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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8, and 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 7, line 2, the phrase “can be” should be changed to read - -are configured to be - -. In claim 8, line 8, the phrase “from either one end of” should be changed to read - - from either end of - -. In claim 10, line 4, the phrase “kept” should be replaced with located, positioned or another similar term that is positively claiming the location of the flexible body. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orozco (WO 2008/129342 – hereinafter Orozco) in view of Krakauer (US Patent No. 2,979,739) in view of Kobayashi (JP 2003061784).
Regarding Claim 1: Orozco discloses an elastic mattress (modular suspension system 10 of Orozco – Fig. 1), comprising: a base layer (formed of at least covers 330 and 360 joined via the reinforcing element 390 of Orozco) comprising a first surface (uppermost surface of at least the adjoined covers 330 and 360 which is visible in Fig. 1 of Orozco) and a second surface (lowermost surface of at least the adjoined covers 330 and 360 which is not visible in Fig. 1 of Orozco but shown in Fig. 9B and 10B of Orozco) opposite to each other in a height direction of the elastic mattress (see Figs. 1, 9B and 10B of Orozco); a plurality of elastic modules (helical springs 200 of Orozco) detachably arranged on the second surface (via connection means 351 and 381 enabling non-permanent attachment of the springs to the covers 330 and 360 – see Figs. 9B and 10B of Orozco respectively) […].
Orozco does not explicitly disclose the plurality of elastic modules being configured to directly contact the ground; and a pad layer (5) arranged on the first surface (1); wherein no side enclosures are provided at the periphery of the elastic mattress, thereby forming an elastic mattress with fully open sides.
However, in the same field of endeavor, mattress, cushions or the like (see the title of Krakauer), Krakauer teaches disclose wherein no side enclosures are provided at the periphery of the elastic mattress (Col. 3, lines 37-36 of Krakauer - “Since the edges of all the openings and of the sides and ends of the top and bottom are well rounded, the mattress may be used by itself and without padding, covering or ticking”) and the [bottom surface] being configured to directly contact the ground (Col. 3, lines 37-36 of Krakauer - “Since the edges of all the openings and of the sides and ends of the top and bottom are well rounded, the mattress may be used by itself and without padding, covering or ticking”).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Orozco (directed to a modular mattress assembly) and Krakauer (directed to a padding or cushioning member usable without ticking) with a reasonable expectation of success by using the mattress of Orozco without a ticking. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because good ventilation is attained by leaving the ends and sides open (Col. 3, lines 23-26 of Krakauer – “In view of the numerous openings in, and the spacing apart of, the top and bottom and the consequent open and unobstructed sides and ends, good ventilation is obviously attained.”)
Examiner Note – Since Krakauer teaches the spring unit is usable without a covering or ticking and a bottom surface of Orozco comprises a portion of the elastic modules, the combination of Krakauer and Orozco would result in a mattress with the plurality of elastic modules being configured to directly contact the ground due to the lack of additional ticking or covering and because mattresses are both usable on a ground surface and at least capable of being placed on the ground when moving a mattress.
Orozco does not explicitly disclose a pad layer arranged on the first surface.
Kobayashi teaches a pad layer (mat portion 4 of Kobayashi) arranged on the first surface (upper surface of cushion portion 2 of Kobayashi).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Orozco (directed to a modular mattress assembly), Krakauer (directed to a padding or cushioning member usable without ticking) and Kobayashi (removable pad layer) with a reasonable expectation of success by using the mattress of Orozco without a ticking and positioning a removable pad on the top of the upper surface of Orozco as modified by Kobayashi. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “The present invention relates to a bed mat, and in particular, when lying down, it engages with the unevenness of the body in an ideal state and is easy to carry and store, and it is also economically excellent” (see paragraph [0001] of Kobayashi).
Regarding Claim 2: Orozco in view of Krakauer and Kobayashi make obvious the elastic mattress of claim 1, wherein the pad layer (mat portion 4 of Kobayashi) and the base layer (cushion portion 2 of Kobayashi) are connected via a connecting structure arranged therebetween (engagement element 5 of Kobayashi).
Regarding Claim 3: Orozco in view of Krakauer and Kobayashi make obvious the elastic mattress of claim 2, wherein the connecting structure is a hook-and-loop fastener (page 3, paragraph 4 of the English translation of Kobayashi -“engagement element 5 is not part5ticulary limited, but a commercially available surface fastener is preferable”) arranged on the first surface (see Fig. 1 of Kobayashi) of the base layer (cushion portion 2 of Kobayashi) and/or a lower surface of the pad layer (Fig. 1 of Kobayashi showing engagement elements 5 on the top and bottom layers).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orozco (WO 2008/129342 – hereinafter Orozco) in view of Krakauer (US Patent No. 2,979,739) in view of Kobayashi (JP 2003061784) further in view of White (US Patent No. 3,808,616).
Regarding Claim 4: Orozco in view of Krakauer and Kobayashi make obvious the elastic mattress of claim 1, wherein the pad layer (mat portion 4 of Kobayashi) is [stackable] (Fig. 4 of Kobayashi).
Orozco in view of Krakauer and Kobayashi do not disclose or make obvious wherein the pad layer is foldable or rollable pad layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, person supports (see the abstract of White), White teaches a folding pad layer (see cushion assembly 10 of White).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Orozco (directed to a modular mattress assembly), Krakauer (directed to a padding or cushioning member usable without ticking), Kobayashi (removable pad layer) and White (foldable removable pad layer) with a reasonable expectation of success by using the mattress of Orozco without a ticking and positioning a removable pad with hinges on an upper surface of the base layer of Orozco as modified by Krakauer. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because the hinges enable the cushions to be interconnected and adapted for plural operative configurations and detachable for separating the individual cushion sections and for adding or substituting other segments (Col. 2, lines 23-31 of White).
Regarding Claim 5: Orozco in view of Krakauer, Kobayashi and White make obvious the elastic mattress of claim 4, wherein the pad layer (cushion assembly 10 of White – Fig. 1) comprises a plurality of elastic pad blocks (segments 12-16 of White – Fig. 1) arranged in a length direction of the elastic mattress (Fig. 1 of White), and the elastic pad blocks adjacent to each other are connected via a flexible portion (flexible hinges 18, 18’ of White).
Regarding Claim 6: Orozco in view of Krakauer, Kobayashi and White make obvious the elastic mattress of claim 5, wherein the flexible portion comprises grooves (see the space between the upper/lower surfaces of the mattress and the hinges 18/18’ in annotated copy of Fig. 2 of White) formed on an upper surface (top surface of the mattress of White as viewed in Fig. 1) and/or a lower surface of the pad layer (bottom surface of the mattress of White as viewed in Fig. 1) and extending along a width direction of the elastic mattress (as shown in Fig. 1 of White).
PNG
media_image1.png
319
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orozco (WO 2008/129342 – hereinafter Orozco) in view of Krakauer (US Patent No. 2,979,739) in view of Kobayashi (JP 2003061784) further in view of Paz (WO 2011/027316 A2).
Regarding Claim 7: Orozco, Krakauer and Kobayashi make obvious the elastic mattress of claim 1, wherein the base layer is a flexible base layer (the arrangement of elements 330 and 360 being only connected to the support reinforcing element 390 of Orozco create a flexible base layer since when force is applied to elements 330 and 360 they would have some degree of individual flexing).
Orozco, Krakauer and Kobayashi do not explicitly disclose or make obvious the plurality of elastic modules (4) can be removed from the second surface (2) and then nested together.
However, in the same field of endeavor, padding (see the abstract of Paz), Paz teaches the plurality of elastic modules (springs discussed in [00225] of Paz) can be removed from the second surface (see paragraph [00234] of Paz –“In some embodiments, another mechanical locking mechanism may be used in order to lock the cover unit to the body of the final product, thereby allowing assembly of a disassembled product which was shipped in a disassembled form to a retailer, a distributor or an end-user (thereby saving shipping costs and/or storage costs due to nesting and stacking of multiple units).”) and then nested together (Paragraph [00209] of Paz – “Some embodiments provide nest-able and/or stack-able products and/or components, allowing efficient nesting and/or stacking of multiple units, one unit entering partially or almost entirely within another unit.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Orozco (directed to a modular mattress assembly), Krakauer (directed to a padding or cushioning member usable without ticking), Kobayashi (removable pad layer) and Paz (nesting springs) with a reasonable expectation of success by configuring the shape of the springs of Orozco as modified by Krakauer and Kobayashi to be stackable in shape. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because stacking the springs creates a smaller package for shipping therefore lowering costs (see paragraph [00234] of Paz –“In some embodiments, another mechanical locking mechanism may be used in order to lock the cover unit to the body of the final product, thereby allowing assembly of a disassembled product which was shipped in a disassembled form to a retailer, a distributor or an end-user (thereby saving shipping costs and/or storage costs due to nesting and stacking of multiple units.”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Orozco in view of Krakauer and Kobayashi make obvious the limitations of claim 1. However, none of Orozco, Krakauer and Kobayashi disclose or make obvious wherein the second surface (2) of the base layer (3) is provided with a plurality of positioning rails (10) that are spaced apart in a length direction of the elastic mattress, each of the positioning rails (10) extending along a width direction of the elastic mattress, and an installation zone (11) for receiving the elastic modules is formed between the positioning rails (10) adjacent to each other, and wherein each of the elastic modules (4) is configured to be slidable in the width direction of the elastic mattress from either one end of the adjacent positioning rails (10) onto the adjacent positioning rails (10), and then slide in place along the positioning rails (10), such that each of the installation zones (11) are arranged with the plurality of elastic modules (4). Utilizing rails to connect springs to a surface is known in the prior art (see KR 20200071963 to Won). However, because the base layer of Orozco is formed of a plurality of adjacent individual elements 330,360 that are only connected via an outer reinforcing element 390, there would be no motivation to replace the connecting means 351 with rails that extend along a width direction as taught by Won. Won teaches guide rails extending along the width of the bottom mattress for receiving springs. Won further teaches that the “cushion spring 16 contracts when the user receives a load from the cap balance mesh 20”. Therefore, the base layer of Won is the balance mesh layer 20 and the guide rails 14 are positioned across the lower frame 12 of Won.
Claims 9 and 10 depend on claim 8 and are therefore objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The Examiner further makes note of the teachings of Paz. Paz discloses an elastic mattress (padding 7600 of Paz – Fig. 76, 77), comprising: a base layer (tray 7604 of Paz – Fig. 77, 76) comprising a first surface (upper most surface of tray 7604 as viewed in Figs. 76 and 77 of Paz) and a second surface (lower most surface of tray 7604 as viewed in Figs. 76 and 77 of Paz) opposite to each other in a height direction of the elastic mattress (as viewed in Figs. 76 and 77 of Paz); a plurality of elastic modules (flexible springs 7601 of Paz – Figs. 76 and 77) detachably arranged on the second surface (paragraph [00358] of Paz - In some embodiments, the springs 7601 (or some of them) may be non-connected to the tray 7604, and may support the tray 7604, either with or without a clearance between the springs 7601 and the tray 7604. In other embodiments, the springs 7601 (or some of them) may be connected to the tray 7604, for example, using a snap mechanism, using friction ribs (e.g., near joint areas), using friction pins (e.g., rising from each spring 7601 into a corresponding hole or cavity in tray 7604), using welding or gluing or pinning, or using other suitable attachment mechanisms), a pad layer (top 3102 – shown in Fig. 31 of Paz) […].
Paz does not disclose the plurality of elastic modules being configured to directly contact the ground; and the pad layer arranged on the first surface (1); wherein no side enclosures are provided at the periphery of the elastic mattress, thereby forming an elastic mattress with fully open sides and does not disclose or make obvious the limitations of the positioning rails of claim 8. Additionally, as discussed above, Won teaches guide rails extending along the width of the bottom mattress for receiving springs. Won further teaches that the “cushion spring 16 contracts when the user receives a load from the cap balance mesh 20”. Therefore, the base layer of Won is the balance mesh layer 20 and the guide rails 14 are positioned across the lower frame 12 of Won meaning the teachings of Won would not be obvious to apply to Paz. Additionally, Paz teaches the base layer flexing when a downward force is applied (Figs. 76 and 77 of Paz), which contrasts to the use of Won which teaches the rails being positioned on the bottom rails of the bottom mattress.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GB 347033 A to Finestone is cited for teaching a mattress with conical springs attached to an upper surface.
KR 102037625 to Won is cited for teaching spring elements mounted in a groove (22 of Won).
KR 20200071963 A to Won is cited for teaching spring elements mounted in guide a rail (see Figs. 4-5 of Won).
US PG Pub. No. 2018/0199728 to Leng is cited for teaching a bed with an elastic module configured to directly contact the ground (paragraph [0173] of Leng).
US Patent No. 4,956,884 to Hwang is cited for teaching a modular box spring or mattress.
US Patent No. 6,477,727 to Fromme is cited for teaching modular springs with brackets for mounting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA L BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/AMANDA L BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3673