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 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued, “In contrast to such a construction including an upper continuous sheet and a lower continuous sheet brought together with a plurality of amounts of flexible foam positioned between the rows of the coil springs atop the upper continuous sheet, none of the other references cited by the Examiner teach or even remotely describe such a mattress assembly. Dahlin is merely directed to a bed arrangement 1 with pockets 51 of springs arranged in strings 52, where each string 52 is made of a continuous cover material. See Dahlin at para. [0079]; FIG. 5a (reproduced below). The continuous cover material forming the pockets 51 of springs arranged in strings 52 of Dahlin, however, cannot remotely be described as an upper continuous sheet and a lower continuous sheet, as provided in the amended claims. Instead, in Dahlin, a singular continuous cover material forms the string 52 of pockets 51. See Dahlin at para. [0079]; FIG. 5a. Additionally, as a singular continuous cover material forms the string 52 of pockets 51, there is no remote description or teaching of a top area of fabric formed from a portion of the upper continuous cover material covering the upper portion of each coil spring, as provided in the amended claims. Instead, the continuous cover material forms the entirety of the pocket 51 surrounding a coil spring in a given string 52. See Dahlin at para. [0079]; FIG. 5a. Dahlin is further deficient because the singular continuous cover material does not form a bottom area from a portion of the lower continuous sheet covering the lower portion of each coil spring, as also provided in the amended claims. See Dahlin at para. [0079]; FIG. 5a.”
Examiner notes that a new reference is being used to teach the upper and lower sheets in response to the amendments describing the connection of the two sheets which were not previously in any claim.
Applicant further argued, “Dahlin further describes elastic elements 57 that can be arranged on the top and/or bottom of the mattress, or the sides of the mattress and between the strings 52. See Dahlin at paras. [0084]-[0085]; FIGS. 8a and 8b (reproduced below). This can hardly be described as plurality of amounts of flexible foam "positioned between the rows of the coil springs atop the upper continuous sheet" though. In particular, in embodiments where the elastic elements 57 are arranged on top and/or on bottom of the mattress in Dahlin, Dahlin specifically indicates that8"[t]he elastic elements are preferably connected ... to the strings at a plurality of positions, such as every pocket it comes into contact with." See Dahlin at para. [0084]. Further, in embodiments where the elastic elements 57 are arranged on the sides of the mattress and between the strings 52, the "elastic elements are provided between each pair of strings." See Dahlin at para. [0085]. In some further embodiments, Dahlin does indicate that elastic elements 57' or inflatable tubes 57" may be provided between the springs within the same row. See Dahlin at paras. [0087]-[0089]; FIGS. 8e and 8f (reproduced below). Alternatively, Dahlin also indicates that the elastic elements 57' or inflatable tubes 57" may be arranged between adjacent strings or rows. See Dahlin at paras. [0087]-[0089]; FIGS. 8e and 8f. However, Dahlin is still deficient because these embodiments contemplate the elastic elements 57' and inflatable tubes 57" are positioned through cutouts in the singular cover material of the strings 52 or between strings 52 of pockets 51 formed from the singular cover material, and are thus not "positioned between the rows of coil springs atop the upper continuous sheet" as recited in the claims of the present application. See Dahlin at paras. [0087]-[0089]; FIGS. 8e and 8f.”
This is not found persuasive. The claims require a matrix of springs extending in rows, and when looking at Figure 8a, for example, the springs shown without elements 57 atop them form a matrix extending in rows. The elements 57 are then positioned on the continuous upper sheet of the combination, between the rows of springs, which are the odd rows without 57 above them. Although examiner recognizes the difference pointed out, that the flexible foam is positioned directly between two adjacent springs and rests on the connecting fabric alone rather than any interceding springs, and that the flexible foam is positioned above the distance partially up the height of coil springs, but below the maximum height of the coil springs, but as none of this is currently specified in the claims, Dahlin continues to read on the claims as written.
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, 2, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlin (US Patent Application Publication 20170086597) in view of Thompson (US Patent 3462779) in view of Fisher (US Patent Application Publication 20160367042).
Regarding claim 1, Dahlin teaches a mattress assembly, comprising: a spring core (Figure 1a; 3) having a first support surface (Figure 1a; 3, top) and a second support surface (Figure 1a; 3, bottom) opposite the first support surface, the spring core including: a plurality of coil springs positioned in a matrix and extending in rows from a first end of the mattress assembly to a second end of the mattress assembly (Figure 1a; 3, as shown), each coil spring having an upper portion and a lower portion, the upper portion and the lower portion collectively defining a height of each coil spring, a plurality of fabric pockets, each fabric pocket encasing one of the plurality of coil springs (Figure 5a; as shown), and each fabric pocket including a top area covering the upper portion of each coil spring and a bottom area covering the lower portion of each coil spring, and a plurality of amounts of a flexible elements positioned between the rows of the coil springs atop the upper continuous sheet, each of the plurality of amounts of flexible foam having a top surface (Figure 8a; 57 are positioned between rows not having 57 on top, see also Paragraph 84). Dahlin does not teach specifically the flexible elements are foam and an upper continuous sheet extending across the upper portion of each coil spring of the plurality of coil springs, a lower continuous sheet extending across the lower portion of each coil spring of the plurality of coil springs, the fabric pockets formed by bringing together the upper continuous sheet and the lower continuous sheet between each of the plurality of coil springs and connecting the upper continuous sheet and lower continuous sheet at a distance partially up a height of the coil springs, the top area of the fabric pocket formed from a portion of the upper continuous sheet and the bottom area of the fabric pocket formed from a portion of the lower continuous sheet, such that each of amounts of flexible foam are located above the distance partially up the height of the coil springs. Thompson teaches an upper continuous sheet (Figure 3; 32) extending across the upper portion of each coil spring of the plurality of coil springs, a lower continuous sheet (Figure 3; 34) extending across the lower portion of each coil spring of the plurality of coil springs, the fabric pockets formed by bringing together the upper continuous sheet and the lower continuous sheet between each of the plurality of coil springs and connecting the upper continuous sheet and lower continuous sheet at a distance partially up a height of the coil springs (Figure 3; 38), the top area of the fabric pocket formed from a portion of the upper continuous sheet and the bottom area of the fabric pocket formed from a portion of the lower continuous sheet (Figure 3; 32 and 34 as shown), such that each of amounts of flexible foam are located above the distance partially up the height of the coil springs (Examiner notes that when this style of pocketing were applied to Dahlin, the flexible foam would be located between rows (the rows being defined as the non foam containing springs. Examiner further notes that the top portion of the foam would be located above the “distance partially up” where the pocket seams are located in Thompson, on top of the upper sheet). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Dahlin(directed to rows of springs with foam in between those rows) and Thompson (directed to pocketed springs) and arrived at rows of pocketed springs with foam in between those rows . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because doing so “provides an effective means for extending the life of the internal portion of the cushion” as taught in Thompson (Column 3; lines 22-25).Fisher teaches the flexible elements are foam (Paragraph 61 and Figure 21, 1141). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Dahlin (directed to a spring core with flexible elements between rows) and Thompson (directed to pocketed springs) and Fisher (directed to a spring core with a foam element between rows) and arrived at a pocketed spring core with a flexible foam element between rows. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination so that "different configurations are contemplated such that different properties are imparted to different regions of the padding system "as taught in Fisher (Paragraph 61).
Regarding claim 2, Dahlin teaches the first support surface comprises the top surface of the plurality of amounts of the flexible elements and the upper portion of each coil spring (Figure 8a; the top consists of the coil tops and the elastic elements 57, as shown). Dahlin does not teach specifically the flexible elements are foam. Fisher teaches the flexible elements are foam (Paragraph 61 and Figure 21, 1141). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Dahlin (directed to a spring core with flexible elements between rows) and Thompson (directed to pocketed springs) and Fisher (directed to a spring core with a foam element between rows) and arrived at a pocketed spring core with a flexible foam element between rows. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination so that "different configurations are contemplated such that different properties are imparted to different regions of the padding system "as taught in Fisher (Paragraph 61).
Regarding claim 8, Dahlin teaches each of the plurality of amounts of the flexible elements is a continuous amount of flexible elements extending between the rows of coil springs (Figure 8a; 57, as shown, extends between the two adjacent rows of coil springs to the row it is on top of). Dahlin does not teach specifically the flexible elements are foam. Fisher teaches the flexible elements are foam (Paragraph 61 and Figure 21, 1141). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Dahlin (directed to a spring core with flexible elements between rows) and Thompson (directed to pocketed springs) and Fisher (directed to a spring core with a foam element between rows) and arrived at a pocketed spring core with a flexible foam element between rows. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination so that "different configurations are contemplated such that different properties are imparted to different regions of the padding system "as taught in Fisher (Paragraph 61).
Regarding claim 11, Dahlin teaches an upper body supporting layer (Figure 11; 7b) positioned adjacent to the first support surface of the spring core; and a lower foundation layer positioned adjacent to the second support surface of the spring core (Figure 11; 5).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlin (US Patent Application Publication 20170086597) in view of Thompson (US Patent 3462779) in view of Fisher (US Patent Application Publication 20160367042) in view of Codos (US Patent 9661932).
Regarding claim 9, Dahlin does not teach each of the amounts of the flexible foam is a plurality of discrete amounts of flexible foam positioned between the rows of the coil springs. Codos teaches each of the amounts of the flexible foam is a plurality of discrete amounts of flexible foam positioned between the rows of the coil springs (Figure 5; 32 (Examiner notes the resilient element 57 in Figure 8a of Dahlin would be substituted for individual resilient elements 32 in Codos). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Dahlin (directed to a spring core with flexible elements between rows) and Thompson (directed to pocketed springs) and Fisher (directed to a spring core with a foam element between rows) and Codos (directed to pocketed springs with individual flexible elements) and arrived at a pocketed spring core with individual flexible foam elements between rows. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to develop a mattress that eliminates sheet cushioning layers that are subject to shear forces from sleeper compressive loads and their resultant premature failure resulting in a longer life mattress.” (Codos Column 3; lines 37-40).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlin (US Patent Application Publication 20170086597) in view of Thompson (US Patent 3462779) in view of Fisher (US Patent Application Publication 20160367042) in view of Codos (US Patent 9661932) in view of Nold (US Patent 5153956).
Regarding claim 10, Dahlin and Codos do not teach each of the plurality of discrete amounts of the flexible foam has a convex top. Nold teaches each of the plurality of discrete amounts of the flexible foam has a convex top (Figure 6; as shown). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Dahlin (directed to a spring core with flexible elements between rows) and Thompson (directed to pocketed springs) and Fisher (directed to a spring core with a foam element between rows) and Codos (directed to pocketed springs with individual flexible elements) and Nold (directed to convex flexile elements) and arrived at a pocketed spring core with individual convex flexible foam elements between rows. 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).
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