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
Claims 7-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 24, 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPAP 2014/0208521 (Farnham hereinafter).
With regard to claim 1, Farnham discloses a mattress comprising:
a first foam layer (11); and
a second foam layer (22), wherein a top surface of the second foam layer (22) is in contact with a bottom surface of the first foam layer (11), and wherein the top surface of the second foam layer (22) is formed with a first ridged pattern having a first plurality of ridges (23);
wherein the first ridged pattern has a first dimension between two ridges (23) of the first plurality of ridges and a second dimension at a bottom (25) of between ridges (23) of the first plurality of ridges, wherein a firmness of the mattress is dependent on a ratio of the first dimension and the second dimension.
It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art.
With regard to claim 2, Farnham discloses the mattress of claim 1, wherein a first instance of the mattress in which the second dimension is greater than the first dimension has a greater firmness than a second instance of the mattress in which the first dimension is greater than the second dimension.
It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art.
With regard to claim 3, Farnham discloses the mattress of claim 1, wherein ones of the plurality of ridges have a first height from a trough between ones of the plurality of ridges to a top of ones of the plurality of ridges, and a second height between the trough of between ones of the plurality of ridges and a bottom surface of the second foam layer (22), and wherein the firmness of the mattress is further dependent on a ratio of the first height to the second height.
It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art.
With regard to claim 4, Farnham discloses the mattress of claim 3, wherein a first instance of the mattress in which the second height is greater than the first height has a greater firmness than a second instance of the mattress in which the first height is greater than the second height.
It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art.
With regard to claim 5, Farnham discloses the mattress of claim 1, wherein the bottom surface of the first foam layer (11) is formed having the first ridged pattern such that the top surface of the second foam layer (22) conforms to and is complementary with the first ridged pattern as formed on the bottom surface of the first foam layer (11) (Fig.’s 3A and 3B).
With regard to claim 6, Farnham discloses the mattress of claim 1, wherein a top portion of ones of the first plurality of ridges is flat, and wherein a bottom portion between the ones of the first plurality of ridges is flat, and wherein a dimension of the top portion is equal to a dimension of the bottom portion (Fig.’s 1-5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP’s 3,222,697, 3,197,357, and 4,673,452 as well as USPAP’s 2026/0114635, 2023/0172367, 2017/0027335, 2016/0262561, 2012/0189809, 2008/0060139, and 2005/0193497 each disclose foam mattresses with ridged patterns.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON R EASTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 C. 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.
/AARON R EASTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights