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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,137,816 (hereinafter referred to as the reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-13 of the reference patent fully anticipate claims 1-13 of the instant application. Additionally, claims 1 and 9 of the reference patent fully anticipate independent claim 14 of the instant application. Finally, claims 1, 14, and 19 of the reference patent fully anticipate independent claim 19 of the instant application and claim 19 additionally anticipates claim 20 of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the outer liner" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maier (German Publication No. DE 102014113073 A1)
Regarding claim 19, Maier discloses a mattress assembly 1, comprising: a tub 60 and 66 including rails 60 and a base 66, the tub 60 and 66 defining an interior cavity 61 bound by the rails 60 and the base 66 (Figure 9); a plurality of non-laminated and rearrangeable layers 10, 20, 30, 40 positioned within the interior cavity 61 to provide both support and comfort levels within the mattress assembly 1 (Figure 9 and paragraphs 0073 and 0080), each layer 10, 20, 30, 40 including at least one of a layer cover or a layer foam (paragraph 0076, where each layer is comprised of foam and have a textile fabric to cover them to lower the friction between the tub and the layers); and a cover system 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 including a removable cover 54 allowing selective access to the plurality of layers 10, 20, 30, 40 and the interior cavity 61 and selectively compressing the plurality of layers 10, 20, 30, 40 within the tub 60 and 66 (Figure 5 and paragraphs 0078 and 0027 where the outer shell of the assembly sits snugly on the frame so the layers are optimally fixed); wherein the cover system includes a first zipper 53 and a second zipper 53 coupling the removable cover 54 to the tub, and the first zipper and the second zipper are coupled to an inner perimeter of the rails 60 (Figure 5).
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (German Publication No. DE 102014113073 A1) in view of Rugset (Patent Publication No. WO 01/70076 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Maier (German Publication No. DE 102014113073 A1) discloses a mattress assembly 1 comprising: a tub 60 and 66 including rails 60 and a base 66, the tub 60 defining an interior cavity 61 bound by the rails 60 and the base 66; a plurality of non-laminated and rearrangeable layers 10, 20, 30, 40 positioned within the interior cavity 61 to provide both support and comfort levels within the mattress assembly 1 (Figure 9 and paragraphs 0073 and 0080), each layer 10, 20, 30, 40 including at least one of a layer cover or a layer foam (paragraph 0076, where each layer is comprised of foam and have a textile fabric to cover them to lower the friction between the tub and the layers); and a cover system 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 including a removable cover 54 allowing selective access to the plurality of layers 10, 20, 30, 40 and the interior cavity 61 and selectively compressing the plurality of layers 10, 20, 30, 40 within the tub 60 and 66 (Figure 5 and paragraphs 0078 and 0027 where the outer shell of the assembly sits snugly on the frame so the layers are optimally fixed); wherein the cover system includes a first zipper 53 and a second zipper 53 coupling the removable cover 50 to the tub.
Maier does not explicitly disclose wherein the first zipper and the second zipper meet at a central portion of a front side of the mattress assembly.
Rugset (Patent Publication No. WO 01/70076 A1) teaches wherein the first zipper 3 and the second zipper 3 meet at a central portion of a front side of the mattress assembly (Figures 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Maier (directed to a mattress with interchangeable layers) with Rugset (directed to a mattress with a removable cover) such that the first zipper and the second zipper meet at a central portion of a front side of the mattress assembly One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the cover of Rugset consists of two identical parts, allowing for the parts of the cover to be more easily replaced when needed (Page 4, lines 3-19).
Regarding claim 2, Maier, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Maier, as modified, further discloses wherein the tub defines a rail height and a base height (see Maier, annotated Figure 10 below, where the rail 60 and base 66 are integral are the rail height can be considered the entire height of the side walls of the mattress, paragraph 0081). Maier does not explicitly disclose, a ratio of the rail height to the base height is between about 2.5 and about 2.9.
PNG
media_image1.png
379
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It nevertheless would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maier so that the ratio of the rail height to the base height is between about 2.5 and about 2.9, because doing so would merely amount to a potential change in the relative dimensions of the tub of Maier, where the base 66 is significantly shorter than the rail 60 which extends the entire height of the mattress (paragraph 0081 where the rail 60 and base 66 are integral, additionally see Figure 10). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the claimed size, because Applicant has not disclosed that having such a size itself solves any stated problem, the claimed size does not provide any unexpected result, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well where a ratio of the rail height to the base height is of another size, such as a providing a thinner base to expand the cavity height so that more customizable inserts may be placed in the cavity. Overall, Applicant has not established any criticality of the claimed size, and thus selecting the claimed size would be an obvious matter of design choice. In this regard, MPEP 2144.04 and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) are relevant.
Regarding claim 6, Maier, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Maier, as modified, further discloses wherein each of the plurality of layer covers (see Maier, paragraph 0076) includes a layer identifier 15, 25, 35, 45 that aids an end user in identifying a characteristic of the layer (see Maier, Figures 10-11, and paragraph 0081 where each layer has flags to provide information about the hardness profile of the layer).
Claims 3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier in view of Rugset and further in view of Schwartz (U.S. Patent No. 5,513,402).
Regarding claim 3, Maier, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Maier, as modified, further discloses wherein the plurality of layers 10, 20, 30, 40 includes: a first layer foam 10 being constructed of a first material, a second layer foam 20 being constructed of a second material, a third layer foam 30 being constructed of a third material, and a fourth layer foam 40 being constructed of a fourth material, (see Maier, Figures 9 and 10, and paragraph 0080 where each layer 10, 20, 30, 40 can have respective hardness profiles, 19, 29, 39, 49, and see paragraph 0077 where different hardness profiles can result from different foam densities), where at least one of the layers can be identical to another layer (see Maier, paragraph 0070, where only one of the layers is required to be different from the rest of the layers in order to customize the firmness profiles of the mattress).
Maier, as modified, does not disclose a fifth layer foam being constructed of the fourth material.
Schwartz (U.S. Patent No. 5,513,402) teaches a fifth layer 79 (Figure 20, where five foam layers 74, 75, 76, 77, and 79 are present, and see, Maier, paragraph 0028, where the layers may be constructed of a polyurethane foam or a cold foam, such that all the layers may be one of polyurethane or cold foam, with different hardness profiles and paragraph 0077, where different hardness profiles may be achieved by using the same foam and placing different densities of apertures in the foam)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Maier, as previously modified, with a fifth layer foam being constructed of the fourth material as taught by Schwartz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because providing more layers would allow a user to further customize the firmness profile of their mattress by rearranging the layers in a desired order (see Schwartz, Col. 11, lines 21-38). Moreover, doing so would merely amount to a simple duplication of parts, where an additional layer may be added to the mattress, that would not provide unexpected results, where both Schwartz and Maier disclose a customizable mattress with a plurality of interchangeable layer in order to provide a customized firmness profiled (see Schwartz, Col. 11, lines 21-38 and Maier, paragraph 0010). In this regard, MPEP 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) are relevant.
Regarding claim 5, Maier, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Maier, as modified, further discloses wherein the plurality of layers 10, 20, 30, 40 includes: a first layer 10, a second layer 20, a third layer 30, and a fourth layer 40 (see Maier, Figure 10).
Maier does not disclose the first layer defining a thickness of between one and two inches, the second layer defining a thickness of between one and two inches, the third layer defining a thickness of between one and two inches, the fourth layer defining a thickness of between one and two inches, and a fifth layer defining a thickness of between one and two inches.
Schwartz teaches the first layer 74 defining a thickness of between one and two inches, the second layer 75 defining a thickness of between one and two inches, the third layer 76 defining a thickness of between one and two inches, the fourth layer 77 defining a thickness of between one and two inches, and a fifth layer 79 defining a thickness of between one and two inches (Figure 20 and Col. 8, lines 60-67, where the mattress layer can be 3cm, or 1.18in, thick and all layers can have a uniform thickness).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maier, as previously modified, so that the first layer defining a thickness of between one and two inches, the second layer defining a thickness of between one and two inches, the third layer defining a thickness of between one and two inches, the fourth layer defining a thickness of between one and two inches, and a fifth layer defining a thickness of between one and two inches as taught by Schwartz, because providing a uniform thickness to each of the layers will allow the layers to be interchangeable between separate mattress cavities and providing a mattress of a standard size, such as North American sizes, would allow a user to use standard sheets with the customizable mattress (see Schwartz, Col. 8, lines 60-67). Additionally, providing more layers would allow a user to further customize the firmness profile of their mattress by rearranging the layers in a desired order (see Schwartz, Col. 11, lines 21-38). Moreover, doing so would merely amount to a simple duplication of parts, where an additional layer may be added to the mattress, that would not provide unexpected results, where both Schwartz and Maier disclose a customizable mattress with a plurality of interchangeable layer in order to provide a customized firmness profiled (see Schwartz, Col. 11, lines 21-38 and Maier, paragraph 0010). In this regard, MPEP 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) are relevant.
Regarding claim 7, Maier, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 6. Maier, as modified, further discloses wherein the plurality of layers 10, 20, 30, 40 includes a first layer identifier 15 including a first colored fabric (see Maier, Figure 10 and paragraph 0081 where each layer identifier can be a different color to indicate different hardness profiles), a second layer identifier 25 including a colored fabric (see Maier, Figure 10 and paragraph 0081 where each layer identifier can be a different color to indicate different hardness profiles), a third layer identifier 35 including a colored fabric (see Maier, Figure 10 and paragraph 0081 where each layer identifier can be a different color to indicate different hardness profiles), a fourth layer 45 identifier including a colored fabric (see Maier, Figure 10 and paragraph 0081 where each layer identifier can be a different color to indicate different hardness profiles), where at least one of the layers can be identical to another layer (see Maier, paragraph 0070, where only one of the layers is required to be different from the rest of the layers in order to customize the firmness profiles of the mattress).
Maier, as modified, does not disclose a fifth layer identifier including the fourth color, wherein the layer identifiers include a colored fabric.
Schwartz teaches a fifth layer (where Schwartz teaches five layers 74, 75, 76, 77, and 79, Figure 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maier with a fifth layer identifier including the fourth colored fabric as taught by Schwartz, where Maier discloses only one of the layers is required to be different from the rest of the layers in order to customize the firmness profiles of the mattress (see Maier, paragraph 0070). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because providing more layers would allow a user to further customize the firmness profile of their mattress by rearranging the layers in a desired order (see Schwartz, Col. 11, lines 21-38). Moreover, doing so would merely amount to a simple duplication of parts, where an additional layer may be added to the mattress, that would not provide unexpected results, where both Schwartz and Maier disclose a customizable mattress with a plurality of interchangeable layer in order to provide a customized firmness profiled (see Schwartz, Col. 11, lines 21-38 and Maier, paragraph 0010). In this regard, MPEP 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) are relevant.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier in view of Rugset and Schwartz and further in view of O’Connell (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0224126).
Regarding claim 4, Maier, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 3. Maier, as modified, further discloses wherein the second, third, and fourth materials are a polyurethane foam (see Maier, paragraph 0028, where the foam used in the layers 20, 30, 40 can be polyurethane foam), where the material can have varying densities (see Maier, paragraph 0077, where each foam layer can be constructed with different densities).
Maier, as modified, does not disclose the first material is a gel memory foam with a density of about 4.0 pounds per cubic foot, the second material has a density of about 3.6 pounds per cubic foot and an indentation load deflection of between about 20 and about 26, the third material has a density of about 1.8 pounds per cubic foot and an indentation load deflection of about 45, and the fourth material has a density of 1.8 pounds per cubic foot and an indentation load deflection of about 33.
O’Connell teaches wherein a layer 115 is a gel memory foam (Figure 1 and paragraph 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Maier, as previously modified, so that the first material is a gel memory foam as taught by O’Connell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because a memory foam layer which incorporates gel is able to effectively remove or absorb the body heat of a user to provide a cooler temperature to the sleeping area (paragraph 0020).
Additionally, Maier teaches the advantages of using different densities, where the placement of a firmer foam layer lower in the stack of layers 10, 20, 30, and 40 can produce a softer mattress while placing it higher in the stack of layers can provide a firmer mattress, and overall discusses that having different firmness in the layers can allow a user to achieve customized feel (paragraph 0010). Furthermore, Schwartz teaches that to construct a mattress, generally foams with a density of greater than 32 kg per cubic meter (1.998 pounds per cubic foot) are used, and a higher density foam is generally more resilient to impact, is structurally stronger, and retains its properties better over time, and the placement of foams with different compression characteristics in specific orders will change how the mattress is able to be customize to a desired firmness (Col. 11, lines 21-38). Finally, O’Connell teaches that foams with a wide variety of ILD values may be used in the mattress and that by reorienting the support members, the mattress is customizable to the desired body support of the user (paragraph 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the first material with a density of about 4.0 pounds per cubic foot, the second material with a density of about 3.6 pounds per cubic foot and an indentation load deflection of between about 20 and about 26, the third material with a density of about 1.8 pounds per cubic foot and an indentation load deflection of about 45, and the fourth material with a density of 1.8 pounds per cubic foot and an indentation load deflection of about 33, because doing so would merely amount to an optimization in the firmness profiles of the provided layers in order to provide a customizable mattress through interchangeable layers. Doing so would not provide unexpected results, as Maier discusses the advantages of using different densities in a customizable mattress arrangement (such as placing a firmer foam layer lower in the stack of layers can produce a softer mattress while placing it higher in the stack of layers can provide a firmer mattress, see paragraph 0010), Schwartz discusses that generally foams with a density of greater than 32 kg per cubic meter (1.998 pounds per cubic foot) are used, and the placement of foams with different compression characteristics in specific orders will change how the mattress is able to be customize to a desired firmness (Col. 11, lines 21-38). Finally, O’Connell notes that foam layers with a wide variety of ILD values may be used to customize the desired body support of the user (paragraph 0015). In this way, the way changes to densities and ILDs in the foam in customizable mattress affect the mattress are known, and therefore not unexpected, and it is known in the art that these variables may be adjusted in provided foam layers to obtain specific and/or customized mattress firmness profiles. In this regard, MPEP 2144.05 and In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) are relevant.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier in view of Rugset and further in view Jensen (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0182042)
Regarding claim 8, Maier, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Maier, as modified, further discloses wherein the cover system includes an inner liner (see Maier, paragraph 0075, where the frame can contain a foam core and covered with a cushion cover) and a top cover 54 (see Maier, Figure 5), wherein the top cover 54 is not directly coupled to the inner liner (see Maier, Figure 5, where the top cover is directly coupled via zippers 53 to the outer liner 50). Maier does not disclose wherein a fire-retardant inner liner and a fire-retardant top cover.
Jensen (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0182042) teaches a fire-retardant liner 120 and a fire-retardant top cover 140 (Figure 8 and paragraph 0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maier, as previously modified, with a fire-retardant inner liner and a fire-retardant top cover as taught by Jensen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because incorporating a flame-retardant material into to the covers provides a flame-retardant barrier that completely surrounds underlying mattress layers (see Jensen, paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 9, Maier, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Maier, as modified, further discloses wherein the cover system includes an outer liner 50 (see Maier, Figure 5 and paragraph 0074) and a removable top cover 1 (through zippers 3) to the outer liner 1 (see Rugset, Figures 3-4). Maier, as modified, does not disclose the outer liner including a pocket, and the pocket holding recipe cards.
Jensen teaches an outer liner 220 including a pocket 263 (paragraph 0053), and the pocket configured to hold one or more recipe cards (paragraph 0053, where the pocket 263 can be used to store various materials that may be associated with the cover assembly or an underlying mattress).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maier, as previously modified, with Jensen (both being directed to mattress comprising covers) so that the outer liner including a pocket configured to hold recipe cards as taught by Jensen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the pocket of Jensen allows for pertinent information about a mattress to be stored on the mattress in case a user needs access to the information.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier in view of Rugset and Jensen and further in view of Rose (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0170042)
Regarding claim 10, Maier, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Maier, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the layer covers define a different material density than the layer foams.
Rose (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0170042) teaches wherein the layer covers define a different material density than the layer foams (paragraphs 0063 and 0065 where the covers can comprise a variety of materials such as cotton, which is breathable, absorbent and washable, or other permeable or impermeable fabric such as wool, silk, linen, polyester fleece and paragraph 0039-0040 where the various components of the mattress 200 can be made of visco-elastic polyurethane foam or other types of foam known in the art such as polystyrene or latex foam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maier, as previously modified, so that the layer covers define a different material density than the layer foams as taught by Rose. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the covers of Rose can impart a material property not found in the foam layers, such as in the case of a cotton cover, which is breathable, absorbent, and washable, or a flame-retardant or resistant cover, which protects a user from fire (paragraph 0065).
Regarding claim 11, Regarding claim 12, Maier, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Maier, as modified, does not disclose wherein the layer covers are removable from the layer foams.
Rose (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0170042) teaches wherein the layer covers are removable from the layer foams (paragraphs 0063 and 0065, where the covers may be provided with a zipper for removal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maier, as previously modified, so that the layer covers are removable from the layer foams as taught by Rose. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because providing removable layer covers allows for the layer cover to be changed out or washed by a user (paragraph 0065).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier in view of Rugset and further in view of Magnussen (U.S. Patent No. 4,449,261).
Regarding claim 12, Maier, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Maier, as modified, further discloses wherein the cover system includes an inner liner surrounding the tub 60 and 66 and fully covering a top surface of the tub 60 and 66 (see Maier, paragraph 0075-0076, where the foam body of the frame is covered with a cushion or textile cover so that the individual layers 10, 20, 30, 40 when inserted into the opening do not adhere on the side of the frame 60, but properly insert into the opening) and an outer liner 50 surrounding the inner liner (of Maier, paragraph 0075) and zipped (through zippers 53) to the removable cover 54 (see Maier, Figure 5 and paragraph 0074). Maier does not disclose an inner cover zipped to the inner liner to compress the plurality of layers within the interior cavity, and the outer liner zipped to the removable cover at a periphery of the tub.
Magnussen (U.S. Patent No. 4,449,261) teaches an inner liner 34 fully covering a top surface of the tub 14 (Figure 1c and Col. 4, lines 21-35, where the inner liner 24 fully covers the top 18 of the tub 14, extending past the zippers 32) zipped (through zippers 32 and 35) to an inner cover 24 to compress the plurality of layers 42 and 44 within the interior cavity (Figures 1c and 2 and Col. 7, line 67-Col. 8, line 23), and the outer liner 22 zipped to the removable cover 36 at a periphery of the tub 14 (Figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maier, as previously modified, with an inner cover zipped to the inner liner to compress the plurality of layers within the interior cavity, and the outer liner zipped to the removable cover at a periphery of the tub, as taught by Magnussen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the inner cover of Magnussen permits accessibility to the center cavity which allows ready access to the cores as well as providing a smooth transition between the rails and the cores positioned within the rails (Col. 7, line 67-Col. 8, line 23). Additionally, the inner liner, separate from the removable cover, allows for additional topper layers, such as heating and cooling devices or a foam pad to be positioned above the removable layers and held in place by the removable cover (Col. 8, lines 24-32).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier in view of Rugset and Magnussen and further in view of Jensen.
Regarding claim 13, Maier, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 12. Maier, as modified, further discloses wherein the cover system includes the outer liner 50 (see Maier, Figure 5 and paragraph 0074). Maier, as modified, does not disclose wherein the outer liner includes a pocket configured to hold recipe cards for instructing an end user of potential arrangements of the plurality of layers.
Jensen teaches an outer liner 220 including a pocket 263 (paragraph 0053), and the pocket 263 configured to hold recipe cards for instructing an end user of potential arrangements of the plurality of layers (paragraph 0053, where the pocket 263 can be used to store various materials that may be associated with the cover assembly or an underlying mattress).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maier, as previously modified, with Jensen (both being directed to mattress comprising covers) so that the outer liner including a pocket configured to hold recipe cards as taught by Jensen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the pocket of Jensen allows for pertinent information about a mattress to be stored on the mattress in case a user needs access to the information.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier in view of Jensen and further in view of Vester (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0298078).
Regarding claim 14, Maier discloses a mattress assembly 1 comprising: a plurality of non-laminated and rearrangeable layers 10, 20, 30, 40, including a first layer 10 including a first layer foam constructed of a first material, a second layer 20 including a second layer foam constructed of a second material, and a third layer 30 including a third layer foam constructed of the second material (paragraph 0028, where the layers may be constructed of a polyurethane foam or a cold foam, such that all the layers may be one of polyurethane or cold foam, with different hardness profiles, and paragraph 0077, where different hardness profiles may be achieved by using the same foam and placing different densities of apertures in the foam); a tub 60 and 66 including rails 60 and a base 66, the tub 60 and 66 defining an interior cavity 61 sized to receive the plurality of layers 10, 20, 30, 40. Maier does not disclose a pocket holding recipe cards for instructing an end user of potential arrangements of the plurality of layers.
Jensen teaches an outer liner 220 including a pocket 263 (paragraph 0053), and the pocket 263 configured to hold cards containing information regarding the mattress (paragraph 0053, where the pocket 263 can be used to store various materials that may be associated with the cover assembly or an underlying mattress).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maier, as previously modified, with Jensen (both being directed to mattress comprising covers) so that the outer liner including a pocket configured to hold recipe cards as taught by Jensen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the pocket of Jensen allows for pertinent information about a mattress to be stored on the mattress in case a user needs access to the information.
Additionally, Vester (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0298078) teaches cards containing instructions to a user regarding mattress assembly regarding potential arrangements of the plurality of layers (paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the information stored to be a recipe card, as taught by Vester. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because because providing set instructions to a user may aid a user to assemble mattress layers in the appropriate density configuration according to their desired firmness profile (paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 15, Maier, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 14. Maier, as modified, further discloses wherein the first layer 10 includes a first layer identifier 15, the second layer 20 includes a second layer identifier 25, and the third layer 30 includes a third layer identifier 35 (see Maier, Figures 10-11, and paragraph 0081 where each layer has flags to provide information about the hardness profile of the layer).
Regarding claim 16, Maier, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 14 and 15. Maier, as modified, further discloses wherein: the first layer identifier 15 includes a first colored fabric, the second layer identifier 25 includes a second colored fabric, and the third layer identifier 35 includes a third colored fabric (see Maier, Figure 10 and paragraph 0081 where each layer identifier can be a different color to indicate different hardness profiles).
Regarding claim 17, wherein the second layer 20 and the third layer 30 are substantially identical (see Maier, paragraph 0070, where only one of the layers is required to be different from the rest of the layers in order to customize the firmness profiles of the mattress).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier in view of Jensen and further in view of Subhedar (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0214219).
Regarding claim 18, Maier, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 14. Maier, as modified, further discloses wherein the first and second, materials are a polyurethane foam (see Maier, paragraph 0028, where the foam used in the layers 20, 30, 40 can be polyurethane foam), where the material can have varying densities (see Maier, paragraph 0077, where each foam layer can be constructed with different densities).
Maier, as modified, does not disclose wherein: the first material is at least one of: a gel memory foam with a density of about 4.0 pounds per cubic foot, a polyurethane foam with at least one of a density of about 3.6 pounds per cubic foot or an indentation load deflection of between about 20 and about 26, or a polyurethane foam with at least one of a density of about 1.8 pounds per cubic foot or an indentation load deflection of about 45, and the second material is a polyurethane foam with at least one of a 1.8 pounds per cubic foot density or an indentation load deflection of about 33.
Subhedar (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0214219) teaches wherein: the first material 54 is at least one of: a gel memory foam with a density of about 4.0 pounds per cubic foot, a polyurethane foam with at least one of a density of about 3.6 pounds per cubic foot or an indentation load deflection of between about 20 and about 26, or a polyurethane foam with at least one of a density of about 1.8 pounds per cubic foot or an indentation load deflection of about 45 (paragraph 0032, where the layer 54 is a polyurethane with an ILD of 20-170), and the second material 60 is a polyurethane foam with at least one of a 1.8 pounds per cubic foot density or an indentation load deflection of about 33 (paragraph 0038, where the layer 60 is a polyurethane foam with a density between 1.5-1.9 pounds per cubic foot and an ILD between 20-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Maier, as previously modified, so that the first material is a gel memory foam as taught by Subhedar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the chosen properties of the polyurethane foam of Subhedar is sufficient for providing support and stability to one or more occupants of a mattress during sleep (paragraphs 0032 and 0038).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier in view of Magnussen.
Regarding claim 20, Maier discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 19. Maier does not disclose wherein an inner liner is positioned within the outer liner and fully covers a top surface of the tub.
Magnussen (U.S. Patent No. 4,449,261) teaches wherein an inner liner 34 is positioned within the outer liner 39 and fully covers a top surface of the tub (Figure 1c and Col. 4, lines 21-35, where the inner liner 24 fully covers the top 18 of the tub 14, extending past the zippers 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maier, as previously modified, an inner liner is positioned within the outer liner and fully covers a top surface of the tub, as taught by Magnussen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the inner cover of Magnussen permits accessibility to the center cavity which allows ready access to the cores as well as providing a smooth transition between the rails and the cores positioned within the rails (Col. 7, line 67-Col. 8, line 23) and the inner liner, being separate from and positioned within the outer liner, allows for additional topper layers, such as heating and cooling devices or a foam pad to be positioned above the removable layers and held in place by the outer liner (Col. 8, lines 24-32).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boyd (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0296993) which discloses a mattress comprising a foam tub and insertable foam layers which are placed in the internal cavity of the tub.
Varese (U.S. Publication No. 2003/0135930) which discloses a mattress comprising a foam tub and insertable foam layers which are placed in the internal cavity of the tub.
Grigg (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0038080) which discloses a mattress comprising a foam tub and a cover comprising a zipper attached to the inner periphery of the foam tub.
Shi (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0007047) which discloses a removable mattress cover comprising pockets.
Steed (U.S. Patent No. 5,557,813) which discloses a mattress comprising a foam tub and a cover.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISON N LABARGE whose telephone number is (571)272-6098. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:00.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/ALISON N LABARGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679