DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to the application filed 10/02/24. Domestic priority to a provisional filed 10/02/23 is proper. Claims 1-21 are currently pending yet all are rejected as detailed below. 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 –
(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.
Rasbach
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rasbach (U.S. Patent No. 8,905,386). Rasbach is directed to coil-in-coil springs and innersprings. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Rasbach discloses a coil-in-coil spring (12) [Figs. 2, 3] comprising: a lower end convolution (at 28); an outer coil (22) including a plurality of helical convolutions extending from the lower end convolution to an upper end convolution (at 30) of the outer coil; and an inner coil (20) including a plurality of helical convolutions extending from the lower end convolution to an upper end convolution of the inner coil; wherein a first portion (24) of the coil-in-coil spring is formed of a wire having a first gauge (t1) and a second portion (26) of the coil-in-coil spring is formed of a wire having a second gauge (t2) different from the first gauge [see Fig. 3 (different thickness)]. See Figs. 2, 3.
Claim 4: Rasbach discloses that the first gauge is lighter than the second gauge. See Fig. 2 (thinner coil, lighter).
Claim 6: For this limitation, use first portion (26) and second portion (24) instead. Rasbach discloses that the first gauge is heavier than the second gauge. See Fig. 2
Claim 8: Rasbach discloses that the first portion of the coil-in-coil spring includes the outer coil and the second portion of the coil-in-coil spring includes the inner coil. See Fig. 2.
Claim 9: Rasbach discloses that the first portion of the coil-in-coil spring includes a lower portion of both the outer coil and the inner coil and the second portion of the coil-in-coil spring includes an upper portion of both the inner coil and the outer coil. See Fig. 2.
Claim 10: see claim 4 above.
Shive
Claim(s) 11 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shive (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0029809). Shive is directed to encased asymmetric coil-in-coil springs and innersprings with alternating coil spring orientations. See Abstract.
Claim 11: Shive discloses a spring core of a mattress [see para. 0023; Fig. 16 (F, U)] comprising: a first support zone (A) [see Figs. 6-8] including a plurality of pocketed coil-in-coil springs (20), each of the plurality of pocketed coil-in-coil springs of the first support zone including an inner coil, and an outer coil extending around the inner coil [see Figs. 9, 10]; and a second support zone (B) [see Figs. 6-8] including a plurality of pocketed coil-in-coil springs, each of the plurality of pocketed coil-in-coil springs of the second support zone including an inner coil, and an outer coil extending around the inner coil; wherein the plurality of pocketed coil-in-coil springs of the first support zone have a first compression characteristic and the plurality of pocketed coil-in-coil springs of the second support zone have a second compression characteristic different than the first compression characteristic [see Fig. 10]. See Figs. 6-10.
Claim 15: Shive discloses that the spring core can be characterized as including a foot portion, a head portion, and a middle portion positioned between the foot portion and the head portion, wherein the first support zone comprises the foot portion, the head portion, or both the foot portion and the head portion, and wherein the second support zone comprises the middle portion. See Fig. 7.
Claim 16: Shive discloses that the first support zone and the second support zone comprise multiple alternating zones. See Figs. 7, 8.
Claim 17: Shive discloses that the spring core can be characterized as including a central portion and a peripheral portion extending around the central portion, wherein the first support zone comprises the central portion, and wherein the second support zone comprises the peripheral portion. See Fig. 8.
Claim 18: Shive discloses that the spring core can be characterized as including a torso support portion and a leg support portion, and wherein the second support zone comprises the torso support portion and the leg support portion. See Fig. 7.
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.
Rasbach in view of DeMoss
Claim(s) 2-3, 5 and 7 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasbach in view of DeMoss (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0257675). DeMoss is directed to coil-in-coil springs and innersprings. See Abstract.
Claim 2: Rasbach is relied upon as in claim 1 above but does uses two separate springs for the coil-in-coil spring rather than using a “continuous wire.” Shive discloses a coil-in-coil spring with an outer coil (10) and an inner coil (20), wherein it is made of a continuous wire forming the inner coil and the outer coil. See claim 1 (“continuous wire”); para. 0025. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a single wire because this is ultimately a design choice, providing advantages such as ensuring proper alignment between the two coils, and ease in manufacturing.
Claims 3, 5 and 7: Rasbach discloses that the continuous wire gauge is between 13 and 16, specifically mentioning 14 and 15.5. See para. 0009-10. Upon using this teaching in Rasbach, which employs different gauge for the two coils, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date to employ the various gauges for each coil recited in the limitations of these claims, ultimately being a design choice based on the intended use for the coil-in-coil springs.
Shive in view of Kulju
Claim(s) 12 and 20-21 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shive in view of Kulju et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,867,475). Kulju is directed to a mattress structure. See Abstract.
Claim 12: Shive is relied upon as in claim 11 above, and further discloses that for each of the plurality of pocketed coil-in-coil springs of the first support zone the inner coil has a first uncompressed height, and the outer coil has a second uncompressed height greater than the first uncompressed height. See Figs. 9, 10.
For the Shive “second zone” the coil-in-coil spring is inverted [see Fig. 10], and although Shive contemplates employing non-helical segments at the ends of the coils in “any of the encased asymmetric innersprings” in the various embodiments [see para. 0028; Fig. 11], there is no explicit discussion of a “third uncompressed height” that is different than (or between) the first and second uncompressed heights. Kulju discloses a mattress with a variety of support zones, at least three or more, which would produce at least three different spring characteristic. See Figs. 1B-3, 9, 10. Upon using this teaching, Shive would employ a second zone inner coil with a third uncompressed height, which can be less than, more than, or between the first two uncompressed heights. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide a third uncompressed height to provide varied spring characteristics in different parts of the mattress to have varied support for different parts of the body resting on the mattress. And as stated above, Shive already contemplates providing varied springs, with different features such as shape [see para. 0028; Fig. 11] or height [see para. 0003], and discusses distinct support zones [see Fig. 10].
Claim 20: Kulju discloses a third support zone including a plurality of pocketed coil-in-coil springs, each of the plurality of pocketed coil-in-coil springs of the third support zone including an inner coil, and an outer coil extending around the inner coil; wherein the plurality of pocketed coil-in-coil springs of the third support zone have a third compression characteristic different than the first compression characteristic and the second compression characteristic.
Claim 21: Shive discloses a spring core of a mattress comprising five support zones each with a compression characteristic [see Fig. 7], with each support zone including a plurality of pocketed coil-in-coil springs, each of the plurality of pocketed coil-in-coil springs including an inner coil, and an outer coil extending around the inner coil [see Figs. 9, 10]; wherein the five support zones are arranged sequentially with the first support zone at a foot end of the spring core and the fifth support zone at a head end of the spring core [see Fig. 7 (B)]; and wherein the first compression characteristic and the fifth compression characteristic are the same; wherein the second compression characteristic and the fourth compression characteristic are the same and different than the first compression characteristic and the fifth compression characteristic [see Fig. 7 (A) on left and right sides). See Fig. 7.
Shive discloses all the limitations of this claim except that the third zone (in the middle of Fig. 7), does not have a compression characteristic that differs from the other zones. See Fig. 7. . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide a third zone with a unique spring characteristic different than the other zones to ensure different parts of the mattress have varied support for different parts of the body resting on the mattress. For example, heft of the body differs in the middle of the body compared to the head and feet of the body.
Shive in view of Rasbach
Claim(s) 13 and 14 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shive in view of Rasbach.
Claims 13 and 14: Shive discloses that for each of the plurality of pocketed coil-in-coil springs of the first and second support zones, the inner coil and the outer coil is made of a continuous wire having a certain gauge. See para. 0023.
Shive does not disclose that either a certain portion or zone of the coil-in-coil springs could have a second, different, gauge. Rasbach discloses a coil-in-coil spring (12) [Figs. 2, 3] with inner and outer coil springs (20, 22), with different portions (24, 26), wherein different gauges (t1, t2) are provided. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide different gauges for the Shive coil-in-coil springs at different portions or zones partly because Shive explicitly contemplates varying the spring characteristics [see Fig. 10 (changing orientation of the spring); Fig. 11, para. 0028 (altering the end portions of the springs to alter spring rate)] and providing them in different zones [see Figs. 2, 6-8], but also because Shive explicitly considers that the wire selected can have a varied gauge to provide the desired spring characteristics [see para. 0003 (“…different coil configurations with variations in wire gauge….”)].
Shive in view of Mossbeck
Claim(s) 19 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shive in view of Mossbeck et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0103479). Mossbeck is directed to a pocketed bedding product having different heights. See Abstract.
Claim 19: Shive is relied upon as in claim 11 above but does not disclose a “checkerboard” arrangement. Mossbeck discloses a mattress with pocketed coil springs, wherein the springs are varied in a checkered pattern across the spring core. See Figs. 4, 5; para. 0037. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide this pattern because Shive already discloses a variety of patterns, including an alternating-type pattern [see Fig. 10], hence a checkerboard-type pattern would be an intuitive alternating-type design.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights