such.
With regard to applicant’s argument (Remarks: pages 10-12) concerning that the second cover of Howard is removably coupled, and again identifying 20b as such, is respectfully confusing as again Examiner has not identified 20b as the ‘second cover’. More particularly Examiner has identified Howard respectfully does not possess a second cover (e.g. “However, Howard still does not explicitly disclose a second cover removably coupled to the first cover.”)
Finally with regards to applicant’s allegations that examiner has not identified a second cover in any of the prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this, as examiner previously identified an ‘outer cover’ that is synonymous and analogous and interchangeable with a “second cover” in the contexts of the inventions themselves, and has identified at least Madigan to provide such second cover.
Therefore, Examiner is not respectfully persuaded at the present time that applicant’s invention is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art or combinations thereof, and the claims respectfully remain rejected for reasons of record and those identified herein.
Conclusion
The prior art previously made 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, 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