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 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that, “DeMoss does not disclose: (1) a plurality of raised blocks formed on the mounting layer; or (2) a plurality of independent elastic modules. DeMoss relates to a pocket coil spring assembly. At page 3, the Office Action applies the flexible foam 140 in Figure 2 of DeMoss against the claimed raised blocks, and the lower foundation layer 270 shown below against the claimed mounting layer. However, Demoss does not disclose that the flexible foam is connected or secured to the lower base layer 270. In addition, the claimed raised block can act in positioning and installing the elastic module, whereas the flexible foam 140 in DeMoss is mainly used for providing the user with the contact feel of foam since the top surface 142 extends above the coil spring 120 to contact the user's body, as disclosed at [0022]. Thus, the function of the flexible foam 140 in DeMoss is different from the claimed raised blocks.”
This is not found persuasive. The claim currently requires “a mounting layer having a plurality of raised blocks formed thereon.” This does not require a connection or securement to the base layer 270, just that the blocks are formed on the base layer, which is the case in Demoss.
Applicant also argued, “Moreover, DeMoss does not disclose "a plurality of independent elastic blocks." At [0026] DeMoss discloses "the pocketed coil spring assemblies 10 are connected to one another," and as shown in Figures 4 and 5, the pocketed coil spring assemblies 10 are connected to one another via connecting pieces 350 or 450. [0029]. Therefore, in DeMoss the elastic blocks are not independent, as claimed.
This is not found persuasive. While some embodiments of DeMoss do feature connecting elements such as 350 or 450, the embodiment shown in Figure 3 does not require any such connecting feature. Instead DeMoss describes the Figure 3 embodiment as “In the spring core 202 shown in FIG. 3, the longitudinal axes of each of the pocket coil spring assemblies 10 are arranged parallel with one another and the pocket coil spring assemblies 10 are connected to one another. More specifically, the pocket coil spring assemblies 10 are connected to one another such that the top surface 42 of the flexible foam 40 of the pocket coil spring assemblies 10 forms, at least in part, the first support surface 204 of the spring core 202, and the bottom area 34 of the fabric pocket 30 along with the lower portion 24 of the coil spring 20 of each of the pocket coil spring assemblies 10 form the second support surface 206 of the spring core 202.” (Paragraph 26) Thus DeMoss notes that the springs are connected each other through other structures, such as above and below layers, but the springs themselves remain independent and are not directly linked.
Applicant also argued, “Won KR101718229 is cited at paragraph 4 of the Office Action as disclosing raised blocks having a truncated conical shape (Figure 7; 164, 162, 165, 169). Yet Fig. 7 of Won is a section view of one of the upper and lower spring caps 16 and 16a, which have the same structure. And as shown in Fig. 5, the spring caps secure the ends of the spring to the mesh 18 - a design and function unrelated to the claimed cooperation of the spring modules and raised blocks. In Won, the shape of the spring caps does not match the shape of the open end of an elastic module, as in amended claim 18. In view of the mesh 18, they also do not stably support an elastic module.”
This is not found persuasive. Examiner disagrees that the shape of the spring caps does not match the shape of the open end of an elastic module as claimed. The shape of the open end of the elastic module is a circle, and the spring cap has a matching circular footprint (see where 162 is marked) which is how it is securing the elastic member.
Applicant also argued, “Sherman US 10610028 is cited in combination with DeMoss and Leng at page 7 of the Office Action as disclosing conical protrusions 1108 used to hold the microcoil cells in place. But in Sherman the protrusions are between foam layers 1100 and 1106, as shown in Fig. 15 below.”
This is not found persuasive. Examiner notes that Sherman is not being cited for the raised block extending within the elastic module. The Primary DeMoss reference teaches that limitation. Sherman is simply cited to show raised blocks within a mattress of conical shape as well as elastic modules of conical shape, to be applied to modify the shape of the raised blocks and elastic modules of the primary DeMoss reference.
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) 18, 19, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 31-34, 36 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMoss (US Patent Application Publication 20150342362) in view of Leng (US Patent Application Publication 20180199728).
Regarding claim 18, DeMoss teaches an elastic pad for furniture, comprising: a mounting layer (Figure 3; 270 and Figure 2; 140 and 130) having a plurality of raised blocks (Figure 2; 140) formed thereon (Figure 3; raised blocks at 42 are formed on 270 as shown); a plurality of independent (Figure 3; as shown and Paragraph 26) elastic modules (Figure 3; 20), each elastic module positioned on one of the raised blocks (Figure 2; as shown), wherein an open end of each elastic module has a shape that matches the shape of the raised block (Figure 2; 142 features a circular footprint, as do both ends of the elastic member 120). DeMoss does not teach an elastic balance net having a plurality of openings, an upper end of substantially each elastic module in one of the openings, the elastic balance net linking the elastic modules; and a flexible cover enclosing the mounting layer, the plurality of elastic modules and the elastic balance net. Leng teaches an elastic balance net (Figure 37b; 136) having a plurality of openings, an upper end of substantially each elastic module in one of the openings (Figure 37b; springs as shown (unnumbered), the elastic balance net linking the elastic modules (Figure 37b; 136 as shown); and a flexible cover (Figure 23; 140 surrounds the entire inside of the mattress) enclosing the mounting layer, the plurality of elastic modules and the elastic balance net. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined DeMoss (directed to a cushion including a spring assembly) and Leng (directed to a cushion including a spring assembly with a net and cover) and arrived at a cushion including a spring assembly with a net and cover One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination so that "the mattress needs no internal ribs, strips or other structures to attach the springs" as taught in Leng (Paragraph 198).
Regarding claim 19, DeMoss teaches wherein an outer diameter of substantially each raised block is greater than or equal to an inner diameter of the elastic module at a corresponding height (Figure 2; as shown).
Regarding claim 22, DeMoss teaches each raised block includes a spherical top segment (Figure 2; where 142 is marked).
Regarding claim 24, DeMoss teaches each raised block is hollow or solid (Figure 2; 140).
Regarding claim 27, DeMoss teaches each raised block is directly attached on a top surface of the mounting layer by bonding or ultrasonic welding (Paragraph 25 discusses the foam being positioned within the pocket 130, which is part of the mounting layer, and Paragraph 20 describes dispensing the foam as a liquid, which would then bond it to the bottom surface it was dispensed onto).
Regarding claim 28, DeMoss teaches the mounting layer comprises a non-woven (Paragraph 18) layer (Figure 2; 130) having a plurality of raised block receiving portions (Figure 2; bottom of 130, see also Figure 3 which shows there are many portions 130 which receive the blocks), the non-woven layer covering the plurality of raised blocks and the plurality of raised blocks attached to the mounting layer by the non-woven layer (Figure 2; 132 goes over the block 140 to cover it).
Regarding claim 29, DeMoss teaches edges of the non-woven layer or opening edges of the raised block receiving portions are attached to a top surface of the mounting layer by ultrasonic welding (Paragraph 18 attaches the non-woven layer (top upper layer of pocket 130) to the top surface of the mounting layer (bottom layer of pocket 130)).
Regarding claim 31, DeMoss teaches the raised blocks are arranged in an array (figure 3; as shown).
Regarding claim 32, DeMoss teaches an elastic pad layer on top of all other structures (Figure 3; 260 shows a top elastic pad layer). DeMoss does not teach the elastic balance net. Leng teaches the elastic balance net (Figure 37a; 136). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined DeMoss (directed to a cushion including a spring assembly) and Leng (directed to a cushion including a spring assembly with a net and cover) and arrived at a cushion including a spring assembly with a net and cover One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination so that "the mattress needs no internal ribs, strips or other structures to attach the springs" as taught in Leng (Paragraph 198).
Regarding claim 33, DeMoss does not teach the flexible cover comprises a top layer, a bottom layer and a side girdle assembled as one piece via connectors, wherein the mounting layer is independent of the bottom layer of the flexible cover, or the mounting layer is integrated on the bottom layer of the flexible cover. Leng teaches the flexible cover comprises a top layer, a bottom layer and a side girdle assembled (Figure 23; 140 goes around the top bottom and sides of the assembly as shown) as one piece via connectors (Figure 23; 142), wherein the mounting layer is independent of the bottom layer of the flexible cover (Figure 23; when applied to DeMoss, the cover would go under the layer shown at DeMoss Figure 3, 270), or the mounting layer is integrated on the bottom layer of the flexible cover. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined DeMoss (directed to a cushion including a spring assembly) and Leng (directed to a cushion including a spring assembly with a net and cover) and arrived at a cushion including a spring assembly with a net and cover One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination so that "the mattress needs no internal ribs, strips or other structures to attach the springs" as taught in Leng (Paragraph 198).
Regarding claim 34, DeMoss does not teach each elastic module comprises a conical spring and a spring bracket for receiving the conical spring. Leng teaches each elastic module comprises a conical spring (Figure 30a, springs as shown are conical) and a spring bracket (Figure 30b, as shown) for receiving the conical spring. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined DeMoss (directed to a cushion including a spring assembly) and Leng (directed to a cushion including a spring assembly with a net and cover) and arrived at a cushion including a spring assembly with a net and cover One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination so that "the mattress needs no internal ribs, strips or other structures to attach the springs" as taught in Leng (Paragraph 198).
Regarding claim 36, DeMoss does not teach the flexible cover is detachable, and the elastic modules, the mounting layer and the elastic balance net can be separated from each other. Leng teaches the flexible cover is detachable (Figure 23; 142), and the elastic modules, the mounting layer and the elastic balance net can be separated from each other (Figure 37a; 136 can be separated from the springs as shown, and when applied to DeMoss the mounting layer shown in Figure 3 of DeMoss at 270 can also be detached from the springs). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined DeMoss (directed to a cushion including a spring assembly) and Leng (directed to a cushion including a spring assembly with a net and cover) and arrived at a cushion including a spring assembly with a net and cover One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination so that "the mattress needs no internal ribs, strips or other structures to attach the springs" as taught in Leng (Paragraph 198).
Regarding claim 37, DeMoss teaches a piece of furniture comprising the elastic pad of claim 18 (abstract).
Claim(s) 23, 30, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMoss (US Patent Application Publication 20150342362) in view of Leng (US Patent Application Publication 20180199728) further in view of Sherman (US Patent 10610028).
Regarding claim 23, DeMoss does not teach a bottom segment of each raised block has a conical shape and is configured to fit into one of the elastic modules having a complementary conical shape. Sherman teaches a bottom segment of each raised block has a conical shape (Figure 15; 1108) and is configured to fit into one of the elastic modules having a complementary conical shape (Examiner notes that Column 10; lines 40-62 of Sherman discusses that the elastic modules may be conical in shape, and when applied to DeMoss which teaches the raised block extending throughout the inside of the spring, this would result in the conical raised block being in the corresponding conical spring). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined DeMoss (directed to a cushion including a spring assembly) and Leng (directed to a cushion including a spring assembly with a net and cover) and Sherman (directed to a conical raised block and spring) and arrived at a cushion including a conical spring assembly with a net and cover and conical raised blocks. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination "to hold the microcoil cells in place" (Sherman column 10, lines 57-58).
Regarding claim 30, DeMoss does not teach each raised block receiving portion has a truncated conical shape complementary to a shape of the raised blocks. Sherman teaches substantially each raised block receiving portion has a truncated conical shape complementary to a shape of the raised blocks (Figure 15; 1102 and 1108, and Column 10; lines 40-62 which discuss that the spring may be conical and the pocket complementary). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined DeMoss (directed to a cushion including a spring assembly) and Leng (directed to a cushion including a spring assembly with a net and cover) and Sherman (directed to a conical raised block and spring) and arrived at a cushion including a conical spring assembly with a net and cover and conical raised blocks. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination "to hold the microcoil cells in place" (Sherman column 10, lines 57-58).
Regarding claim 35, DeMoss teaches no spring bracket (Figure 2; spring as shown, see also Figure 3). DeMoss does not teach each elastic module comprises a conical spring. Sherman teaches each elastic module comprises a conical spring (Column 10; lines 40- 62). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined DeMoss (directed to a cushion including a spring assembly) and Leng (directed to a cushion including a spring assembly with a net and cover) and Sherman (directed to a conical raised block and spring) and arrived at a cushion including a conical spring assembly with a net and cover and conical raised blocks. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination "to hold the microcoil cells in place" (Sherman column 10, lines 57-58).
Claim(s) 18 is alternately rejected, and claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won (KR 101718229) in view of Leng (US Patent Application Publication 20180199728).
Regarding claim 18, Won teaches an elastic pad for furniture, comprising: a mounting layer (Figure 1; 16a, 18a) having a plurality of raised blocks (Figure 7; at 162, 164, 169, 165) formed thereon (Figure 1 shows raised blocks formed on layer 16a/18a); a plurality of independent (Figure 3 shows the elastic members all independent of each other) elastic modules (Figure 4; 14), each elastic module positioned on one of the raised blocks (Figure 6; as shown), wherein an open end of each elastic module has a shape that matches the shape of the raised block (Figure 7; at 162 has a circular footprint which matches the circular footprint of the ends of the elastic member (see Figure 6)). DeMoss does not teach an elastic balance net having a plurality of openings, an upper end of substantially each elastic module in one of the openings, the elastic balance net linking the elastic modules; and a flexible cover enclosing the mounting layer, the plurality of elastic modules and the elastic balance net. Leng teaches an elastic balance net (Figure 37b; 136) having a plurality of openings, an upper end of substantially each elastic module in one of the openings (Figure 37b; springs as shown (unnumbered)), the elastic balance net linking the elastic modules (Figure 37b; 136 as shown); and a flexible cover (Figure 23; 140 surrounds the entire inside of the mattress) enclosing the mounting layer, the plurality of elastic modules and the elastic balance net. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Won (directed to a cushion including a spring assembly) and Leng (directed to a cushion including a spring assembly with a net and cover) and arrived at a cushion including a spring assembly with a net and cover One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination so that "the mattress needs no internal ribs, strips or other structures to attach the springs" as taught in Leng (Paragraph 198).
Regarding claim 20, Won teaches each raised block is a truncated cone (Figure 7; 164, 162, 165, 169 as shown).
Claims 21, 25, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won (KR 101718229) in view of Leng (US Patent Application Publication 20180199728) in view of Sherman (US Patent 10610028).
Regarding claim 21, Won teaches substantially each raised block has a truncated conical shape (Figure 7; 164, 162, 165, 169 as shown). Won does not teach each elastic module has a truncated conical shape. Sherman teaches each elastic module has a truncated conical shape (Column 10; lines 40-62). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Won (directed to a cushion including a spring assembly) and Leng (directed to a cushion including a spring assembly with a net and cover) and Sherman (directed to a conical raised block and spring) and arrived at a cushion including a conical spring assembly with a net and cover and conical raised block. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 25, Won teaches each raised block is hollow (Figure 6; the raised blocks are hollow as shown by the bottom of the top raised block which has the same structure (at 163)) with an open or closed top end (Figure 6; at 163a).
Regarding claim 26, Won teaches each raised block has an open or closed bottom (Figure 6, top of 163a).
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 MORGAN J MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)270-0362. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesdays 12pm-10pm and Thursdays 12pm-10pm.
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 5712728525. 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.
/MORGAN J MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights