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 1-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 12,185,838. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference patent include all the limitations of claims 1-27 of the instant application and therefore encompass all that is claimed by claims 1-27 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.
Claims 34-36 and 38-42 are 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.
Regarding claims 34-36 and 39-40, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim 34 recites the broad recitation “wherein the first friction enhancing fabric has an apparent static coefficient of friction relative to the external friction enhancing fabric…of at least 2.0”. The claim also recites the apparent static coefficient of friction also being “preferably between 6.3 and 9.5, and more preferably 8.5”.
Claim 35 recites the broad recitation “the first friction enhancing fabric and the external friction enhancing fabric each have a unit weight less than 400gsm and a thickness of less than 6.0mm”. The claim also recites the first friction enhancing fabric and the external friction enhancing fabric each having “more preferably a unit weight less than 300gsm and/or a thickness of 1.0mm”.
Claim 36 recites the broad recitation “wherein the first friction enhancing fabric area is at least 5% as large as the mattress section, and external friction enhancing fabric area is at least 5% as large as the support” and the claim also recites the first/external friction enhancing fabrics are preferably 50%, and, more preferably, 75% as large as the mattress section/support which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 39 recites the broad recitation “wherein the first friction enhancing fabric has an apparent static coefficient of friction relative to the second friction enhancing fabric…of at least 2.0”. The claim also recites the apparent static coefficient of friction also being “preferably between 6.3 and 9.5, and more preferably 8.5”.
Claim 40 recites the broad recitation “the first friction enhancing fabric and the external friction enhancing fabric each have a unit weight less than 400gsm and a thickness of less than 6.0mm”. The claim also recites the first friction enhancing fabric and the external friction enhancing fabric each having “more preferably a unit weight less than 300gsm and/or a thickness of 1.0mm”. Claim 41 is additionally rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 40
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the mattress base" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 39-42 are additionally rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 38.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 15, 17, 33, 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Namee et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0120968), hereinafter referred to as Van Namee.
Regarding claim 1, Van Namee discloses a mattress arrangement comprising: a mattress base 3 having a length, a width, and a top surface 2 having a mattress base area defined by the mattress base length and the mattress base width (Figures 2 and 4 and paragraph 0016), the mattress top surface 2 including a mattress base top fabric 16 (Figures 2 and 4 and paragraph 0021); a mattress topper 13 having a length, a width, a weight, and a bottom surface having a mattress topper area defined by the mattress topper length and the mattress topper width, the mattress topper bottom surface including a mattress topper bottom fabric (defined by the bottom of second cover 16, Figure 2 and paragraph 0025), the mattress topper 13 configured to be placed atop the mattress base 3 in a use position so that the bottom surface of the mattress topper 13 rests on the top surface of the mattress base 3 (Figure 4); a first friction enhancing fabric 31 permanently secured to the mattress base top surface 16 (Figure 2); and a second friction enhancing fabric 32 permanently secured to the mattress topper bottom surface 16; wherein the first friction enhancing fabric 31, the second friction enhancing fabric 32, and the weight of the topper are configured to cooperate to frictionally oppose sliding of the mattress topper relative to the mattress base when a lateral force is applied to the mattress topper 13 solely and without requiring additional fasteners connecting the mattress topper and the mattress base 3 (paragraph 0021, where the presence of the fasteners 31 and 32 allow for the topper to be held in place, and no other types of fasteners are present) so that the mattress topper is not removable from the mattress base without at least partially lifting the mattress topper off the base (paragraph 0021, where the weight of an object is an inherent component in determining frictional force); and wherein a duo of the first friction enhancing fabric and the second friction enhancing fabric define a higher coefficient of friction than a duo of the mattress base top fabric and the mattress topper bottom fabric (paragraph 0021, where the presence of the fasteners 31 and 32 allow for the topper to be held in place).
Regarding claim 2, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Van Namee further discloses wherein the first friction enhancing fabric defines 31 a first friction enhancing fabric area 31 (Figure 2), and wherein the second friction enhancing fabric 32 defines a second friction enhancing fabric area 32 (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 2. Van Namee further discloses wherein at least one of: the first friction enhancing fabric area 31 is less than the mattress base area (Figure 2), and the second friction enhancing fabric area 32 is less than the mattress topper area (Figure 2 and paragraph 0021, where each fastener 31 is coupled to a matching fastener 32).
Regarding claim 4, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 2. Van Namee further discloses wherein the first friction enhancing fabric area 31 and the second friction enhancing fabric area 32 are substantially identical and are aligned when the mattress topper 13 and the mattress base 3 are in the use position (Figures 2 and 4 and paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 6, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 2. Van Namee further discloses wherein at least one of the first friction enhancing fabric area 31 (comprising a single fastener 31) and the second friction enhancing area (comprising a single fastener 32) comprise one continuous area (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 15, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Van Namee further discloses wherein one of the first friction enhancing fabric 31 and the second friction enhancing fabric 32 comprises a hook fabric (paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 17, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 15. Van Namee further discloses wherein the other of the first friction enhancing fabric 31 and the second friction enhancing fabric 32 comprises a fabric frictionally engageable by the hook fabric (paragraph 0022, where fasteners 31 and 32 comprising mating hook and loop fabric).
Regarding claim 33, Van Namee discloses a mattress arrangement for use with an external friction enhancing fabric 31 on a support 3, the mattress arrangement comprising: a mattress section 13 having a length, a width, and a top surface having a mattress top area defined by the mattress section length and the mattress section width (Figures 2 and 4 and paragraph 0025), a bottom surface having a mattress bottom area defined by the mattress section length and the mattress section width (Figures 2, 4, and paragraph 0025); a first friction enhancing fabric 32 permanently secured to the mattress section top surface 16 (Figure 2); the mattress section 13 configured to be placed atop the external friction enhancing fabric 31 on the support 3 in a use position such that the bottom surface of the mattress section 13 rests on the external friction enhancing fabric 31 (paragraph 0021); and wherein the first friction enhancing fabric 32 and the external friction enhancing fabric 31, and the weight of the mattress section 13 are configured to cooperate to oppose sliding of the mattress section relative to the external friction enhancing fabric when a lateral force is applied to the mattress solely and without requiring additional fasteners connecting the mattress section 13 to the support 3 (paragraph 0021, where the weight of an object is an inherent component in determining frictional force, and where the presence of the fasteners 31 and 32 allow for the topper to be held in place, and no other types of fasteners are present).
Regarding claim 37, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 33. Van Namee further discloses a kit including the mattress section of claim 33 and the external friction enhancing fabric 31 (defined by the assembly of Van Namee, shown in Figure 2).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0269114).
Regarding claim 38, Wu discloses a mattress arrangement 3 comprising: a first mattress portion 31 having a top surface 311, a bottom surface 312, and a side surface 313 (Figure 3), the first mattress portion side surface 313 including a first friction enhancing fabric 35 thereon (paragraph 0025 and Figure 3); a second mattress portion 31 having a top surface 311, a bottom surface 312, and a side surface 313, the second mattress portion side surface 313 including a second friction enhancing fabric 35 thereon (paragraph 0025 and Figure 3); wherein when the first mattress portion 31 and the second mattress portion 31 and placed side-by-side in a use configuration so that the first friction enhancing fabric 35 is in contact with the second friction enhancing fabric 35 (Figure 2), the first friction enhancing fabric 35 and the second friction enhancing fabric 35 are configured to cooperate to frictionally oppose motion of the first mattress portion 31 relative to the second mattress portion 31 when a lateral force is applied so that the first and second mattress portions 31 are not removable from the mattress base 2 solely and without requiring additional fasteners connecting the first mattress portion to the second mattress portion (Figures 2-3 and paragraphs 0025-0026).
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 5, 8, 32, 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Namee in view of Scarleski (U.S. Publication 2017/0340133).
Regarding claim 5, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 2. Van Namee does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of: the first friction enhancing fabric area is at least 50% as large as the mattress base area, and the second friction enhancing fabric area is at least 50% as large as the mattress topper area.
Scarleski teaches wherein at least one of: the first friction enhancing fabric area 48 is at least 50% as large as the mattress base area, and the second friction enhancing fabric area is at least 50% as large as the mattress topper area. (paragraph 0079 and Figure 3 where friction enhancing fabric length covers the whole width and length of the mattress 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and topper comprising hook and loop fabric) with Scarleski (directed to mattress cover with non-slick panels), and arrived at least one of the friction enhancing fabrics being 50% as large as the mattress topper area. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would increase the force required to move the mattress respective to the bed frame, ensuring the mattress assembly stays in place in the presence of high forces (paragraphs 0079-0081).
Regarding claim 8, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 2. Van Namee does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of: the first friction enhancing fabric area is coextensive with the mattress base area, and the second friction enhancing fabric area is coextensive with the mattress topper area.
Scarleski teaches wherein at least one of: the first friction enhancing fabric area 48 is coextensive with the mattress base area, and the second friction enhancing fabric area is coextensive with the mattress topper area. (paragraph 0079 and Figure 3 where friction enhancing fabric length covers the whole width and length of the mattress 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and topper comprising hook and loop fabric) with Scarleski (directed to mattress cover with non-slick panels), and arrived at least one of the friction enhancing fabrics is coextensive with the mattress topper area. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would increase the force required to move the mattress respective to the bed frame, ensuring the mattress assembly stays in place in the presence of high forces (paragraphs 0079-0081).
Regarding claim 32, Van Namee, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1, 2, and 5. Van Namee, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the first friction enhancing fabric length is 60 inches.
Scarleski teaches wherein the first friction enhancing fabric length 48 is about 60 inches (paragraph 0079 and Table 1, where a standard queen size mattress is 60 inches in length and Figure 3 where friction enhancing fabric length covers the whole width and length of the mattress 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and topper comprising hook and loop fabric) with Scarleski (directed to mattress cover with non-slick panels), and arrived at the first friction enhancing fabric being 60 inches in length. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would increase the force required to move the mattress respective to the bed frame, ensuring the mattress assembly stays in place in the presence of high forces (paragraphs 0079-0081).
Regarding claim 36, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 33. Van Namee does not explicitly disclose wherein the first friction enhancing fabric area is at least 5% as large as the mattress section, and external friction enhancing fabric area is at least 5% as large as the support, and preferably the first friction enhancing fabric area is up to 50% as large as the mattress section, and the external friction enhancing fabric area is up to 50% as large as the support, and more preferably the first friction enhancing fabric area is 75% as large as the mattress section, and the external friction enhancing fabric area is 75% as large as the support.
Scarleski teaches wherein the first friction enhancing fabric area 48 is at least 5% as large as the mattress section, and external friction enhancing fabric area is at least 5% as large as the support, and preferably the first friction enhancing fabric 48 area is up to 50% as large as the mattress section, and the external friction enhancing fabric area is up to 50% as large as the support, and more preferably the first friction enhancing fabric area 48 is 75% as large as the mattress section, and the external friction enhancing fabric area is 75% as large as the support (paragraph 0079 and Figure 3 where friction enhancing fabric length covers the whole width and length of the mattress 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and topper comprising hook and loop fabric) with Scarleski (directed to mattress cover with non-slick panels), and arrived the friction enhancing fabrics being 5%, 50%, or 75% as large as the mattress topper area. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would increase the force required to move the mattress respective to the bed frame, ensuring the mattress assembly stays in place in the presence of high forces (paragraphs 0079-0081).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Namee in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0022504).
Regarding claim 7, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 2. Van Namee further discloses the first friction enhancing fabric 31 extending lengthwise above and below the center of the mattress arrangement (Figure 2). Van Namee does not disclose wherein the mattress base is an adjustable mattress base locatable on an articulatable mattress support, the mattress base defining at least one pivot point extending across the width of the mattress base, the first friction enhancing fabric extending lengthwise above and below the at least one pivot point.
Zhang teaches an adjustable mattress base (paragraph 0026) locatable on an articulatable mattress support 100 (Figures 1 and 4), the mattress base defining at least one pivot point extending across the width of the mattress base (the pivot point being defined by the portions of the mattress base which are pivoted by hinge 312, Figures 1 and 4 and paragraph 0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and topper) with Zhang (directed to an articulatable mattress base) and arrived at an adjustable mattress located on an articulated support with friction enhancing fabric located at either end of the pivot points. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the adjustable base of Zhang allows for the inclination of the mattress to be adjusted in order to provide a desired support for a user’s body (paragraphs 0003-0004).
Claims 9-11, 21-23, 26, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Namee in view of Martin (U.S. Patent No. 6,489,004).
Regarding claim 9, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Van Namee does not explicitly disclose wherein the first friction enhancing fabric and the second friction enhancing fabric have an apparent static coefficient of friction of at least 2.0 when tested laterally according to ASTM-D1894-14.
Martin teaches methods on how the first friction enhancing fabric 22 and the second friction enhancing fabric 24 may alter the apparent static coefficient of friction, such as by adding a tackifier using fabrics with various cross-sectional shapes or using additives (Abstract and Col. 1, lines 36-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and topper comprising hook and loop fabric) with Martin (directed to a hook and loop fabric with increased coefficients of friction) such that the friction enhancing fabrics have an apparent static coefficient of friction of at least about 2.0 when tested laterally. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would merely amount to a routine optimization of the first and second friction enhancing fabrics using known methods, such as discussed by Van Namee in order to achieve the desired frictional force between the hook and loop fabric, such that the first and second friction enhancing fabrics require a greater force to separate them (Col. 1, lines 24-35). In this regard, MPEP 2144.05(II) is relevant.
Regarding claim 10, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Van Namee does not explicitly disclose wherein the apparent static coefficient of friction is 8.5.
Martin teaches methods on how the first friction enhancing fabric 22 and the second friction enhancing fabric 24 may alter the apparent static coefficient of friction, such as by adding a tackifier using fabrics with various cross-sectional shapes or using additives (Abstract and Col. 1, lines 36-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and topper comprising hook and loop fabric) with Martin (directed to a hook and loop fabric with increased coefficients of friction) such that the friction enhancing fabrics have an apparent static coefficient of friction of at least 8.5. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would merely amount to a routine optimization of the first and second friction enhancing fabrics using known methods, such as discussed by Van Namee, in order to achieve the desired frictional force between the hook and loop fabric such that they require a greater force to separate them (Col. 1, lines 24-35). In this regard, MPEP 2144.05(II) is relevant.
Regarding claim 11, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Van Namee does not explicitly disclose wherein the apparent static coefficient of friction is between 6.3 and 9.5.
Martin teaches methods on how the first friction enhancing fabric 22 and the second friction enhancing fabric 24 may alter the apparent static coefficient of friction, such as by adding a tackifier using fabrics with various cross-sectional shapes or using additives (Abstract and Col. 1, lines 36-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and topper comprising hook and loop fabric) with Martin (directed to a hook and loop fabric with increased coefficients of friction) such that the friction enhancing fabrics have an apparent static coefficient of friction of at least 6.3-9.5. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would merely amount to a routine optimization of the first and second friction enhancing fabrics using known methods, such as discussed by Van Namee, in order to achieve the desired frictional force between the hook and loop fabric such that they require a greater force to separate them (Col. 1, lines 24-35). In this regard, MPEP 2144.05(II) is relevant.
Regarding claim 21, Van Namee discloses a mattress arrangement comprising: a mattress base 3 having a length, a width, and a top surface 2 having a mattress base area defined by the mattress base length and the mattress base width (Figures 2 and 4 and paragraph 0016); a mattress topper 13 having a length, a width, a weight, and a bottom surface having a mattress topper area defined by the mattress topper length and the mattress topper width, the mattress topper 13 configured to be placed atop the mattress base 3 in a use position so that the bottom surface of the mattress topper 13 rests on the top surface of the mattress base 3 (Figure 4); a first friction enhancing fabric 31 having an area covering at least a portion of the mattress base top surface 16 (Figure 2); and a second friction enhancing fabric 32 located on the mattress topper bottom surface 16; wherein the first friction enhancing fabric 31, the second friction enhancing fabric 32, and the weight of the topper are configured to cooperate to oppose sliding of the mattress topper relative to the mattress base when a lateral force is applied to the mattress topper (paragraph 0021, where the weight of an object is an inherent component in determining frictional force, solely and without requiring additional fasteners connecting the mattress topper and the mattress base 3, and where the presence of the fasteners 31 and 32 allow for the topper to be held in place, and no other types of fasteners are present); and wherein the first friction enhancing fabric and the second friction enhancing fabric define a higher coefficient of friction than a duo of the mattress base top fabric and the mattress topper bottom fabric (paragraph 0021, where the presence of the fasteners 31 and 32 allow for the topper to be held in place).
Van Namee does not explicitly disclose wherein the first friction enhancing fabric and the second friction enhancing fabric have an apparent static coefficient of friction of at least 2.0 when tested according to ASTM-D1894-14.
Martin teaches methods on how the first friction enhancing fabric 22 and the second friction enhancing fabric 24 may alter the apparent static coefficient of friction, such as by adding a tackifier using fabrics with various cross-sectional shapes or using additives (Abstract and Col. 1, lines 36-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and topper comprising hook and loop fabric) with Martin (directed to a hook and loop fabric with increased coefficients of friction) such that the friction enhancing fabrics have an apparent static coefficient of friction of at least 2.0 when tested laterally. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would merely amount to a routine optimization of the first and second friction enhancing fabrics using known methods, such as discussed by Van Namee in order to achieve the desired frictional force between the hook and loop fabric, such that the first and second friction enhancing fabrics require a greater force to separate them (Col. 1, lines 24-35). In this regard, MPEP 2144.05(II) is relevant.
Regarding claim 22, Van Namee, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 21. Van Namee, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the apparent static coefficient of friction is 8.5.
Martin teaches methods on how the first friction enhancing fabric 22 and the second friction enhancing fabric 24 may alter the apparent static coefficient of friction, such as by adding a tackifier using fabrics with various cross-sectional shapes or using additives (Abstract and Col. 1, lines 36-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and topper comprising hook and loop fabric) with Martin (directed to a hook and loop fabric with increased coefficients of friction) such that the friction enhancing fabrics have an apparent static coefficient of friction of at least 8.5. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would merely amount to a routine optimization of the first and second friction enhancing fabrics using known methods, such as discussed by Van Namee, in order to achieve the desired frictional force between the hook and loop fabric such that they require a greater force to separate them (Col. 1, lines 24-35). In this regard, MPEP 2144.05(II) is relevant.
Regarding claim 23, Van Namee, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 21. Van Namee, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the apparent static coefficient of friction is between 6.3 and 9.5.
Martin teaches methods on how the first friction enhancing fabric 22 and the second friction enhancing fabric 24 may alter the apparent static coefficient of friction, such as by adding a tackifier using fabrics with various cross-sectional shapes or using additives (Abstract and Col. 1, lines 36-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and topper comprising hook and loop fabric) with Martin (directed to a hook and loop fabric with increased coefficients of friction) such that the friction enhancing fabrics have an apparent static coefficient of friction of at least 6.3-9.5. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would merely amount to a routine optimization of the first and second friction enhancing fabrics using known methods, such as discussed by Van Namee, in order to achieve the desired frictional force between the hook and loop fabric such that they require a greater force to separate them (Col. 1, lines 24-35). In this regard, MPEP 2144.05(II) is relevant.
Regarding claim 26, Van Namee, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 21. Van Namee, as modified, further discloses wherein one of the first friction enhancing fabric 31 and the second friction enhancing fabric 32 comprises a hook fabric (see Van Namee, paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 34, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 33. Van Namee does not explicitly disclose wherein the first friction enhancing fabric has an apparent static coefficient of friction relative to the external friction enhancing fabric when tested according to ASTM-D1894-14, of at least 2.0, and preferably between 6.3 and 9.5, and more preferably 8.5.
Martin teaches methods on how the first friction enhancing fabric 22 and the second friction enhancing fabric 24 may alter the apparent static coefficient of friction, such as by adding a tackifier using fabrics with various cross-sectional shapes or using additives (Abstract and Col. 1, lines 36-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and topper comprising hook and loop fabric) with Martin (directed to a hook and loop fabric with increased coefficients of friction) such that the friction enhancing fabrics have an apparent static coefficient of friction each other when tested according to ASTM-D1894-14, of at least 2.0, and preferably between 6.3 and 9.5, and more preferably 8.5.. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would merely amount to a routine optimization of the first and second friction enhancing fabrics using known methods, such as discussed by Van Namee, in order to achieve the desired frictional force between the hook and loop fabric such that they require a greater force to separate them (Col. 1, lines 24-35). In this regard, MPEP 2144.05(II) is relevant.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Namee in view of Evans (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0322057).
Regarding claim 12, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Van Namee does not explicitly disclose wherein the first friction enhancing fabric and the second friction enhancing fabric each have a unit weight less than about 400gsm and a thickness of less than about 6.0mm, or a unit weight less than about 300gsm and/or a thickness of about 1.0mm.
Evans teaches wherein the first friction enhancing fabric and the second friction enhancing fabric each have a unit weight less than about 400gsm (paragraph 0167, where the fabric has a weight of 20 to 100 gsm) and a thickness of less than about 6.0mm (paragraph 0018, where the fabrics has a height of 0.3mm to 5mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and mattress topper connection) with Evans (directed to a hook and loop fastener) and arrived at friction enhancing fabrics with a unit weight less than about 400gsm and a thickness of less than about 6.0mm, or a unit weight less than about 300gsm and/or a thickness of about 1.0mm. One of ordinary skill in the in the art would have been motivated to do so because the hook and loop fabric of Evans provide significant toughening through the thickness of the hook and loop fabric without sacrificing in-plane strength (paragraph 0107).
Claims 13, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Namee in view of Martin and further in view of Scarleski.
Regarding claim 13, Van Namee, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1, 9, and 11. Van Namee, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the first friction enhancing fabric length is 60 inches.
Scarleski teaches wherein the first friction enhancing fabric length 48 is about 60 inches (paragraph 0079 and Table 1, where a standard queen size mattress is 60 inches in length and Figure 3 where friction enhancing fabric length covers the whole width and length of the mattress 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and topper comprising hook and loop fabric) with Scarleski (directed to mattress cover with non-slick panels), and arrived at the first friction enhancing fabric being 60 inches in length. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would increase the force required to move the mattress respective to the bed frame, ensuring the mattress assembly stays in place in the presence of high forces (paragraphs 0079-0081).
Regarding claim 30, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 21 and 23. Van Namee does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of: the first friction enhancing fabric area is at least 50% as large as the mattress base area, and the second friction enhancing fabric area is at least 50% as large as the mattress topper area.
Scarleski teaches wherein at least one of: the first friction enhancing fabric area 48 is at least 50% as large as the mattress base area, and the second friction enhancing fabric area is at least 50% as large as the mattress topper area. (paragraph 0079 and Figure 3 where friction enhancing fabric length covers the whole width and length of the mattress 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and topper comprising hook and loop fabric) with Scarleski (directed to mattress cover with non-slick panels), and arrived at least one of the friction enhancing fabrics being 50% as large as the mattress topper area. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would increase the force required to move the mattress respective to the bed frame, ensuring the mattress assembly stays in place in the presence of high forces (paragraphs 0079-0081).
Regarding claim 31, Van Namee, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 21, 23, and 30. Van Namee, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the first friction enhancing fabric length is 60 inches.
Scarleski teaches wherein the first friction enhancing fabric length 48 is about 60 inches (paragraph 0079 and Table 1, where a standard queen size mattress is 60 inches in length and Figure 3 where friction enhancing fabric length covers the whole width and length of the mattress 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee, as modified, (directed to a mattress and topper comprising hook and loop fabric) with Scarleski (directed to mattress cover with non-slick panels), and arrived at the first friction enhancing fabric being 60 inches in length. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would increase the force required to move the mattress respective to the bed frame, ensuring the mattress assembly stays in place in the presence of high forces (paragraphs 0079-0081).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Namee in view of Dowty (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0331806).
Regarding claim 14, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Van Namee does not explicitly disclose wherein the first friction enhancing fabric and the second friction enhancing fabric each comprise polyester fabrics.
Dowty teaches wherein the first friction enhancing fabric 108 and the second friction enhancing fabric 120 each comprise polyester fabrics (paragraph 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and mattress topper connection) with Dowty (directed to a system for attaching a cover to a seat cushion) such that friction enhancing fabrics comprise polyester. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the unidirectional hook and loop fabric of Dowty allows for the fasteners to slide past each other and only hook when slid in the direction of the hooks, helping to prevent the fasteners from unintentionally connecting in the wrong position (paragraphs 0032-0034).
Regarding claim 16, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 15. Van Namee does not disclose wherein the hook fabric is a unidirectional hook fabric.
Dowty teaches a unidirectional hook fabric (Figure 1A-B and paragraphs 0027 and 0032-0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and mattress topper connection) with Dowty (directed to a system for attaching a cover to a seat cushion) such that the hook fabric is unidirectional. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because unidirectional hook fabric allows for the fasteners to slide past each other and only hook when slid in the direction of the hooks, helping to prevent the fasteners from unintentionally connecting in the wrong position (paragraphs 0032-0034).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Namee in view of O’Connell (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0224126).
Regarding claim 18, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Van Namee further discloses additional friction enhancing fabrics 32 are provided on respective bottom surface(s) (Figure 3 and paragraph 0021).
Van Namee does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the mattress base and the mattress topper are configured so that the top surface can be oriented upwardly or downwardly.
O’Connell teaches wherein at least one of the mattress base 110 and the mattress topper 120 are configured so that the top surface can be oriented upwardly or downwardly (Figures 1 and paragraph 0015-0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and mattress topper connection) with O’Connell (directed to a configurable multilayer mattress) so at least one of the mattress base and the mattress topper are configured so that the top surface can be oriented upwardly or downwardly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the flappable mattress topper of Teller allows for a user to customize the mattress by simply flipping the topper to either side, such that the mattress can feel firmer or softer depending on their preferences or needs (paragraph 0019).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Namee in view of Zisblatt (U.S. Patent No. 3,654,059).
Regarding claim 20, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Van Namee further discloses wherein the first friction enhancing fabric 31 is attached to the mattress base 1 top fabric (Figure 2), and wherein the second friction enhancing fabric 32 is attached to the mattress topper bottom fabric (Figure 2 and 4).
Van Namee does not explicitly disclose the friction enhancing fabric is attached to the fabric in both cases by at least one of: an adhesive or stitching.
Zisblatt teaches the friction enhancing fabric 12 attached to the fabric in both cases by at least one of: an adhesive 11 or stitching (Col. 3, lines 20-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and mattress topper connection) with Zisblatt (directed to a method of attaching hook and loop fabric to furniture covers) such that the friction enhancing fabric is attached to the fabric in both cases by at least one of: an adhesive or stitching. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the adhesive of Zisblatt allows for the friction enhancing fabrics to be securely held to their respective covers, while allowing a user to easily separate the first and second friction enhancing fabrics (Col. 3, lines 20-32).
Claims 24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Namee in view of Martin and further in view of Evans.
Regarding claim 24, Van Namee, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 21. Van Namee, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the first friction enhancing fabric and the second friction enhancing fabric each have a unit weight less than 400gsm and a thickness of less than 6.0mm.
Evans teaches wherein the first friction enhancing fabric and the second friction enhancing fabric each have a unit weight less than 400gsm (paragraph 0167, where the fabric has a weight of 20 to 100 gsm) and a thickness of less than 6.0mm (paragraph 0018, where the fabrics has a height of 0.3mm to 5mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and mattress topper connection), as modified with Martin (directed to a method of frictional enhancement of hook and loop fabric), with Evans (directed to a hook and loop fastener) and arrived at friction enhancing fabrics with a unit weight less than 400gsm and a thickness of less than 6.0mm. One of ordinary skill in the in the art would have been motivated to do so because the hook and loop fabric of Evans provide significant toughening through the thickness of the hook and loop fabric without sacrificing in-plane strength (paragraph 0107).
Regarding claim 29, Van Namee, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 21. Van Namee, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the first friction enhancing fabric and the second friction enhancing fabric each have a unit weight less than 300gsm and a thickness of less than 1.0 mm.
Evans teaches wherein the first friction enhancing fabric and the second friction enhancing fabric each have a unit weight less than 300gsm (paragraph 0167, where the fabric has a weight of 20 to 100 gsm) and a thickness of less than 1.00mm (paragraph 0018, where the fabrics has a height of 0.3mm to 5mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and mattress topper connection), with Evans (directed to a hook and loop fastener) and arrived at friction enhancing fabrics with a unit weight less than 300gsm and a thickness of less than 1.0mm. One of ordinary skill in the in the art would have been motivated to do so because the hook and loop fabric of Evans provide significant toughening through the thickness of the hook and loop fabric without sacrificing in-plane strength (paragraph 0107).
Claim 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Namee in view of Martin and further in view of Dowty.
Regarding claim 25, Van Namee, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 21. Van Namee, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the first friction enhancing fabric and the second friction enhancing fabric each comprise polyester fabrics.
Dowty teaches wherein the first friction enhancing fabric 108 and the second friction enhancing fabric 120 each comprise polyester fabrics (paragraph 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and mattress topper connection), as modified with Martin (directed to a method of frictional enhancement of hook and loop fabric), with Dowty (directed to a system for attaching a cover to a seat cushion) such that friction enhancing fabrics comprise polyester. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the unidirectional hook and loop fabric of Dowty allows for the fasteners to slide past each other and only hook when slid in the direction of the hooks, helping to prevent the fasteners from unintentionally connecting in the wrong position (paragraphs 0032-0034).
Regarding claim 27, Van Namee, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 21 and 26. Van Namee, as modified, does not disclose wherein the hook fabric is a unidirectional hook fabric.
Dowty teaches a unidirectional hook fabric (Figure 1A-B and paragraphs 0027 and 0032-0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and mattress topper connection), as modified with Martin (directed to a method of frictional enhancement of hook and loop fabric), with Dowty (directed to a system for attaching a cover to a seat cushion) such that the hook fabric is unidirectional. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because unidirectional hook fabric allows for the fasteners to slide past each other and only hook when slid in the direction of the hooks, helping to prevent the fasteners from unintentionally connecting in the wrong position (paragraphs 0032-0034).
Claims 28 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Namee in view of Evans.
Regarding claim 28, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Van Namee does not explicitly disclose wherein the first friction enhancing fabric and the second friction enhancing fabric each have a unit weight less than 300gsm and a thickness of less than 1.0 mm.
Evans teaches wherein the first friction enhancing fabric and the second friction enhancing fabric each have a unit weight less than 300gsm (paragraph 0167, where the fabric has a weight of 20 to 100 gsm) and a thickness of less than 1.00mm (paragraph 0018, where the fabrics has a height of 0.3mm to 5mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and mattress topper connection), with Evans (directed to a hook and loop fastener) and arrived at friction enhancing fabrics with a unit weight less than 300gsm and a thickness of less than 1.0mm. One of ordinary skill in the in the art would have been motivated to do so because the hook and loop fabric of Evans provide significant toughening through the thickness of the hook and loop fabric without sacrificing in-plane strength (paragraph 0107).
Regarding claim 35, Van Namee discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 33. Van Namee does not explicitly disclose wherein the first friction enhancing fabric and the external friction enhancing fabric each have a unit weight less than 400gsm and a thickness of less than 6.0 mm, or more preferably a unit weight less than 300gsm and/or a thickness of less than 1.0 mm.
Evans teaches wherein the first friction enhancing fabric and the second friction enhancing fabric each have a unit weight less than 400gsm and a thickness of less than 6.0 mm, or more preferably a unit weight less than 300gsm (paragraph 0167, where the fabric has a weight of 20 to 100 gsm) and/or a thickness of less than 1.0 mm (paragraph 0018, where the fabrics has a height of 0.3mm to 5mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and mattress topper connection), with Evans (directed to a hook and loop fastener) and arrived at friction enhancing fabrics with a unit weight less than 300gsm and a thickness of less than 1.0mm. One of ordinary skill in the in the art would have been motivated to do so because the hook and loop fabric of Evans provide significant toughening through the thickness of the hook and loop fabric without sacrificing in-plane strength (paragraph 0107).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Martin.
Regarding claim 39, Wu discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 38. Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein the first friction enhancing fabric has an apparent static coefficient of friction relative to the external friction enhancing fabric when tested according to ASTM-D1894-14, of at least 2.0, and preferably between 6.3 and 9.5, and more preferably 8.5.
Martin teaches methods on how the first friction enhancing fabric 22 and the second friction enhancing fabric 24 may alter the apparent static coefficient of friction, such as by adding a tackifier using fabrics with various cross-sectional shapes or using additives (Abstract and Col. 1, lines 36-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Wu (directed to a mattress and topper comprising hook and loop fabric) with Martin (directed to a hook and loop fabric with increased coefficients of friction) such that the friction enhancing fabrics have an apparent static coefficient of friction each other when tested according to ASTM-D1894-14, of at least 2.0, and preferably between 6.3 and 9.5, and more preferably 8.5.. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would merely amount to a routine optimization of the first and second friction enhancing fabrics using known methods, such as discussed by Wu, in order to achieve the desired frictional force between the hook and loop fabric such that they require a greater force to separate them (Col. 1, lines 24-35). In this regard, MPEP 2144.05(II) is relevant.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Evans.
Regarding claim 40, Wu discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 38. Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein the first friction enhancing fabric and the external friction enhancing fabric each have a unit weight less than 400gsm and a thickness of less than 6.0 mm, or more preferably a unit weight less than 300gsm and/or a thickness of less than 1.0 mm.
Evans teaches wherein the first friction enhancing fabric and the second friction enhancing fabric each have a unit weight less than 400gsm and a thickness of less than 6.0 mm, or more preferably a unit weight less than 300gsm (paragraph 0167, where the fabric has a weight of 20 to 100 gsm) and/or a thickness of less than 1.0 mm (paragraph 0018, where the fabrics has a height of 0.3mm to 5mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Van Namee (directed to a mattress and mattress topper connection), with Evans (directed to a hook and loop fastener) and arrived at friction enhancing fabrics with a unit weight less than 300gsm and a thickness of less than 1.0mm. One of ordinary skill in the in the art would have been motivated to do so because the hook and loop fabric of Evans provide significant toughening through the thickness of the hook and loop fabric without sacrificing in-plane strength (paragraph 0107). Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Dowty.
Regarding claim 41, Wu, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 38 and 40. Wu, as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the first friction enhancing fabric and the second friction enhancing fabric each comprise polyester fabrics, and one of the first friction enhancing fabric and the second friction enhancing fabric comprises a unidirectional hook fabric
Dowty teaches wherein the first friction enhancing fabric 108 and the second friction enhancing fabric 120 each comprise polyester fabrics (paragraph 0028) and each comprise a unidirectional hook fabric (Figure 1A-B and paragraphs 0027 and 0032-0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Wu (directed to a mattress and mattress topper connection) with Dowty (directed to a system for attaching a cover to a seat cushion) such that friction enhancing fabrics comprise polyester. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the unidirectional hook and loop fabric of Dowty allows for the fasteners to slide past each other and only hook when slid in the direction of the hooks, helping to prevent the fasteners from unintentionally connecting in the wrong position (paragraphs 0032-0034).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Zhang.
Regarding claim 42, Wu discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 38. Wu does not disclose wherein the first mattress portion and the second mattress portion are configured for use on a support comprising an articulatable mattress support, the first mattress portion and the second mattress portion defining at least one pivot point extending across their respective widths at which the articulatable mattress support pivots, and wherein the first friction enhancing fabric and the second fiction enhancing fabric extend lengthwise above and below the at least one pivot point.
Zhang teaches an adjustable mattress base comprising and first mattress portion and a second mattress portion (paragraph 0026) are configured for use on a support comprising an articulatable mattress support 100 (Figures 1 and 4), the first mattress portion and the second mattress portion defining at least one pivot point extending across their respective widths at which the articulatable mattress support pivots (the first and second portions being defined by adjacent portions of the mattress between which the mattress articulates, Figures 1 and 4), and wherein the first and second portions of the mattress extend lengthwise above and below the at least one pivot point (Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Wu (directed to a mattress and topper) with Zhang (directed to an articulatable mattress base) and arrived at an adjustable mattress located on an articulated support with the first and second friction enhancing fabric located at either end of the pivot points. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the adjustable base of Zhang allows for the inclination of the mattress to be adjusted in order to provide a desired support for a user’s body (paragraphs 0003-0004).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 19, Van Namee, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 18. Van Namee, as modified, further discloses wherein the mattress base 110 has a bottom surface 114, the mattress base 110 having a first firmness when in a first orientation with the top surface 116 facing upward to contact the bottom surface 117 of the mattress topper 120 and a second firmness different from the first firmness when in a second orientation with the bottom surface 114 facing upward to contact the bottom surface of the mattress topper 117 (see O’Connell, Figures 1-2 and paragraph 0025-0026). Van Namee, either alone or in combination with any of the above cited prior art, does not disclose the mattress base bottom surface having a third friction enhancing fabric comprising at least a portion of the mattress base bottom surface for contacting second friction enhancing fabric when in the second orientation to cooperate to oppose sliding of the mattress topper relative to the mattress base when a lateral force is applied to the mattress topper when in the second orientation. Additionally, there would be no motivation to further modify Van Namee, as modified, to such that there is a third friction enhancing fabric as adding additional frictional materials may cause the mattress be uneven and/or uncomfortable, specifically for a user-facing surface. As such, there is no disclosure, teaching, suggestion in the prior art such that a prior art rejection of claim 19 may be reasonably maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Scarleski (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0212809) which discloses a mattress comprising friction enhancing fabrics.
Teller (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0067095) which discloses a mattress comprising orientation specific firmnesses.
Gerrick (U.S. Patent No. 4,955,095) which discloses a mattress comprising friction enhancing fabrics.
Wong (U.S. Patent No. 5,092,010) which discloses a mattress covering comprising friction enhancing fabrics.
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-Th 6:30-4:30.
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 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.
/ALISON N LABARGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679