DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 11/28/2024. Claims 1-6 are pending. Claims 4-6 are withdrawn. Claims 1-3 are pending and examined herein. Claims 1-3 are rejected.
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 .
Restriction/Election
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, directed toward a mattress apparatus, in the reply filed on 3/10/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there should be no undue burden to consider all claims in a single application. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but have not been found persuasive. The standard for restriction requirement is not that claims have been originally presented in a single application, but whether the claims are directed toward a single invention. In accordance with MPEP §800 (and specifically §806.05(f) and §806.05(h)), claims directed toward an apparatus and claims directed toward a method may be considered as separate inventions. Therefore, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
CONCLUSION.--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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention. The claim recites “wherein the ventilation mechanism sucks the supplied air from a position different from the position where the air is supplied.” It is unclear how the supplied air can be from a location that is different than where the supplied air is located. For purposes of examination, in view of Applicant’s Fig. 1, this has been interpreted to mean that ventilator 193 sucks in air from a location that is outside of the air mattress and delivers it to a location within the mattress. Appropriate correction is required.
In view of the above rejections the respective claims are rejected as best understood on prior art as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2007/0261548 to Vrzalik et al. (“Vrzalik”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0276798 to Chai.
Claim 1. A mattress (Vrzalik, Fig. 1, #140), comprising: a breathable elastic layer; a non-breathable covering layer covering the elastic layer, the covering layer being a coating film that is integrated with the elastic layer and covers the surface thereof (Vrzalik discloses various configurations of layers generally in paragraphs [0039]-[0041] and in greater detail in paragraph [0045], while Vrzalik discloses example materials with multiple layers, such as GoreTex and sheet vinyl or sheet urethane, Vrzalik does not explicitly disclose “a breathable elastic layer; a non-breathable covering layer covering the elastic layer”; however this configurations is known in the prior art as taught by Chai in at least Figs. 3-4 and paragraphs [0008], and [0034]; Chai teaches a layered thermoplastic polyurethane film which includes a “breathable elastic layer” as a nonwoven fabric, #13, and a “non-breathable covering layer” as TPU film #12; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the laminated structure of Chai with the apparatus of Vrzalik since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results, and additionally for the predictable benefit disclosed by Chai’s Abstract, that being “reduced extendibility and increased tensile strength due to the inherent excellent tensile strength of the nonwoven fabric”; additionally, Vrzalik anticipates variations and different embodiments of materials as may be desired by the user); a ventilation portion (Vrzalik, Fig. 2, #145) that is not covered by the covering layer; and a ventilation mechanism (Vrzalik, Fig. 1, #110), wherein air supplied to the elastic layer is discharged from the ventilation portion (see airflow direction in Vrzalik, Fig. 1, #116 and 117; Vrzalik also discloses in paragraph [0041] that the apparatus “may control the direction of movement of air from inside to outside… and from outside to inside”; therefore Vrzalik also discloses airflow in the opposite direction as shown by arrows #116 and 117 ) or air supplied (see airflow direction in Vrzalik, Fig. 1, #116 and 117) to the ventilation portion is discharged from the elastic layer by the ventilation mechanism.
Claim 2. The mattress according to claim 1, wherein the ventilation mechanism sucks the supplied air from a position different from the position where the air is supplied (in the apparatus of Vrzalik, air is sucked from the ambient air in the room by the fan #110, and supplied to a locatation inside mattress #141).
Claim 3. The mattress according to claim 1, wherein the covering layer is formed by heat-treating the surface of the elastic layer into the coating film (Chai paragraph [0008] discloses thermoplastic material ”which are laminated to each other through application of heat and pressure by a laminating machine”; furthermore, Vrzalik anticipates the use of “heat sealing” in at least paragraph [0045]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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.
/MYLES A THROOP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights