DETAILED ACTION1
REJECTIONS UNDER 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious2 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2007/0130883 to Takahashi in view of U.S. 2011/0099812 to Spinks or alternately, Spinks in view of Takahashi.
Claim 1 recites a method of making a resilient unit [having] an array of springs in pockets formed between superposed sheets of material. Takahashi relates to such a method. See Takahashi [0001] & [0015]. Takahashi teaches supplying at least first (2) and second (2’) spring types from at least first (1) and second (1’) supply stations. See Takahashi [0074] and Fig. 1. These springs are supplied to a pocketing station via a conveyor (10, 10’). See Takahashi [0074]-[0076], [0080]-[0081] and Figs. 1, 7 & 8. Takahashi teaches the two springs types differ from one another in at least one characteristic because they each have a different wire diameter. See Takahashi [0074]. Takahashi further teaches inserting the springs (2, 2’) between superposed sheets (13) of material at the pocketing station, to encapsulate the springs in pockets (9) formed by joining the sheets at least at positions between the springs. See Takahashi [0081]-[0085]. Likewise, Takahashi teaches supplying the springs to the pocketing station in a row…of discrete spring locations…[that each] may be occupied by a spring of [either] type. See Takahashi Fig. 11.
Takahashi does not teach depositing the springs of the first and second type under compression onto the conveyor and transporting the springs on the conveyor, under compression, to the pocketing station. But it would have been obvious to modify Takahashi to include this feature in view of Spinks. Spinks also relates to the fabrication of pocketed spring units for mattresses. See Spinks [0001]. Thus, the two references are highly analogous art. Spink teaches a conveyor (20) and pocketing station that both have the springs under compression. See Spinks [0003]-[0008] & Figs. 1-2D. t is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). In this case, Spinks teaches a known technique of feeding and pocketing compressed springs together. It would have been obvious to modify Takahashi to use such conveyors and pocket welding system in place of its own system. Such a modification would have been predictable, because both references are using the same materials to produce the same end structure and because both Takahashi and Spink teach supplying springs in sequence, to the pocket welding system. See Spink Fig. 1-2D and Takahashi [0079]-[0081]. Claim 1 also recites that the spring locations may be occupied by a spring of the first type,…the second type, or a spring of a third or successive type. The word or means that the use of a third type is optional and need not be taught by the prior art.
As an alternate rejection, claim 1 may be rejected under Spinks in view of Takahashi. Spinks teaches supplying springs under compression to a conveyor and then into superposed sheets of material at [a] pocketing station and then forming a mattress component from them. It would have been obvious to modify Spinks to have multiple sub-types of springs being supplied from first and second supply stations in order to create a patterned mattress component as taught by Takahashi.
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi teaches supplying the springs to the pocketing station in at least one row. This differs from claim 1 only in reciting the possibility of additional rows. But since claim 2 does not require the additional row, the rejection of claim 1 still covers claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, figure 11-14 of Takahashi teach arranging…such that one or more zones are formed, in which the springs have different characteristics. Regarding claim 4, Takahashi teaches that the patterns shown in figures 12-14 form pattern[s] that provide a structural effect, namely optimizing support for specific heights and weights. See Takahashi [0089]-[0090]. Claims 5-6 recites a computer program for performing the method of claim 1. Takahashi teaches the system has a computer program controlling the system and method. See Takahashi [0079]. As such, Takahashi teaches the additional features.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant's arguments filed February 27, 2026 regarding the prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Each of applicant’s remarks is set forth, followed by examiner’s response.
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify Takahashi with Spinks because the former relates to standard tall springs, which do not need compression, while Spinks relates to micro-springs that do. This argument is unpersuasive because Takahashi teaches the concept of creating a pattern of different spring types to achieve a desired outcome. This pattern concept could also be applied to micro-springs as well. In other words, there is no reason not to create a pattern of different micro-springs. Such a pattern would require multiple supply stations and the other features of Takahashi, but also the compression technique of Spinks.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”