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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the following in the reply filed on 1/13/26 is acknowledged:
Invention I (claims 1-6, 8-9, 11, and 14-18),
Species A-I (resilient unit, i.e. interior structure, as represented in figs. 1-4g),
Species B-I (method of joining the blocks as represented by fig. 3),
Species C-I (cover as represented by fig. 1),
Species D-I (second pocketed spring units as represented in fig. 2),
Species E-I (first / main pocketed spring unit of the core as represented in fig. 2),
Species F-I (resilient unit layering and arrangement structure as represented in fig. 1), and
Species G-I (base portions – no structural base portion included, see fig. 1).
Claims 15-16 (non-elected cover species), 18 (barbed tags are in a non-elected species), and 19-24 (non-elected invention) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/13/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2-3, 6, and 8-9 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 2 recites the limitation “one or more side blocks… and/or one or more end blocks…” It is unclear whether these blocks are intended to be new structure or whether they are part of the previously introduced “one or more pads or blocks” from claim 1. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the aforementioned limitation(s) in the claims.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “at least one side block” and “at least one end block.” Again, it is unclear if the recitations are intended to be new structure or whether they are intended to refer to previously introduced elements. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the aforementioned limitation(s) in the claims.
Claim 3 recites that “at least one side block is arranged to connect with at least one end block,” depending from claim 2. However, claim 2 does not require side blocks and end blocks to be present together, rather presenting the option as an “and/or” option. It is therefore unclear how the limitations of claim 3 would be reached in the event that only one or the other options from claim 2 are present.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “one or more side blocks, one or more end blocks.” Again, it is unclear if the recitations are intended to be new structure or whether they are intended to refer to previously introduced elements, i.e. “one or more pads or blocks” from claim 1. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the aforementioned limitation(s) in the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “one or more of the side blocks and/or the end blocks” which suffers from the same deficiencies as described above. It is unclear whether these are intended to refer to the elements introduced in claim 2 and it is unclear if the elements from claim 2 are new structure or intended to refer to the claim 1 elements. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the aforementioned limitation(s) in the claims.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "more preferably” and the phrase “still more preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are because, as written, it is unclear whether the claim requires only fibres, whether it requires fibres which are crimped fibres, or whether it requires fibres which are conjugate fibres.
The claims referred to in any and all rejections below are rejected as best understood.
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.
(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) 1-6, 9, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bullard et al. (US Patent No. 8671483 and hereinafter “Bullard”).
Re Claim 1
Bullard discloses:
A resilient unit (10; alternatively, 60) comprising a central core of pocketed springs (12) and a peripheral frame (44, 46; alternatively, 62, 64, 66) comprising one or more pads or blocks of recyclable polymeric material (C2 L21-22; C8 L5-17; C5 L39-49; see also corresponding descriptions with regard to figs. 5-6).
Re Claim 2
Bullard discloses:
wherein the peripheral frame comprises one or more side blocks of recyclable polymeric material and/or one or more end blocks of recyclable polymeric material (see citations above; see figs. 1 and/or 5-6).
Re Claim 3
Bullard discloses:
wherein at least one side block is arranged to connect with at least one end block (see citations above; see figs. 1 and/or 5-6).
Re Claim 4
Bullard discloses:
wherein the resilient unit comprises a top panel of recyclable polymeric material (14, see fig. 1).
Re Claim 5
Bullard discloses:
comprising a base pad of recyclable polymeric material (18, 30, and/or 32; see fig. 1).
Re Claim 6
Bullard discloses:
wherein the central core is substantially enclosed by one or more side blocks, one or more end blocks, a top pad and a base pad (see citations above; see figs. 1 and/or 5-6).
Re Claim 9
Bullard discloses:
wherein the recyclable polymeric material comprises fibres (see citations above and descriptions of the polyester fibers throughout the disclosure as necesary), more preferably crimped fibres, still more preferably conjugate fibres.
Re Claim 14
Bullard discloses:
comprising a removable cover (50) arranged to extend over at least a part of the core and optionally at least partly over the frame (see corresponding spec descriptions of the cover; see also, for example, fig. 4).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bullard et al. (US Patent No. 8671483 and hereinafter “Bullard”) in view of Page et al. (US PG Pub No. 20120291205 and hereinafter “Page”).
Re Claim 8
Bullard discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein one or more of the side blocks and/or the end blocks includes a ventilation channel to allow air into the central core.
Page teaches ventilation channels (fig. 15, 16A, 16B, 17A, 17B, 18A, 18B, and/or 19) in a peripheral frame (analogous to the one or more side blocks and/or end blocks) for permitting communication with the atmosphere to facilitate air exchange with the mattress. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Bullard such that one or more of the side blocks and/or the end blocks includes a ventilation channel to allow air into the central core as taught by Page for the purpose articulated above.
Re Claim 11
Bullard discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein at least some of the blocks are joined together by connector elements.
Page teaches a peripheral frame wherein at least some of the blocks are joined together by connector elements (see, for example, fig. 12 and [0131] – “The side members 290, 292 and corner members 294 may be secured to one another using a variety of mechanisms. For example, the side members 290, 292 and corner members 294 may be secured to one another via a weld (e.g. a cohesive weld), an integrally formed tongue and groove, an adhesive, or a mechanical fastener (e.g. a crimped ring, staple, or clamp), as non-limiting examples”) for the purpose of securing frame elements to each other. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Bullard such that at least some of the blocks are joined together by connector elements as taught by Page for the purpose articulated above.
Re Claim 17
Bullard discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein one or more of the blocks and/or pads is thermally bonded to one or more others of the block(s)/pad(s).
Page teaches a peripheral frame wherein at least some of the blocks are joined together via one or more of a variety of ways (see, for example, fig. 12 and [0131] – “The side members 290, 292 and corner members 294 may be secured to one another using a variety of mechanisms. For example, the side members 290, 292 and corner members 294 may be secured to one another via a weld (e.g. a cohesive weld), an integrally formed tongue and groove, an adhesive, or a mechanical fastener (e.g. a crimped ring, staple, or clamp), as non-limiting examples”) for the purpose of securing frame elements to each other. The non-limiting examples provided do not explicitly address thermal bonding, but thermal bonding is another similar example such as welding and/or the adhesive options and is commonly known and used in the art for joining of elements. Following the principles and teachings of Page, it would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Bullard such that one or more of the blocks and/or pads is thermally bonded to one or more others of the block(s)/pad(s) as taught by Page, see above, for the purpose articulated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional similar references are provided regarding mattress structures insofar as side and end blocks, top and bottom pads, and housed springs (pocketed and unpocketed). Additional similar references are provided regarding recyclable materials including polymeric fibers. Certain of the references appear to be directed toward and disclose and/or teach all of the above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SOSNOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7944. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM and 9 PM through 11:59 PM Monday through Friday, generally.
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.
/DAVID E. SOSNOWSKI/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673