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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 3/25/2025, 6/13/2025, and 1/7/2026 have been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites: “the piezoresistive inks” which should likely be “. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites: “at least a top and a bottom layers” which should likely be “at least a top and bottom layer” for better grammatical effect. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 8, 9, 11-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/085919 to Kramer et al. (hereinafter Kramer) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/046136 to Blumberg.
Regarding claim 1, Kramer teaches: A personalized, sleeping posture correction system for bedding article (see para [0055]: “provide turn assist”), the system comprising:
a three-dimensional body for a user of the bedding article to sleep thereon (see Fig. 11, substrate 26) being segmented into a plurality of compartments defining a plurality of pressure sensing and response zones (see Fig. 1-7, 11-13, cells 10);
a pressure sensing and response module (see Fig. 2, sensor 20 and driver 16) being disposed in each of the pressure sensing and response zones comprising one or more pressure sensing mechanisms (see Fig. 2, pressure sensor 20 and para [0049]) and one or more actuators (see Fig. 2, driver 16), each of the pressure sensing mechanisms and each of the actuators having individual sensor and actuator circuits (see para [0049]: controller 18 has independent communication lines [dotted lines] with each of the sensor 20 and driver 16) in each of the pressure sensing and response zones configured to generate pressure sensing signal and execute actuation instructions, respectively (see para [0049]); and
a central processor (see Fig. 2, controller 18) receiving pressure sensing signals from the one or more pressure sensing mechanisms (see Fig. 2, pressure sensor 20), processing thereof, sending actuation instructions to the one or more actuators (see Fig. 2, driver 16 and para [0049]).
Kramer does not explicitly teach: feeding the processed pressure sensing signals to and receiving corresponding commands from one or more external devices.
Blumberg, however teaches: feeding the processed pressure sensing signals to and receiving corresponding commands from one or more external devices (see para [0024, 0027]: “enabling the controller to exchange data with external systems and receive programming updates”).
Kramer and Blumberg are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of controllable firmness support cells used for dynamic person support in bedding applications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Kramer with these aforementioned teachings of Blumberg in order to add an external communication capability as suggested by Blumberg to the existing device of Kramer with a reasonable expectation of success to exchange user data and receive programming updates to increase the likelihood of high quality sleep for each particular user (see Blumberg, para [0024,0029]).
Regarding claim 8, Kramer, as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein each of the actuators comprises one or more inflatable scaled containers (see Fig. 4, compartments 42,48), one or more valves (see para [0052]: “driver comprises one or more valves”), a zonal air pressure sensor (see Fig. 4, pressure sensor 132), and an air pump (see para [0057]: “driver is a source of pressure such as an air compressor, pump, etc.”).
Regarding claim 9, Kramer, as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 8, and additionally teaches: wherein the air volume, rate, and direction of flow in or out of each of the inflatable sealed containers are controlled by each of the valves separately from each other whilst the air pressure in each of the actuators is regulated by the zonal air pressure sensor and the air pump (see para [0052] and [0057]).
Regarding claim 11, Kramer, as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and also teaches the following: wherein the central processor comprises a plurality of integrated circuits (see para [0097]: circuit board 664), microprocessors (see para [0097]: microprocessor 666), and chips (see para [0097]: circuit board 664 having “memory chips” for storing a control algorithm) to receive and process any signals and/or data obtained from the pressure sensing mechanisms, zonal pressure sensors, and/or any external device, and provide instructions to the one or more actuators in response to the sensed signals/data automatically or according to preference of actuation selected by the user manually (see para [0097]).
Regarding claim 12, Kramer, as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however does not teach: wherein the central processor is connected to a user terminal and/or one or more external devices to exchange data among the central processor and any of the user terminal and/or external devices, and wherein the user terminal and/or external devices comprise mobile communication device, portable electronic device, remote control, computer gateway, network and/or data servers, cloud computing system, and peer system thereof within the same or from a different network.
Blumberg teaches: wherein the central processor is connected to a user terminal and/or one or more external devices to exchange data among the central processor and any of the user terminal and/or external devices, and wherein the user terminal and/or external devices comprise mobile communication device, portable electronic device, remote control, computer gateway, network and/or data servers, cloud computing system, and peer system thereof within the same or from a different network (see Blumberg, para [0023-0024 and 0027]: discusses having GUI, e.g. “user terminal” in 0027. Para 0023-0024 discuss communications with external devices using networks, cloud computing and peer systems).
Kramer and Blumberg are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of controllable firmness support cells used for dynamic person support in bedding applications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Kramer with these aforementioned teachings of Blumberg in order to add a user terminal and/or external communication capability as suggested by Blumberg to the existing device of Kramer with a reasonable expectation of success to exchange user data and receive programming updates to increase the likelihood of high quality sleep for each particular user (see Blumberg, para [0024,0029]).
Regarding claim 13, Kramer, as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 12, however does not teach: wherein after processing the pressure sensing data obtained from the pressure sensing and response module, and prior to sending actuation instructions to the actuators, the central processor is configured to provide one or more suggested actuation protocols to the user through the user terminal and/or external devices.
Blumberg teaches: wherein after processing the pressure sensing data obtained from the pressure sensing and response module, and prior to sending actuation instructions to the actuators, the central processor is configured to provide one or more suggested actuation protocols to the user through the user terminal and/or external devices (see Blumberg, para [0049]).
Regarding claim 14, Kramer, as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 13, however does not teach: further comprising an image capturing module for capturing one or more images of an instantaneous sleeping posture of the user, wherein the central processor receives, analyze, and processes image data obtained from the image capturing module together with the pressure sensing data obtained from the pressure sensing and response module to provide said suggested actuation protocols to the user.
Blumberg teaches: further comprising an image capturing module for capturing one or more images of an instantaneous sleeping posture of the user, wherein the central processor receives, analyze, and processes image data obtained from the image capturing module together with the pressure sensing data obtained from the pressure sensing and response module to provide said suggested actuation protocols to the user (see Blumberg, para [0018], suggests the use of external sensors 202-203 [Fig. 1] such as cameras [visible, millimeter wave, infrared] to detect a user’s sleeping position).
Kramer and Blumberg are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of controllable firmness support cells used for dynamic person support in bedding applications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Kramer with these aforementioned teachings of Blumberg in order to add an image capturing module (camera) as suggested by Blumberg to the existing device of Kramer with a reasonable expectation of success as an improved means to determine a user’s position/reposition (see Blumberg, para [0018]).
Regarding claim 15, Kramer, as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 14, however does not teach: wherein the image capturing module comprises one or more image capturing devices, one or more image processors, and a data transmission device, and wherein the one or more image capturing devices comprise one or more motion sensors.
Blumberg teaches: wherein the image capturing module comprises one or more image capturing devices, one or more image processors, and a data transmission device, and wherein the one or more image capturing devices comprise one or more motion sensors (see para [0018]: various cameras as suggested would inherently comprise image processors, data transmission, and can sense motion).
Regarding claim 16, Kramer, as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however does not teach: wherein the central processor is trained with a plurality of datasets in relation to pressure distribution on a comparable bedding article arising from different sleeping postures of a comparable human being to the user with corresponding sleeping posture correction protocols, and/or is pre- determined with a set of operational parameters according to the user's preference.
Blumberg teaches: wherein the central processor is trained with a plurality of datasets in relation to pressure distribution on a comparable bedding article arising from different sleeping postures of a comparable human being to the user with corresponding sleeping posture correction protocols, and/or is pre-determined with a set of operational parameters according to the user's preference (see Blumberg, para [0025, 0026, and 0050]: discusses using databases storing patient protocols, gathered sensor data, and the use of user profiles).
Kramer and Blumberg are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of controllable firmness support cells used for dynamic person support in bedding applications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Kramer with these aforementioned teachings of Blumberg in order to gather datasets from databases, sensors, and utilizing patient profiles as suggested by Blumberg as means to control the existing device of Kramer with a reasonable expectation of success to increase the likelihood of high quality sleep for each particular user (see Blumberg, para [0024,0029]).
Regarding claim 18, Kramer, as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and also teaches the following: wherein the bedding article is selected from a mattress or a large-area pad for the user to sleep thereon (see Fig. 10-21 as shown and para [0018]).
Regarding claim 19, Kramer, as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and also teaches the following: a bedding article comprising the system of claim 1 (see para [0002-0003], see also Fig. 10-21).
Regarding claim 20, Kramer, as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and also teaches the following: A method for correcting sleeping posture of a user of a bedding article (see para [0055]: “provide turn assist”), comprising using the system of claim 1 in the bedding article, and the bedding article being selected from a mattress or a large-area pad for the user to sleep thereon (see Fig. 10-21 as shown and para [0018]).
Claim(s) 2-6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/085919 to Kramer in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/046136 to Blumberg in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0027988 to Poodeh et al. (hereinafter Poodeh).
Regarding claim 2, Kramer as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however does not explicitly teach: wherein the one or more pressure sensing mechanisms is/are one or more multi-layered structures comprising at least one pressure sensing layer and two electrode layers.
Poodeh teaches: wherein the one or more pressure sensing mechanisms is/are one or more multi-layered structures comprising at least one pressure sensing layer (see Fig. 2, dielectric material) and two electrode layers (see Fig. 2, column electrodes 23 and row electrodes 22).
Kramer, Blumberg, and Poodeh are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of controllable firmness support cells used for dynamic person support in bedding applications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Kramer and Blumberg with these aforementioned teachings of Poodeh to have replaced the generic pressure sensor of Kramer with an improved thinner capacitive pressure sensor of Poodeh having the specific claimed properties with a reasonable expectation of success to provide improved comfort based on the monitoring and analysis of pressure data (see Poodeh, para [0002]).
Regarding claim 3, Kramer as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 2, however does not explicitly teach: wherein the at least one pressure sensing layer is made of a plurality of electrically conductive fibers.
Poodeh teaches: wherein the at least one pressure sensing layer is made of a plurality of electrically conductive fibers (see Fig. 2, and para [0055]: dielectric material 21 inherently comprises conductive fibers).
Regarding claim 4, Kramer as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 3, however does not explicitly teach: wherein a first electrode layer of the two electrode layers comprises a plurality of first conductive portions and a plurality of first non-conductive portions interlaced with each other.
Poodeh teaches: wherein a first electrode layer of the two electrode layers comprises a plurality of first conductive portions and a plurality of first non-conductive portions interlaced with each other (see para [0055]: “The row and column electrodes are constructed of strips of electrically conductive material such as copper strips, aluminum strips, tin strips, or preferably conductive fabric or flexible circuit”).
Regarding claim 5, Kramer as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 4, however does not explicitly teach: wherein the at least one pressure sensing layer comprises a plurality of sensory spots evenly or unevenly distributed throughout each of the contact surface areas with the corresponding electrode layer.
Poodeh teaches: wherein the at least one pressure sensing layer comprises a plurality of sensory spots evenly or unevenly distributed throughout each of the contact surface areas with the corresponding electrode layer (see Fig. 2, and para [0055]: ribbon cable 24 is connected to row and column electrodes).
Regarding claim 6, Kramer as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 5, however does not explicitly teach: wherein a second electrode layer comprises a plurality of second conductive portions and a plurality of second non-conductive portions interlaced with each other, and the second conductive portions are oriented in a direction substantially perpendicular to that of the first conductive portions of the first electrode layer.
Poodeh teaches: wherein a second electrode layer comprises a plurality of second conductive portions and a plurality of second non-conductive portions interlaced with each other (see para [0055]: “The row and column electrodes are constructed of strips of electrically conductive material such as copper strips, aluminum strips, tin strips, or preferably conductive fabric or flexible circuit”), and the second conductive portions are oriented in a direction substantially perpendicular to that of the first conductive portions of the first electrode layer (see Fig. 2, column electrodes 23 are generally perpendicular to row electrodes 21 as shown).
Regarding claim 17, Kramer as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 15, however does not explicitly teach: wherein the central processor is built based on a multi-layered artificial neural network.
Poodeh teaches: wherein the central processor is built based on a multi-layered artificial neural network (see Abstract, and para [0130]: which describes a convolutional neural network (CNN) having a plurality of layers).
Kramer, Blumberg, and Poodeh are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of controllable firmness support cells used for dynamic person support in bedding applications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Kramer and Blumberg with these aforementioned teachings of Poodeh utilizing a central process built based on a multilayer artificial neural network as taught by Poodeh as an improved means to control the existing device of Kramer with a reasonable expectation of success to provide improved comfort based on the monitoring and analysis of pressure data (see Poodeh, para [0002]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/085919 to Kramer in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/046136 to Blumberg in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0027988 to Poodeh in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0372866 to Fu et al. (hereinafter Fu).
Regarding claim 7, Kramer as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 6, however does not explicitly teach: wherein at where the first conductive portions of the first electrode layer intersect with the second conductive portions of the second electrode layer are where the plurality of sensory spots disposed onto each of the contact surfaces of the at least one pressure sensing layer, and wherein at each of the sensory spots is deposited with the piezoresistive inks.
Fu teaches: wherein at where the first conductive portions of the first electrode layer (see Fig. 1, bottom electrodes 130) intersect with the second conductive portions of the second electrode layer (see Fig. 1, top electrodes 120) are where the plurality of sensory spots disposed onto each of the contact surfaces of the at least one pressure sensing layer (see Fig. 1, at the perpendicular oriented intersection of electrodes 120 and 130 comprises a “pressure sensing column” 160 [e.g. the sensory spot]) and wherein at each of the sensory spots is deposited with the piezoresistive inks (see Fig. 2-3B, para [0021]: piezoresistive ink-soaked fabric).
Kramer, Blumberg, Poodeh, and Fu are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of controllable firmness support cells and sensors used therefore for dynamic person support in bedding applications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Kramer, Blumberg, and Poodeh with these aforementioned teachings of Fu to further utilize a piezoresistive ink as an improved means of forming the pressure sensor of Poodeh with a reasonable expectation of success to better bind the conductive material to the fabric (see Fu, para [0051]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/085919 to Kramer in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/046136 to Blumberg in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0330892 to Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 10, Kramer, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however does not explicitly teach: wherein the three-dimensional body comprises at least a top and a bottom layers sandwiching the pressure sensing and response module for providing flexibility to the bedding article and comforts to the user without affecting normal performance of the pressure sensing and response module.
Lee teaches: wherein the three-dimensional body comprises at least a top and a bottom layers (see Fig. 2, top layer 44 and bottom layer 20) sandwiching the pressure sensing and response module (see Fig. 2, smart cell array 16) for providing flexibility to the bedding article and comforts to the user without affecting normal performance of the pressure sensing and response module (see para [0039-0040]).
Kramer, Blumberg, and Lee are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of controllable firmness support cells used for dynamic person support in bedding applications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Kramer and Blumberg with these aforementioned teachings of Lee in order to provide a top and bottom layers as taught by Lee that sandwich the existing pressure/response modules of Kramer with a reasonable expectation of success to create a modular array to permit simpler transport of the components (see Lee, para [0040]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited patents show dynamically adjustable firmness bedding systems with similar properties to the claimed invention. They show the general state of the art and are of general relevance with respect to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R HARE whose telephone number is (571)272-4420. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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.
Sincerely,
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
2/5/2026