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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the amendment of claim 1 filed 9/2/26 have been fully considered and are persuasive insofar as the ‘599 reference does not disclose the amended language. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as the claims are unpatentable over KR 102096599 B1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘599) in view of Ochi et al. (US 20090106905 A1 and hereinafter “Ochi”). ‘599 itself does not have the amended language at issue. However, it is readily taught by Ochi. See the rejection below for details. While not explicitly relied on below, applicant’s attention is also directed toward paragraph [0115] of Krenik US 20150351982 A1 which appears to teach the language at issue as well.
Applicant did not traverse the official notice statement from the prior action. Therefore, it is now admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144 for details. See below for details.
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) 1-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102096599 B1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘599) in view of Ochi et al. (US 20090106905 A1 and hereinafter “Ochi”).
Re Claim 1
‘599 discloses:
A mattress assembly (see all figs.) comprising:
an air pocket unit (110) for containing air to support a user;
a flow channel (13) providing a passage through which the air flows and communicating with the air pocket unit (110);
a pump (16) for causing the air to flow into the air pocket unit (110);
a valve unit (15) including one or more valves selectively opened or closed to control the flow of air in the flow channel and the air pocket unit (110);
a sensor unit (17) configured to detect a pressure of the air pocket unit (110); and
a controller (19) configured to control the pump (16) and the valve unit (15) according to an external signal such that a hardness of the air pocket unit is set to one of a plurality of preset hardness levels (see paragraphs [0039] through [0432] which describe in detail the extensive pressure control systems in the reference; regarding the pre-set hardness levels, however, see for example paragraphs 0259 - 0264),
wherein, when a changed hardness level, which is a hardness level different from a current hardness level that is currently set by the signal, is set (this is discussed in detail throughout the entirety of the specification from 0039 – 0432; nevertheless, for example, one may see 0267-0268 as one reference instance about changed hardness levels and detection / treatment thereof; see also 0014-0023)…
‘599 does not explicitly disclose:
the controller calculates a control reference pressure on the basis of a current pressure, which is the pressure of the air pocket unit detected by the sensor unit, and a predetermined level reference pressure corresponding to the current hardness level, derives a target pressure by adding or subtracting a pressure difference corresponding to the difference between the current hardness level and the changed hardness level to or from the control reference pressure, and controls one or more of the pump and the valve unit such that the pressure of the air pocket unit reaches the target pressure…
However, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have been able to readily derive the above feature from the disclosure in ‘599 which includes a pressure change calculation unit (1914) that calculates a pressure change amount from a difference in pressure values at the time the pressure of the air pocket changes after a set value (see paragraphs 0206 – 0227) for the purpose of optimizing pressure to desired amounts and/or optimizing user comfort. It is further noted that the reference includes extensive descriptions of utilizing pre-set pressure values, starting pressure values, and monitoring changes in both increased and decreased pressure values in instances and also over time, providing adjustments to suit the needs and target required. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the limitations as identified above for the purpose as articulated above.
‘599 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the calculating the control reference pressure is determined based on a weight of the user applied to the air pocket unit.
Ochi teaches calculating a control reference pressure which is determined based on a weight of a user applied to an air pocket unit ([0086] “When the ON/OFF switch unit 22 determines to enter the state where the air mattress 2 is controlled, the ON/OFF switch unit 22 switches the control state of the air mattress device 1 (S2). Then, the reference value setting unit 43 sets each of the reference values used for pressure adjustment, based on the height or weight of a human body on the air mattress 2 (S3)”) for the purpose of facilitating fall detection and/or for detecting bottoming out on the mattress and/or improving user comfort via pressure adjustments and/or as a known manner to determine a base value for evaluation / calculation by a controller in pressure determinations for an air mattress. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify ‘599 to include the teachings of Ochi (see above) for the purpose(s) as articulated above (see above).
Re Claims 2 and 4
‘599 discloses all claim limitations, see above, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the control reference pressure is calculated on the basis of the level reference pressure when the current pressure is equal to or less than the level reference pressure.
wherein the control reference pressure is calculated on the basis of the current pressure when the current pressure is greater than the level reference pressure.
Similarly, the above would have been readily obvious to and able to be derived by one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date based on the disclosure in ‘599 as it is merely comparisons of pressure values to a reference pressure, which is known via the monitoring and adjustments described and performed in the reference; see the mapping above.
Re Claim 3
‘599 as modified above discloses:
wherein the control reference pressure is greater than 0.1 psi and less than 1.5 psi (see figure 11; see 0165-0170).
Re Claim 5
‘599 as modified above discloses:
wherein the air pocket unit includes a plurality of pocket areas (0014, for example, and see references to zones throughout; see 0056-0058), and the current pressure is the pressure of the air pocket unit detected by the sensor unit in a state in which all of the pocket areas are in communication with each other (see 0159-0160,0165; see figs. 10-11).
Re Claim 6
‘599 as modified above discloses:
wherein the air pocket unit includes a plurality of pocket areas (0014, for example, and see references to zones throughout; see 0056-0058), and the current pressure is an average of pressures of the plurality of pocket areas detected by the sensor unit in a state in which the pocket areas are not in communication with each other (see 0148-0165; see figs. 10-11).
To the extent that the reference discusses individual zone measurements, but may not necessarily describe taking or determining the average of the pressures, examiner notes that it is old and well known in the art to utilize an average of multiple values, including pressure values, for adjustment to suit user needs and it would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have done so.
Re Claim 9
‘599 as modified above discloses:
wherein the valve unit (15 and fig. 8) includes a plurality of injection valves (to the extent that the reference may need additional valves, it would be a mere duplication of parts and it would have been obvious to do as so mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. ) opened or closed to inject the air into the air pocket unit or opened or closed to discharge the air from the air pocket unit (0148-0165), and
wherein the controller (19) controls the pump (16) and the plurality of injection valves (15) such that the air is injected into the air pocket unit when the current hardness level is changed to the changed hardness level greater than the current hardness level, and controls the plurality of injection valves such that the air is discharged from the air pocket unit when the current hardness level is changed to the changed hardness level less than the current hardness level, thereby causing the pressure of the air pocket unit to reach the target pressure when the target pressure is derived (figs 8-11; 0148-0165).
Re Claim 10
‘599 as modified above discloses:
Furniture comprising:
the mattress assembly according to claim 1 (see above).
‘599 does not explicitly disclose:
a backrest disposed on one side of the mattress assembly.
Examiner hereby takes official notice that it is old and well known to include a backrest disposed on one side of a mattress assembly for aesthetic purposes and/or to support a back of a user as is common in the art. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify ‘599 to include the limitation above for the purpose(s) as articulated above. Applicant did not traverse the official notice statement. Therefore, it is now admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144 for details.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are allowed.
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 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
