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.
Claims 1-18 a 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. The Applicant newly amended claim recites the mattress having a fabric that is “contoured” around the spring suspension and was not properly described in the application as filed. The original filed specification only supports that the fabric is closed around the spring suspension. Similarly, The Applicant’s amended claim 12 recites “so as to form a cubid shape having twelve edges”. The original filed specification only supports that the ticking flanks are arranged on the four edges of the mattress.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 7,640,611 to Kluft in view of U.S. Pat. No. 3,855,653 to Stalter
Claim 1, Kluft discloses a mattress comprising a spring suspension defined by a plurality of coils 80 defining a sleeping plane and a ticking defined by a quilted panel (108,122), on the top surface and sidewalls (54,58). Kluft is silent to a fabric. Stalter discloses a tight fit fabric 12 closed around a spring core. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fabric disclosed in Stalter with the inner spring core of Kluft with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided barrier for the spring core defined by a tight fit covering the spring core of Kluft
Claims 2-3 and 17, Kluft discloses the mattress, but is silent to the fabric being a woven material such as cotton or cretonne. Selecting from a plethora of known fabric materials is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select the fabric materials as stated above with the mattress of Kluft with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative fabric material for the fabric covering of Kluft.
Claim 4, Kluft discloses the mattress, but is silent to the fabric having a weight of 120 to 160 g/m2. Selecting a range of weights for the fabric covering is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select the range of weights as stated above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative weight for the fabric covering of Kluft.
Claim 5, Kluft discloses the mattress wherein the fabric is held together around the inner spring by staples 182 and sewing (col. 5 lines 36-52).
Claim 6, Kluft discloses the mattress wherein the fabric is quilted throughout the periphery of the innerspring of Kluft (fig. 1-2).
Claim 7, Kluft discloses the mattress wherein the quilted panel comprises a padding (124)(fig. 4-5).
Claim 8, Kluft, as modified, discloses the mattress wherein the quilted panel is attached to the innerspring assembly and comprises a lateral strip 122 attached with pads to the top and bottom face (fig. 2, 4-5) wherein Stalter discloses that the spring assembly is covered by fabric that is sewn together. Kluft is silent to the strip being sewn. Selecting from a plethora of known means of attaching is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to sew the lateral strip to the top and bottom face with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative means to attach the covering of Kluft to give a fully fabric enveloped set of springs (col. 2 lines 18-25)(Statler).
Claim 9, Kluft discloses the mattress wherein the fabric is closed around the innerspring with foam blocks 60 and a layer of wool 106 interposed along the edges of the spring assembly. Kluft is silent to the fabric being a woven material such as cotton or cretonne. Selecting from a plethora of known fabric materials is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select the fabric materials as stated above with the mattress of Kluft with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative fabric material for the fabric covering of Kluft.
Claim 10, Kluft, as modified, discloses the mattress wherein the fabric is closed around the innerspring with comfort-coating plates defined by layers (62,102) interposed on the innerspring (fig. 2, 7).
Claim 11, Kluft, as modified, discloses the mattress the fabric is closed around the innerspring assembly along the lengthwise direction and along the widthwise direction of the mattress.
Claim 12, Kluft, as best understood, discloses a method of manufacturing a mattress comprising providing a spring suspension defined by a plurality of innerspring coils 80 and. Kluft is silent to a fabric. Stalter discloses a tight/compression fit fabric 12 mounted closely around a spring core. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fabric disclosed in Stalter with the inner spring core of Kluft with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided barrier for the spring core defined by a tight/compression fit of the spring core of Kluft.
Claim 13, Kluft, as best understood, discloses the method wherein the fabric is closed around the innerspring assembly with the fabric being held around the innerspring with staples 182 and sewing (col. 5 lines 36-52).
Claims 14-16 and 18, with regards to the Applicant's recitation wherein the fabric is a woven material, made of cotton or a cretonne, and having a weight of 120 to 160 g/m2. The patentability of a method does not depend on the type of material or the materials weight. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to claims 1-18, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Therefore, the words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning. The Examiner reads the top and bottom faces and the four side faces on the Applicant’s broad limitation since the function of providing a mattress is met and performed by an equivalent means. Furthermore, it is unclear how the mattress shapes of Kluft and Stalter do not illustrate a cuboid shape. Furthermore, the Applicant’s own original specification fails to expressly recite that the mattress has a cuboid shape or twelve edges as recited in amended claim 12. Contrary to the Applicant’s arguments, Statler expressly recites that the fabric cover envelopes the springs with a relatively tight fit (col. 1 lines 43-46). The Examiner interprets the relatively tight fit/compression force upon the Applicants broad limitation. Therefore, Statler is capable of providing a compression state to the spring assembly via a relatively tight fit of the fabric the envelopes the spring assembly with a compressive force around the entire spring assembly. It appears that the Applicant continues to rely on broad structural language that fails to clearly distinguish the present invention over the prior art of record and does not preclude the Examiner from interpreting the claims as stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,040,255 to Barber discloses a mattress having a spring assembly surrounded by a pad and fabric cover.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,822,426 to Mistarz discloses a mattress having a spring assembly surrounded by a pad and fabric cover.
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 FREDRICK C CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached on (571) 270-3654. 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.
/FREDRICK C CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights