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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 23-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species and invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 21 January 2026. The applicant traverses the restriction requirement based on Barman not disclosing a protective sheet laid over and connected to the top surface of the pad in both claims 18 and 26. However, claims 18 and 26 do not share the special technical feature of “a protective sheet laid over and connected to the top surface of the pad.” Claim 18 includes the limitation “a protective sheet laid over and connected to the top surface of the pad” but claim 26 lacks any protective sheet laid over and connected to the top surface of the pad. Claim 26 further includes “a protective lining laid over and connected with the second pad surface”. Paragraph [0055] of the specification dated 9 February 2024 discloses a protective lining 8 and a protective sheet 6 being separate and distinct elements. The applicant presents different embodiments of the invention as discussed in paragraphs [0031]-[0035] of the specification dated 9 February 2024 referencing the embodiments shown in Figs. 2-9. Barman therefore does disclose the shared special technical features of claims 18 and 26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18-21, 31, and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Klijn et al. (WO 2006/101381 – hereinafter De Klijn).
Regarding Claim 18: De Klijn discloses a balancing pad (upper layer 201 of De Klijn formed with the plate 87 of the embodiment of Fig. 6B of De Klijn) for use with elastic modules (springs 10 or 210 of De Klijn), comprising: a pad body (plate 87 of De Klijn) having a first pad surface (see annotated copy of Fig. 6B of De Klijn) and a second pad surface (see annotated copy of Fig. 6B of De Klijn) opposite to the first pad surface in a thickness direction of the pad body (see annotated copy of Fig. 6B of De Klijn), the second pad surface facing an elastic base pad (two-dimensional array 202 and lower layer 203 of De Klijn – Fig. 9A), the second pad surface forming a plurality of receiving holes (recessed chamber 73 – Fig. 6B of De Klijn) spaced apart and extending towards an interior of the pad body (page 14, lines 10-14 of De Klijn – “The plates 71 and 91 as described above are intended to have length and width dimensions corresponding to the length and width of, for instance, a mattress, a cushion, etc, and thus comprises an array of recesses 73 or accommodation spaces 92 for receiving an array of springs”); a protective sheet (plate 86 of De Klijn) laid over and connected to the first pad surface (page 12, lines 28-33 of De Klijn - “Figure 6B illustrates that, alternatively, it is possible to take two plates 86 and 87, making a suitably-sized through-hole 88 in the second plate 87, arranging the two plates 86, 87 on top of each other and fixing them together at the interface 85, for instance using glue”); wherein each receiving hole is configured to receive a portion of a corresponding elastic module (page 11, lines 18-23 of De Klijn - “The dimensions of the recessed chamber 73 are selected such that the upper end 17 of a spring 10 tightly fits into this chamber, as illustrated in figure 5B. A spring 10, accommodated in such recessed chamber 73 and hence supported by the plate 71, has increased stability in horizontal direction”) on the elastic base pad to restrict movement of the corresponding elastic module in a transverse direction of the pad body (page 11, lines 18-23 of De Klijn - “The dimensions of the recessed chamber 73 are selected such that the upper end 17 of a spring 10 tightly fits into this chamber, as illustrated in figure 5B. A spring 10, accommodated in such recessed chamber 73 and hence supported by the plate 71, has increased stability in horizontal direction”).
PNG
media_image1.png
698
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19: De Klijn discloses a balancing pad of claim 18 wherein the receiving holes penetrate through the pad body, and the protective sheet covers the receiving holes (see Fig. 6B and page 12, lines 28-33 of De Klijn - “Figure 6B illustrates that, alternatively, it is possible to take two plates 86 and 87, making a suitably-sized through-hole 88 in the second plate 87, arranging the two plates 86, 87 on top of each other and fixing them together at the interface 85, for instance using glue”).
Regarding Claim 20: De Klijn discloses the balancing pad of claim 18 wherein a dimension of a cross section of each receiving hole increases in a direction from the first pad surface to the second pad surface (see Fig. 6B of De Klijn).
Regarding Claim 21: De Klijn discloses the balancing pad of claim 18 wherein the pad body is an elastic body (page 10, lines 35-36 of De Klijn – “The upper plate 61 is typically made from polyether foam or the like” – note that plate 71 is an alternative embodiment of the structure of the plate 61), and the protective sheet is a flexible sheet (page 12, lines 28-33 of De Klijn - “Figure 6B illustrates that, alternatively, it is possible to take two plates 86 and 87, making a suitably-sized through-hole 88 in the second plate 87, arranging the two plates 86, 87 on top of each other and fixing them together at the interface 85, for instance using glue”).
Examiner’s Note – Since De Klijn teaches that the plate 71 as shown in Fig. 6B is just an alternative way of forming the same structure of the plate of 71 in Fig. 6A, the materials forming the plates of Fig. 6B are the same polyether foam materials which are considered flexible.
Regarding Claim 31: De Klijn discloses an elastic pad (mattress 200 of De Klijn) comprising: an elastic base pad (two dimensional array 202 of springs 210 of De Klijn) comprising a plurality of elastic modules (springs 210 of De Klijn – Fig. 9A); and the balancing pad of claim 18 (upper layer 201 of De Klijn in the form of the embodiment shown in Fig. 6B as cited in the rejection of claim 18); wherein the balancing pad is laid over the elastic base pad (see Fig. 9A of De Klijn which shows upper layer 201 positioned over the two dimensional array 202 of springs 210), and a portion of each of the plurality of elastic modules is received and located within a corresponding one of the receiving holes (Fig. 5B and page 11, lines 18-23 of De Klijn - “The dimensions of the recessed chamber 73 are selected such that the upper end 17 of a spring 10 tightly fits into this chamber, as illustrated in figure 5B. A spring 10, accommodated in such recessed chamber 73 and hence supported by the plate 71, has increased stability in horizontal direction”), wherein the receiving hole can restrict movement of the plurality of elastic modules in a transverse direction of the pad body (page 11, lines 18-23 of De Klijn - “The dimensions of the recessed chamber 73 are selected such that the upper end 17 of a spring 10 tightly fits into this chamber, as illustrated in figure 5B. A spring 10, accommodated in such recessed chamber 73 and hence supported by the plate 71, has increased stability in horizontal direction”).
Regarding Claim 33: De Klijn discloses the elastic pad of claim 31 wherein the elastic pad further comprises an outer cover (upper and lower covers 211 and 212 of De Klijn – Fig. 9A) covering the balancing pad and wrapping the balancing pad and at least a portion of the elastic base pad (as shown in Fig. 9A of De Klijn).
Regarding Claim 34: De Klijn discloses furniture comprising the elastic pad of claim 31 (mattress 200 of De Klijn considered furniture - Fig. 9A).
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.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Klijn et al. (WO 2006/101381 – hereinafter De Klijn) in view of Bullard (US PG Pub. No. 2002/0166174).
Regarding Claim 22: De Klijn discloses the balancing pad of claim 21 wherein the elastic body is a sponge body “(page 10, lines 35-36 of De Klijn – “The upper plate 61 is typically made from polyether foam or the like” – note that plate 71 is an alternative embodiment of the structure of the plate 61) […].
De Klijn does not explicitly disclose or make obvious wherein the flexible sheet is a non-woven fabric sheet.
However, in the same field of endeavor, spring mattresses (paragraph [0002] of Bullard), Bullard teaches a flexible sheet is a non-woven fabric sheet (layer of material 15 of Bullard – paragraph [0037] “Although the resilient structure of the batt 12 with the coil springs 14 can be provided for use without any covering, many applications require at least one layer of material 15 that covers the top and bottom turns of the coils. The layer of material 15 can be a fiber batt, a foam, a woven material, or a non-woven material such as the "VERSARE"27 nonwoven polypropylene commercially available from Hanes Industries of Conover, N.C.; a spring wire grid, or a wire woven material such as "PERM A LATOR" wire woven material commercially available from Flex-0-lators, Inc. of High Point, N.C. or other sheet material.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined De Klijn (directed to a mattress with springs retained in an upper layer) and Bullard (layer of material covering a spring element) with a reasonable expectation of success by replacing the plate 86 with a non-woven layer of material. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “non-woven fiber batt has a demonstrated usefulness in a wide variety of applications….[since] one of the inherent characteristics of fiber batt is its cushioning ability due to the large amount of air space held within the batt material. The air space defined within the fiber batt acts as a thermal insulation layer, and its ready displaceability allows support in furniture, mattresses and pillows” (paragraph [0002] of Bullard).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Klijn et al. (WO 2006/101381 – hereinafter De Klijn) in view of Triot (FR 2932658).
Regarding Claim 32: De Klijn discloses the elastic pad of claim 31 wherein the elastic module is [any type of spring] (page 11, lines 24-25 of De Klijn – “It is noted that this aspect of the invention can be practiced with any type of spring”) and is fit within the receiving hole in a form of a truncated conical hole (page 11, line 36- page 12, line 2 of De Klijn – “Improved support and hence improved stability is achieved if the recessed chamber 73 has a circular contour (cylindrical shape, yet preferably truncated conical shape) with a round wall 74, as illustrated in figure 5D.”)
De Klijn does not explicitly disclose wherein the elastic module is in a truncated conical shape.
However, in the same field of endeavor, spring elements used in comfort items (see the abstract of Troit), Troit teaches elastic module is in a truncated conical shape (see the conical shaped spring in Fig. 3 of Troit).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined De Klijn (directed to a mattress with springs retained in an upper layer) and Troit (directed to a mattress comprising conical and/or barrel springs) and arrived at a mattress comprising conical springs held into position with an upper layer comprising holes engaged with the upper ends of the conical springs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g. replacing the barrel shaped springs of De Klijn with conical shaped springs of Troit) with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g. different compression properties are achievable with the conical shaped springs vs the barrel shaped springs and are selectable by a user/manufacturer).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG Pub. No. 2005/0052068 to Smith et al. is cited for disclosing coil springs 46 positioned within recesses of support members 42 and noise abatement layers 44 positioned between the support members and coil springs.
DE 1040211 to Knoll is cited for disclosing a mattress with a pad with holes for receiving the top of pocketed coil springs.
TW – M437115 U to Zheng is cited for teaching springs embedded within a foam core.
JP 3579213 B2 is cited for disclosing an elastic pad member with concave portions for receiving ends of springs 22.
KR 200385651 Y1 is cited for disclosing a mattress with springs received in recesses within a pad layer.
US Patent No. 3,222,697 to Scheermesser is cited for teaching a laminated polyurethane foam structure.
US Patent No. 2,985,230 to Stern is cited for disclosing an insulator strip placed between springs and foamed materials.
US Patent No. 3,310,819 to Morrison teaches positioning multiple layers above springs embedded within a mattress core.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA L BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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 (571) 272-8525. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMANDA L BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3673