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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 37 recites “each receiving space is entirely occupied by an upper end of one of the elastic modules,” which is not supported by the present specification. The present specification provides no recitation of the above limitation or any equivalent, and furthermore, the present drawings depict the opposite of what is claimed (i.e., the present drawings depict the elastic modules as springs, which do not entirely occupy the receiving space, as they are springs as opposed to solid cones or other structures capable of occupying an entire receiving space).
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 18-34 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.
Claim 18 recites “the balancing pad,” but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. It is unclear if the balancing pad is attempting to reference the claimed elastic base pad, or another pad. In the interest of compact prosecution, the balancing pad will be taken as referencing a pad.
Claims 19-30 are rejected due to dependency on indefinite claim 18.
Claims 31-34 are rejected as indefinite due to incorporating the balancing pad of claim 18 in their structure.
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.
Claims 18, 21-22, 29-31, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leng (US2018/0199728A1).
With regards to claim 18, Leng discloses a furniture pad or mattress (i.e., furniture balancing pad) comprising an outer covering layer 1 (i.e., a base plate) depicted as including a plurality of cavities spaced apart from one another and protruding from a surface therefrom (i.e., a plurality of limit bosses spaced apart from each other on and protruding from a surface of the base plate, the plurality of limit bosses forming a plurality of receiving spaces spaced apart from each other), wherein each of the cavities include an elastic module (spring) 5 (i.e., each receiving space configured to receive a corresponding elastic module) (Leng: Fig. 4c; para. [0002]-[0003], [0008] and [0157]). As best understood, it appears Leng uses the terms “spring” and “elastic module” interchangeably. In addition, each elastic module is located on a spring core 132 (i.e., each corresponding elastic module is located on an elastic base pad) (Leng: Fig. 27B; para. [0198]). Leng further depicts each elastic module as having a truncated conical shape and each elastic module including a conical spring on a spring support (Leng: Fig. 4c). The spring core 132 is considered an elastic base pad, since it is a base pad comprising elastic modules. Leng depicts its cavities as constraining movement of the corresponding elastic modules in a transverse direction of the outer covering layer, and further, Leng notes that the elastic modules remain “substantially static” relative to the outer covering layer due to this particular structure (i.e., the plurality of limit bosses and the base plate are used together to constrain movement of the corresponding elastic modules in a transverse direction of the base plate) (Leng: Figs. 4c and 14; para. [0157]). In addition, as best understood, the elastic modules 5 of Leng are depicted as located on a layer (i.e., a pad, which may be considered to be laid on the elastic modules (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 21, the outer covering 1 (i.e., includes base plate) is made of rubber or sponge (i.e., a flexible material according to para. [0061]-[0062] of the present specification) (Leng: para. [0007]-[0008].
With regards to claim 22, the outer covering 1 (i.e., includes the plurality of limit bosses) is made of rubber or sponge (i.e., an elastic body made of flexible material according to para. [0061]-[0062] of the present specification) (Leng: para. [0007]-[0008].
With regards to claim 29, the plurality of cavities of Leng can be subdivided into first and second pluralities (i.e., a plurality of first limit bosses and a plurality of second limit bosses) such that each of the receving spaces surrounded by the first cavities (i.e., first limit bosses) and the second cavities (i.e., second limit bosses) are arranged alternately in sequence, wherein each of the first cavities is surrounded by the second cavities of surrounding multiple receiving spaces (Leng: Fig. 28). In the interest of compact prosecution, it is noted that, technically, any grid of limit bosses (such as that depicted in Fig. 28 of Leng or Fig. 7 of the present drawings) meets this limitation.
With regards to claim 30, a plurality of first-row cavities (i.e., limit bosses) and second-row cavities (i.e., limit bosses) arranged alternately in sequence are provided on a side surface of the outer covering 1 (i.e. provided on a plate surface on side of the base plate), wherein each row of the first cavities comprises a plurality of the first cavities and second cavities adjacent alternately in sequence in a row direction, and each row of the second row cavities comprises a plurality of second cavities arranged apart from each other at an interval in the row direction, the interval being one said second cavity, wherein each said second cavity in each row of said second row cavities is aligned with each said first cavity of an adjacent row in a column wise direction such that the interval serves as the receiving space (Leng: Fig. 28). In the interest of compact prosecution, it is noted that, technically, any grid of limit bosses (such as that depicted in Fig. 28 of Leng or Fig. 7 of the present drawings) meets this limitation.
With regards to claim 31, Leng discloses a furniture pad (i.e., an elastic pad) comprising an outer covering layer 1 (i.e., a base plate, and part of a balancing pad according to present claim 18) depicted as including a plurality of cavities spaced apart from one another and protruding from a surface therefrom (i.e., a plurality of limit bosses spaced apart from each other on and protruding from a surface of the base plate, the plurality of limit bosses forming a plurality of receiving spaces spaced apart from each other, in accordance with present claim 18), wherein each of the cavities include an elastic module (spring) 5 (i.e., plurality of elastic modules) (Leng: Fig. 4c; para. [0002]-[0003], [0008] and [0157]). As best understood, it appears Leng uses the terms “spring” and “elastic module” interchangeably. In addition, each elastic module is located on a spring core 132 (i.e., the structure includes an elastic base pad which comprises the plurality of elastic modules) (Leng: Fig. 27B; para. [0198]). The spring core 132 is considered an elastic base pad, since it is a base pad comprising elastic modules. Leng depicts its cavities as constraining movement of the corresponding elastic modules in a transverse direction of the outer covering layer, and further, Leng notes that the elastic modules remain “substantially static” relative to the outer covering layer due to this particular structure (i.e., the plurality of limit bosses constrain movement of the corresponding elastic modules in a transverse direction of the base plate) (Leng: Figs. 4c and 14; para. [0157]). Leng further depicts the outer covering layer 1 and cavities (i.e., balancing pad) as laid on the spring core with elastic modules (i.e., laid on the elastic base pad), such that the plurality of elastic modules are received by the cavities (i.e., in the respective receiving spaces) (Leng: Fig. 4c).
With regards to claim 33, the furniture pad is disclosed as placed inside a mattress with a foam or quilted layer (i.e., on a flexible pad laid on the base plate) and the assembly covered with a smooth fabric (i.e., an outer cover covers the flexible pad and wraps around the balancing pad, the flexible pad and at least a part of the elastic base pad) (Leng: Fig. 22A; para. [0228]-[0231]).
With regards to claim 34, the furniture pad of Leng is disclosed as integrated with a mattress (i.e., included in a furniture) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 35, Leng discloses a furniture pad or mattress (i.e., furniture balancing pad) comprising an outer covering layer 1 (i.e., a base plate) depicted as including a plurality of cavities spaced apart from one another and protruding from a surface therefrom, wherein each of the cavities include an elastic module (spring) 5 (i.e., a plurality of limit bosses spaced apart from each other on and extending outwardly from the base plate, the plurality of limit bosses forming a plurality of receiving spaces spaced apart from each other and patterned complementary to the array of elastic modules, with one limit boss between adjacent elastic modules) (Leng: Fig. 4c; para. [0002]-[0003], [0008] and [0157]). As best understood, it appears Leng uses the terms “spring” and “elastic module” interchangeably. In addition, each elastic module is located on a spring core 132 (i.e., Leng discloses an elastic pad made of an array of elastic modules) (Leng: Fig. 27B; para. [0198]). The spring core 132 is considered an elastic base pad, since it is a base pad comprising elastic modules. Leng depicts its cavities as constraining movement of the corresponding elastic modules in a transverse direction of the outer covering layer, and further, Leng notes that the elastic modules remain “substantially static” relative to the outer covering layer due to this particular structure (i.e., the plurality of limit bosses and the base plate are used together to constrain movement of the corresponding elastic modules in a transverse direction of the base plate) (Leng: Figs. 4c and 14; para. [0157]). In addition, as best understood, the elastic modules 5 of Leng are depicted as located on a layer (i.e., a pad, which may be considered to be laid on the elastic modules (see above discussion).
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.
Claims 19-20, 23-24, 26-28, 32, and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leng as applied to claim 18 above, and in further view of Inoue (JPH11128027A). Inoue is read from an English machine translation which has been placed in the application file.
With regards to claim 19, Leng discloses a pad as applied to claim 18 above (see above discussion). However, Leng does not appear to disclose a cross-sectional size of each of the plurality of its limit bosses as tapering down in a direction away from the base plate so that an inner size of the receiving space decreases towards the base plate.
Inoue is directed to a pocket coil structure for mattress depicted as including a plurality of pockets (i.e., limit bosses) which taper down in a direction away from an adjacent plate (i.e., base plate), such that the inner sizes of the pockets decreases towards the adjacent plate (i.e., the pockets are cone-shaped) (Inoue: Fig. 2; page 2 of translation, “However, the bag to be accommodated…”). It is noted that the present claim does not require every limit boss present to taper in the same direction (i.e., only each of a plurality need taper towards the limit plate). Leng and Inoue are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of mattresses comprising encapsulating structures for storing springs. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected the cone-shaped pocket structure of Inoue for the limit bosses of Leng, in order to increase the stability of the pad during load removal (Inoue: page 2, “However, the bag to be accommodated…” and “According the present invention, the Asagao spring 2…”).
With regards to claim 20, each of the pockets (i.e., limit bosses) are formed in the shape of a cone (i.e., formed as a truncated body) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 23, Leng discloses a pad as applied to claim 23 above, the pad comprising springs (i.e., parts of an elastic body) connected to and extending away from a base plate (see above discussion). Leng does not appear to disclose the flexible outer sleeve as claimed. However, Inoue further discloses a collection of bags (i.e., flexible outer sleeves) containing springs (i.e., elastic members disposed within the flexible outer sleeves). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have further included the flexible outer sleeves of Inoue in its configuration (i.e., and to have subsequently connected them to the base plate in the manner according to Leng) in order to increase the stability of the resulting pad (Inoue: Fig. 2; page 2, “However, the bag to be accommodated…” and “According the present invention, the Asagao spring 2…”).
With regards to claim 24, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have made the flexible outer sleeve and base plate from polyurethane (i.e., a same material) in order to increase the comfort of the pad (Leng: para. [0008]).
With regards to claim 26, one end of the elastic member is connected to the surface of the base plate (see above discussion). As best understood, the end of the flexible outer sleeve of Inoue constitutes an end cap (i.e., as it is an ending portion of the sleeve), and further, the springs (i.e., elastic members) are depicted by Inoue as in a pre-compressed state (Inoue: Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 27, an outer peripheral profile of the spring (i.e., elastic member) is depicted as pressed against an inner peripheral surface of the bag (i.e., flexible outer sleeve) (Inoue: Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 28, the elastic member is in the form of a spring (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 32, Leng discloses an elastic pad as applied to claim 31 above (see above discussion). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have formed each of the springs (i.e., elastic modules) are formed in the shape of a truncated cone in contact with a cone shaped pocket structure (i.e., at least one limit boss, to form a truncated cone) in order to increase the stability of the resulting pad (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 35, Leng discloses a furniture pad or mattress (i.e., furniture balancing pad) comprising an outer covering layer 1 (i.e., a base plate) depicted as including a plurality of cavities spaced apart from one another and protruding from a surface therefrom, wherein each of the cavities include an elastic module (spring) 5 (i.e., a plurality of limit bosses spaced apart from each other on and extending outwardly from the base plate, the plurality of limit bosses forming a plurality of receiving spaces spaced apart from each other and patterned complementary to the array of elastic modules, with one limit boss between adjacent elastic modules) (Leng: Fig. 4c; para. [0002]-[0003], [0008] and [0157]). As best understood, it appears Leng uses the terms “spring” and “elastic module” interchangeably. In addition, each elastic module is located on a spring core 132 (i.e., Leng discloses an elastic pad made of an array of elastic modules) (Leng: Fig. 27B; para. [0198]). The spring core 132 is considered an elastic base pad, since it is a base pad comprising elastic modules. Leng depicts its cavities as constraining movement of the corresponding elastic modules in a transverse direction of the outer covering layer, and further, Leng notes that the elastic modules remain “substantially static” relative to the outer covering layer due to this particular structure (i.e., the plurality of limit bosses and the base plate are used together to constrain movement of the corresponding elastic modules in a transverse direction of the base plate) (Leng: Figs. 4c and 14; para. [0157]).
Leng does not appear to disclose the presence of a flexible outer sleeve around the conical spring.
Inoue further discloses a mattress pad comprising a collection of bags (i.e., flexible outer sleeves) containing springs (i.e., elastic members disposed within the flexible outer sleeves). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have further included the flexible outer sleeves of Inoue in its configuration (i.e., and to have subsequently connected them to the base plate in the manner according to Leng) in order to increase the stability of the resulting pad (Inoue: Fig. 2; page 2, “However, the bag to be accommodated…” and “According the present invention, the Asagao spring 2…”).
With regards to claim 36, each conical spring is depicted as in a pre-compressed state (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 37, as best understood, the receiving space is formed between adjacent limit bosses, and each receiving space is entirely occupied by an upper end of each of the elastic modules (see above discussion).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leng as view of Inoue (JPH11128027A) as applied to claim 24 above, and in further view of Long et al (US 5,127,635 A).
With regards to claim 25, Leng and Inoue teach a pad as applied to claim 24 above (see above discussion). However, Leng and Inoue do not appear to teach a flexible outer sleeve as a nonwoven fabric sleeve, and the base plate as a nonwoven fabric plate.
Long is directed to a pocketed continuous wire multiple coil spring bedding product comprises coil springs incased within non-woven fabric (i.e., a nonwoven fabric sleeve, and as best understood from Figs. 1-2 of Long, also a nonwoven fabric plate) (Long: Figs. 1-2; col. 2, lines 35-49). As best understood from Long, non-woven fabric materials are well-known in the art, and such materials may be used to enable the formation of attachments via thermal welds, ultrasonic welds, or sewing (Long: col. 4, lines 23-46). These attachments can be used to connect formed pockets to one another in between plies of resilient foam material, thereby enabling the formation of a mattress having a soft, resilient feel (Long: col. 2, lines 35-49). Leng, Inoue, and Long are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of mattresses comprising pockets containing elastic modules. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have chosen a nonwoven fabric material for the flexible outer sleeve and base plate of Leng and Inoue, in order to enable the formation of an attachment structure having increased softness and resiliency (Long: col. 2, lines 35-49).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the claim objection and grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and they are found persuasive, and therefore, the objection and grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. However, Applicant’s amendments necessitate new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
On pages 7-8, Applicant argues that the claimed balancing pad does not form an elastic module, but rather, it is laid over the elastic modules to restrict lateral movement of the elastic modules. Applicant points to Figures 23 and 27B of Leng which depict a top pad placed on multiple spring cores. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive since, as best understood, the top pad depicted by Leng constitutes a balancing pad. Applicant further describes features (1) and (2) which appear in the present specification, but it is noted that additional beneficial properties such as “enhancing convenience of the assembly” do not overcome grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. In addition, as best understood, the combination of the top pad and plurality of cavities of Leng accomplish the functions argued by Applicant (i.e., enabling a portion of the plurality of the elastic modules to be received in a plurality of receiving spaces, and providing a constraint force to constrain movement of the elastic modules). Applicant additionally argues that Leng, Inoue, and Long fail to include limit bosses, but this argument is not found persuasive as Figure 4c of Leng, for example, directly depicts limit bosses (i.e., neither Inoue nor Long are relied upon to teach this limitation). In addition, the argument that Leng fails to disclose or teach limit bosses formed on the lower surface of the top pad 136 is not found persuasive, as, technically, is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The claims only require the presence of limit bosses protruding from the surface of a base plate (which are taught by Leng), and no language is present referencing the limit bosses on the claimed balancing pad.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/E.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights