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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being disclosed by Morry (US Patent 5222264).
Regarding claim 1, Morry teaches a mattress assembly, comprising: a spring core having a first support surface and a second support surface opposite the first support surface (Figure 1; springs at 10, top and bottom are first and second 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 4; 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 (Column 6; lines 34-46), each fabric pocket encasing one of the plurality of coil springs, 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 (Column 6; lines 34-46), and a plurality of amounts of a flexible foam (Figure 1; 25) each having a top surface and each positioned between the rows of the coil springs (Figure 4; the foam portions 25 are positioned between two rows of empty coil springs as shown by the empty circles in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 9, Morry 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 1; 25 and Figure 4; 25, positioned between rows of foam-less springs as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 1).
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 is alternatively rejected and claims 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 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 each having a top surface and each positioned between the rows of the coil springs (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. 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 Fisher (directed to a spring core with a foam element between rows) and arrived at a 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 Fisher (directed to a spring core with a foam element between rows) and arrived at a 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 3, Dahlin teaches an upper continuous sheet covering the upper portion of each coil spring (Figure 7a; see top strip continuously covering each spring).
Regarding claim 4, Dahlin teaches the flexible element is positioned atop the upper continuous sheet (Figure 8a; 57, as shown, see also Paragraph 84). 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 Fisher (directed to a spring core with a foam element between rows) and arrived at a 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 5, Dahlin teaches for each fabric pocket, a portion of the upper continuous sheet forms the top area of the fabric pocket (Figure 7a; as shown).
Regarding claim 6, Dahlin teaches a lower continuous sheet covering the lower portion of each coil spring (Figure 7a; see lower surface of continuous pocketed string which covers the lower portion of each coil spring).
Regarding claim 7, Dahlin teaches for each fabric pocket, a portion of the lower continuous sheet forms the bottom area of the fabric pocket (Figure 7a; see lower surface of continuous pocketed string which covers the lower portion of each coil spring and pocket).
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 Fisher (directed to a spring core with a foam element between rows) and arrived at a 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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morry (US Patent 5222264) in view of Nold (US Patent 5153956).
Regarding claim 10, Morry does 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 Morry (directed to a spring core with foam elements between rows) and Nold (directed to a foam elements having convex tops) and arrived at a 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 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
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