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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 04/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/21/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/13/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shaoyu et al. (CN 114536925A), herein Shaoyu.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of (CN 114536925A). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
In regards to claim 1, Shaoyu teaches a double layered foamed sheet comprising a layer comprising a polyurethane foam and a layer comprising an expandable polylactic acid foam [lines 14-15, 82-85, 106-110, 157-163, 182-206].
In regards to claim 9, Shaoyu teaches the PLA is Thailand's Total Corbion Company under the brand name of L175 which comprises homopolymers of polyacid acid (see Pgs. 1-2, Corbin Luminy® PLA neat resins) [lines 106-110].
In regards to claim 10, Shaoyu teaches the PLA comprises additives such as chain extenders and nucleating agents [lines 112-115].
In regards to claim 12, Shaoyu teaches the PU comprises additives such as chain extenders and nucleating agents [lines 112-115].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-13, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cik (US 20120006471 A1) in view of Wei et al. (CN 208941474 U), herein Wei.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of (CN 208941474 U). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
In regards to claims 1 and 18, Cik teaches a composite foam mattress which comprises at least a middle cushioning layer comprising a polyurethane foam and an outer layer comprising a polylactic acid foam [Abstract, 0114, Fig. 13].
Cik differs from claim 1 by teaching polyurethane and polylactic acid foams in a list of possible foam layers, such that it cannot be said that the combination is anticipated.
However, it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed any of the foam layers taught by Cik, including polyurethane and polylactic acid foams. The motivation for doing so is that the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
Cik doesn’t expressly teach that the PLA foam is expandable PLA foam.
However, it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed any PLA foam, including expandable polylactic acid foams. The motivation for doing so is that the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
Alternatively, Wei teaches a polymer mattress [lines 16-17]. The composite mattress comprise a layer of ePLA [lines 55-71, 114-115].
However, it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the ePLA layer of Wei as the PLA foam layer of Cik. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have been the simple substitution of one known PLA foam for another to obtain predictable results.
In regards to claim 2, Cik does not teach the density range of each of the PLA and polyurethane layers, however, Cik teaches the different layers serve different purposes and have different ranges of densities for comfort and support.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have adjusted the density ranges of the foam layer for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.).
It has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to claim 3, Cik teaches a composite foam mattress which comprises at least a middle cushioning layer comprising a polyurethane, PU, foam and an outer layer comprising a polylactic acid, PLA, foam [Abstract, 0114, Fig. 13]. Cik further teaches the outer layer envelops the middle cushioning layer with a layer above and below the polyurethane, PU, layer [Fig. 13].
In regards to claim 4, Cik teaches further teaches an additional layer of polypropylene foam is present or ethylene-vinyl acetate or a viscoelastic gel [0112- 0114].
In regards to claim 5, Cik teaches further teaches the corrugated core which comprises channels and voids comprises polylactic acid foam [0083].
In regards to claim 7, Cik teaches further teaches the corrugated core which comprises channels and voids comprises polylactic acid foam [0083]. The voids are foamed between the core and the polyurethane foam layer [0114, Fig. 13].
In regards to claim 8, Cik teaches further teaches that glue is used to join the layers [0004, 0068].
While not expressly teaching the PLA and polyurethane layers are joined by a layer of glue, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have joined the layers by a layer of glue to stop the layers from bunching up or creating unevenness in the mattress. Additionally, as Cik teaches adhesion by glue is a conventionally known way of securing the layers one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 9, Cik teaches the foam is polylactic acid foam comprises a homopolymer or copolymers [0107].
In regards to claims 12-13 Cik does not expressly teach the polyurethane foam comprises flame retardant additives. However, Cik further teaches a flame retardant is added to one of the layers [0114].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added a flame retardant additive to the polyurethane layer. One would have been motivated to do so as Cik teaches such an addition is conventionally known for layers of a mattress and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Additionally, it would offer added protection to the mattress.
In regards to claim 16, Cik teaches further teaches an outer fabric layer is present [0115, 0119, 0158, 0162]. Cik does not expressly teach the method of attachment of the cover to the layers below. Cik does teach that glue is often used to bond layers together [0004].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have adhered the fabric cover layer to the layer foam layer below with for example glue. One would have been motivated to do so to prevent bunching, wrinkles or shifting of the cover layer.
In regards to claim 17, Cik teaches further teaches the composite article is a cushion [0130, 0167]. The recitation of " for use in a wheelchair or automobile head rest container..." is considered an intended use of the claimed cushion. Cik teaches a substantially identical cushion as that which is claimed and therefore is considered capable of performing the claimed intended use, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2111.01 and 2112.01
Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micklos (US 20200237113 A1) in view of Wei et al. (CN 208941474 U), herein Wei.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of (CN 208941474 U). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
In regards to claims 1, 5-6, 11 and 18, Micklos teaches a multilayer mattress comprising a first layer comprising a foam and having trenches into which support springs are disposed [Abstract, claim 1, 0027, 0031, 0042]. The comfort layer comprises a viscoelastic foam [0037]. Micklos teaches that the foam may be any suitable foam and further teaches that polyurethane is a desirable foam [0031, 0037].
It would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed a viscoelastic polyurethane foam as the viscoelastic foam set forth by Micklos. The motivation for doing so is that the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
Micklos does not teach that the foam of the first layer is ePLA.
Wei teaches a polymer mattress [lines 16-17]. The composite mattress comprises a layer of ePLA and layer of polyurethane [lines 55-71, 82-25, 114-115].
It would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the ePLA layer of Wei as the foam layer of Micklos. One would have been motivated to do so as Wei teaches the ePLA is a conventionally known foam layer in a mattress as well as its compatible with polyurethane and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 8, Micklos teaches the layers are bonded by any suitable adhesive [0038].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cik (US 20120006471 A1) in view of Wei et al. (CN 208941474 U), herein Wei, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20160039990 A1), herein Park’16.
In regards to claim 10, modified Cik does not expressly teach the ePLA comprises additives.
Park’16 teaches expanded PLA bead foams for packaging, thermal and sound insulation applications [Abstract, 0002, 0023, 0049]. Park’16 further teaches the ePLA comprises additives chosen from the group of chain extender, nanoparticles, micro-sized solid particles, fibers, and lubricants. [0016, 0020].
It would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used any of the additives set forth by Park’16 in the ePLA of modified Cik. One would have been motivated to do so as Park’16 teaches such additives are conventionally known of ePLA foams that one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cik (US 20120006471 A1) in view of Wei et al. (CN 208941474 U), herein Wei, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Warren et al. (US 20110154576 A1).
In regards to claim 11, Cik does not expressly teach that the polyurethane foam comprises a viscoelastic polyurethane foam.
However, it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed any polyurethane foam, including a viscoelastic polyurethane foam. The motivation for doing so is that the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
Alternatively, Warren teaches a multilayer mattress comprising layers of foam which may be polyurethane [Abstract, claims 1, 5-6, 0013, 0028, 0037]. Warren teaches that the polyurethane foam is a viscoelastic polyurethane foam [0031, 0037].
It would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a viscoelastic polyurethane foam as taught by Warren as the polyurethane foam of Cik. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have been the simple substitution of one polyurethane foam for another to achieve predictable results. Additionally, as Warren teaches the use of viscoelastic foams are conventionally known in mattresses one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cik (US 20120006471 A1) in view of Wei et al. (CN 208941474 U), herein Wei, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morrison (US 20110252572 A1).
In regards to claim 14, Cik does not expressly teach that the polyurethane foam layer has a first and zone region with different densities.
Morrison teaches multi-layer multi-material foam mattresses [Abstract]. The layers comprises polyurethane and viscoelastic foam [Claim 1, 0008, 0022]. Morrison teaches that one of the layers comprises three zones with at least two having different densities [0009, claim 14]. The zones are designed to provide additional support the user's spine or mid-section [0030].
It would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the three zones of differing densities in the foam layer taught by Morrison in the polyurethane layer of Cik. One would have been motivated to do so as Morrison teaches this configuration provides additional support the user's spine or mid-section and thus provides a more comfortable sleeping experience.
Claims 1, 4, 9-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 101892508 B1) in view of Park et al. (US 20160039990 A1), herein Park’16.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of (KR 101892508 B1). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
In regards to claims 1 and 15, Park teaches composite panel for sound reduction in a building [lines 13-20]. Park teaches the composite comprises a layer of polyurethane foam and expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam [lines 138-144, 159-172, 262-272]. Park does not expressly teach a foam layer is ePLA.
Park’16 teaches expanded PLA bead foams for sound insulation [Abstract, 0002, 0023, 0049]. Park’16 expressly teaches the expanded PLA bead foams are a very good substitute for EPS [0003-0004].
It would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the ePLA foam of Park’16 as the EPS foam of Park. One would have been motivated to do so as Park’16 teaches that he expanded PLA bead foams are a very good substitute for EPS and it is a renewable source, has biocompatibility, and biodegradability, acceptable mechanical and thermal properties.
Both Park and Park’16 fail to teach the STC.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have adjusted the density or thickness of the foam layers for the intended application and to reach a required STC range, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to claim 4, Park further teaches an EVA layer is present in the device [Abstract, lines 262-272].
In regards to claim 9, Park’16 further teaches the ePLA comprises copolymers [0015].
In regards to claim 10, Park’16 further teaches the ePLA comprises additives [0016, 0020].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights