DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 11/19/24. Claims 1-9 are pending. Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected.
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(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
CONCLUSION.--The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the Applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention. The claim recites “the suspension according to claim N.” It is unclear which claim this claim depends from. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that claim 8 depends from claim 7. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim recites the limitation "said housing cavities." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no prior recitation of “a housing cavity” either in this claim, or in prior claims from which this claim depends. Examiner notes that claim 3 recites “at least one cavity for housing said pin.” However it is unclear if “said housing cavities” is meant to refer back to the previously recited “cavity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claims recite the limitation "the upright of the supporting member,” however there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no prior recitation of “an upright” either in this claim, or in prior claims from which this claim depends. Examiner notes that claim 7 recites “an upright,” however claims 8 and 9 do not depend from claim 7. Appropriate correction is required.
In view of the above rejections the respective claims are rejected as best understood on prior art as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 6,477,727 to Fromme.
Claim 1. An improved active suspension for giving an additional spring to an overlying mattress, said suspension comprising: an elastic element (Fromme, Fig. 3, #20) comprising a central body (Fromme, Fig. 5, #21), a plurality of flexible arms (Fromme, Fig. 3, #22) extending in a cantilever fashion from the central body and a raised perimeter portion (Fromme, Fig. 3, #24) connected to said flexible arms and supported by them elastically, a supporting member (Fromme, Fig. 5, #28) for supporting the elastic element, designed to be mounted on a slat (Fromme, Fig. 7b, #81), said supporting member having at least an engagement element designed to engage with said slat, wherein said engagement element has a U-shaped open profile, said U-shaped open profile being configured to be inserted to least partially superpose said slat (Fromme, Fig. 5, #28 supporting member has a U-shape profile as claimed).
Claim 2. The suspension device according to claim 1, wherein the supporting member has two elements for engaging with said slat, both of the engagement elements having a respective U-shaped open profile, and in that both the U-shaped profiles are configured to be inserted to at least partially superpose the slat, at opposite longitudinal edges of the slat (Fromme, Fig. 5, #28.1 provides two U -shaped elements).
Claim 9. The suspension according to claim 1, wherein it comprises a spacer element interposed between said elastic element and the upright of the supporting member (Applicant discloses spacer elements at #’s 5,6 in Figs. 16-17; these spacer elements change the height of the top surface of the elastic element; Fromme discloses spacers of differing height in Figs. 10a-10b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6,477,727 to Fromme.
Claim 9. The suspension according to claim 1, wherein it comprises a spacer element interposed between said elastic element and the upright of the supporting member (Applicant discloses spacer elements at #’s 5,6 in Figs. 16-17; these spacer elements change the height of the top surface of the elastic element; Fromme discloses spacers of differing height in Figs. 10a-10b; moreover, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide spacer elements seen of larger or smaller sizes, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and a change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art; In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955)).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6,477,727 to Fromme in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0066834 to Jansen.
Claim 5. The suspension according to clam 1, wherein said supporting member comprises a single engagement element designed to engage with said slat, wherein said open U-shaped profile of said single engagement element is designed to be inserted substantially superposing said slat (Fromme discloses an engagement element as seen at Fromme, Fig. 5, #28.1 which provides two U -shaped elements; Fromme does not disclose a “single engagement element is designed to be inserted substantially superposing said slat”; Jansen teaches a similar apparatus with a different type of connection means, as seen in Fig. 7 at #27; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the connection means of Jansen with the supporting member of Fromme, since doing so would have been substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results).
Claim 6. The suspension according to claim 5, wherein it comprises an element for clamping (an “element for clamping” has been interpreted to be a “clamping element 9” as discussed in Applicant’s paragraphs [0056]-[0058]) said open U-shaped profile of said engagement element, said clamping element being configured to keep said engagement element stably in contact with said slat (Jansen, Fig. 7, #27, also see paragraph [0045]; compare with Applicant’s Fig. 13).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6,477,727 to Fromme in view of European Patent Application Publication EP 1535541 to Hartmann.
Claim 7. The suspension according to claim 1, wherein the supporting member presents an upright emerging vertically from a relative engagement element, wherein said elastic element has a cavity, made in said relative central body, designed to be inserted stably from above on said upright of the supporting member (Fromme does not disclose details of an upright member that attaches to connection plate #2, however a similar apparatus is taught by Hartmann, which teaches a connection means in Figs. 1-3 comprising a square attachment member at #2; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the male and female portions on square connector #2 to provide the claimed “upright”, since doing so would have been an obvious rearrangement of parts and within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art).
Claim 8. The suspension according to claim N, wherein said cavity has a square cross-section configured to be inserted on the upright of the supporting member according to two configurations normal to each other (Hartmann teaches a connection means in Figs. 1-3 comprising a square attachment member at #2)
Discussion of allowable subject matter
Applicant’s claims 3 and 4 are directed toward engagement elements that include a pin and a cavity. Fromme does not teach these structures in conjunction with his apparatus. The closest prior art with respect to this feature is considered to be US Patent 8,156,583 to Lobry et al. which teaches a connection means with studs in Fig. 8A at #80 and #82. However, Lobry’s studs are not in the claimed orientation “wherein one of the engagement elements has at least one pin and the other of the engagement elements has at least one cavity for housing said pin”. As would most reasonably be interpreted in the context of Applicant’s claimed structures, the pin and stud would have to join the U-shaped portions of Fromme #28.1 seen in Fig. 5, and there is no motivation to combine these various prior art structures in this manner. Furthermore, with respect to claim 4, Lobry additionally discloses “Christmas tree fittings” and does not disclose threaded nuts and bolts. Independent claim 1 would be allowable if amended to include the limitations of claims 2, 3 and 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached on 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.
/MYLES A THROOP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673