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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nomoto fails to disclose three different depths because Nomoto only discloses two different depths. While the Examiner agrees with the Applicant regarding the extents of Nomoto’s disclosure, the Examiner does not agree that going from two different depths to three different depths is a patentable distinction. Nomoto discloses that different sides of a mattress and the slits and recesses can have different depths from one another. In the art of beds, this is typically done to vary the compression characteristics felt by a user. Because Nomoto has already disclosed that varying depths on different sides (or even the same side) of a mattress is known, the number (two versus three) of varying depths is not considered a patentable distinction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to extrapolate on this concept and try various slit depth arrangements in order to arrive at compression characteristics desired.
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 1, 5-7, 9-12, 15, 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomoto (Japanese Application Number / Document ID JP 2019063316).
The following is a marked up Figure 1 of Nomoto provided as a visual aid for the reader:
PNG
media_image1.png
794
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, 17, 18 Nomoto discloses a cushion body comprising: long sides extending
along a first direction, short sides extending along a second direction intersecting the first direction; a front surface facing vertically upward (top of Nomoto apparatus) in a third direction that is orthogonal to both the first direction and the second direction; a back surface facing vertically downward (bottom of Nomoto apparatus) in the third direction; a plurality of protrusions arranged in a grid pattern on the front surface and which are aligned along each of the first direction and the second direction; first front side slits, each extending in the first direction between two adjacent protrusions aligned along the second direction and additionally extending into the cushion body and having a depth in the third direction, second front side slits, each extending in the second direction between two adjacent protrusions aligned along the first direction and additionally extending into the cushion body and having a depth in the third direction.
Nomoto does not explicitly show in Figure 1 the grouping claimed. However, the Examiner’s interpretation of Figure 1 is a small representation of the overall cushion or mattress and that one of ordinary skill in the art would also interpret that this small representation in Figure 1 could be expanded out and repeated over the total length and width of a cushion or mattress. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, seeing Figure 1 of Nomoto, and recognize that the small representation could be “copied” or “repeated” several times throughout the overall length and width of the cushion or mattress. This is a mere duplication of the parts shown in Figure 1 which would result in the predictable established function of this small representation (which is to allow the desired compression characteristics). This would result in a plurality of protrusion groups, each protrusion group including a plurality of the protrusions surrounded by two of the first front side slits arranged in the second direction and two of the second front side slits arranged in the first direction, wherein a depth of the second front side slits is less than the depth of the first front side slits in the third direction. Nomoto discloses that adjacent protrusions within the protrusion groups are separated by a recess (at 16 adjacent to the second front side slits). It is unclear to the Examiner whether or not the depth of the second front side slits exceeds the depth of these recesses. However, this is considered a mere change in size to an existing feature of Nomoto. It is well-understood in the art of beds that changing the depth of recesses in a bed is directly tied to the compression characteristics that a user will feel when using a mattress and therefore a change such as this is considered to be within the ordinary skill of one in the art.
Regarding Claim 5, Nomoto discloses three protrusions between each of the highlighted slits shown above. Furthermore, changing the number of protrusions is considered a mere rearrangement of parts (or the number of parts) which would provide predictable results of the disclosed compression characteristics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try various numbers of protrusions per group in order to arrive at a desired compression characteristic level.
Regarding Claim 6, see discussion above regarding groupings. Furthermore, Nomoto shows in several instances that the slits in different directions have different depths. Also see discussion of Claim 1 regarding the obviousness of changing the depths of recesses.
Regarding Claim 7, it is well known, routine, and conventional to have rectangular mattresses that are longer in one direction than the other.
Regarding Claims 9-11, see the “lightbulb” shape shown in the annotated figure above. Also see discussion above regarding the obviousness of changing the size and relative depths of the slits.
Regarding Claim 12, see annotated figure above which shows slit coming up from the bottom. These third slits are offset as claimed and also have the “lightbulb” shape as claimed.
Regarding Claim 15, the annotated figure above shows an intermediate layer at 14.
Regarding Claim 19, Nomoto only discloses a single intermediate layer. However, dividing this apparatus to include a fourth layer (from three layers) is considered a duplication of parts (the layers) that would result in a predictable established function of multiple layers (which is to arrive at desired compression characteristics). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add more layers. Also, as discussed above, Nomoto shows the slits reaching the intermediate layers from the layers from which the slits originate.
Regarding Claim 20, Nomoto shows slits coming up from the bottom and reaching an intermediate layer and having the “lightbulb” shape.
Regarding Claim 21, Nomoto discloses that the slit depths can be varied from side to side (and even within the same side). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the slit depths as claimed in order to vary the compression characteristics felt by a user.
Regarding Claims 22 and 23, see discussions above regarding the lightbulb shape and the varying of slit depths.
Claims 2-4, 17-18, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomoto in view of Nishikawa (Japanese Application Number / Document ID JP 2020089668).
Nomoto shows an apparatus with various layers, but Nomoto does not disclose the several
Layers having varying hardness, density, or elasticity. Nishikawa, however, in Figure 3, shows an apparatus similar to Nomoto in that it has protrusions and slits, but most notable shows different cross hatching patterns at 6, 7, and 8. This is a common way to show that different materials are being used at each cross hatching pattern. Furthermore, it is well understood, routine, and conventional in the art of beds to vary the hardnesses, densities, and elasticities at various layers in a support. This is typically done to provide the compression characteristics desired by a manufacturer or a specific end user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change these properties throughout a cushion or mattress in order to cater to the specific feel desired.
Regarding Claim 24, see discussion above regarding changing the depths of the slits.
Regarding Claim 25, see discussion above retarding slits that extend up from the bottom of the mattress and have the claimed “lightbulb” shape.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 William J Kelleher whose telephone number is (571)272-7753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7am-3:30pm.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
William J. Kelleher
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3648-B
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights