DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 6-8 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.
The term “snugly” in claims 6-8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “snugly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear the structural requirements of something that fits snugly.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd (US Patent No. 5,960,496) in view of Roma et al. (US Patent No. 10,582,779 – hereinafter Roma).
Regarding Claim 1: Boyd discloses an adjustable mattress (abstract of Boyd) assembly comprising: a support tray (foam member 21 of Boyd – Fig. 1); an inflatable air chamber (Col. 2, lines 33-37 of Boyd - “if desired, the center foam section may be replaced by an inflatable air chamber of the same shape 38”) removably disposed in the support tray (as shown in Fig. 1 of Boyd); a support block (13D and 13C of Boyd – Fig. 3) removably and reorientably disposed in the support tray (see Fig. 3, Col. 2, lines 53-54 and claim 1 of Boyd - “It is preferred that sections 13, 15, and 17 be disposed in a cavity 19 defined by a foam member 21” and “wherein all the foam sections are the same size and readily separable, movable, and interchangeable by a user from one location in the mattress to another”) the support block (13 Fig. 1 of Boyd) [….]; and an upper pad (top 25 of Boyd) removably overlaying the support tray (Col 2, lines 63-66 of Boyd - “If desired, mattress sections 13, 15, and 17, although with foam member 21 may be disposed in a cover 23 with a zippered top 25. This construction allows the cover to be completely removed to be cleaned or replaced.”), the inflatable air chamber, and the support block (Fig. 1 of Boyd).
Boyd does not explicitly disclose the support block including a first layer formed of a first foam, and a second layer bonded to the first layer, the second layer being formed of a second foam, the first foam being firmer than the second foam.
However, in the same field of endeavor, mattress systems (see the abstract of Roma), Roma teaches a support block (support layer 106 or Roma – Fig. 3) including a first layer (first layer 120 of Roma – Fig. 3) formed of a first foam (Col. 8, lines 6-9 of Roma - “For example, the extra soft dual-layer support layers 106 can include a first layer 120 that is first degree of extra soft and a second layer 122 that is a second degree of extra soft.), and a second layer (second layer 122 of Roma – Fig. 3) bonded to the first layer (Col. 7, lines 48-51 of Roma - “The first layer 120 can be joined to the second layer 122 at a seam 124. The first layer 120 can be joined to the second layer 122 by any appropriate method, including, for example, adhesives, stitching, etc.”), the second layer being formed of a second foam, the first foam being firmer than the second foam (Col. 8, lines 15-19 of Roma - “In some embodiments, dual-layer support layers 106 can have first and second layers 120, 122 of disparate degrees of firmness. For example, a dual-layer support 106 can include a first layer 120 that is extra soft and a second layer 122 that is extra firm.”).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Boyd (directed to a mattress with adjustable core) and Roma (bonded layer sections) with a reasonable expectation of success by substituting the single layer 13 of Boyd with an element with bonded layers which can be flipped over for accessing the different firmnesses as taught by Roma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g. substituting the individual layers 13 of Boyd with bonded layers as taught by Roma) with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g. rearranging the elements are simplified since flipping over one element would be fast and easy for any user to understand).
Regarding Claim 2: Boyd in view of Roma make obvious the adjustable mattress assembly of claim 1, wherein the support block is flippable to selectively face the first layer or the second layer upwardly (Col. 7, lines 60-67 of Roma – “The user can than select between the two densities by flipping the support layer 106 such that either first layer 120 or the second layer 122 faces up. Thus, a user can customize the modular mattress 100 by selecting a desired support layer, and then can further customize the modular mattress 100 by selecting reversing the orientation (flipping the support layer 106).”)
Regarding Claim 4: Boyd in view of Roma make obvious the adjustable mattress assembly of claim 1, wherein the support tray is formed of a third foam (Col. 2, lines 57-60 of Boyd – “Foam member 21 may be of variable heights to create a higher profile using a less expensive polyurethane foam, which adds value without dramatically increasing the cost of the mattress system.”) and the upper pad is formed of a fourth foam (Col. 2, line 66-Col. 3, line 2 of Boyd - “The top may have a comfort layer composed of polyurethane foam, viscoelastic foam, temperature sensitive foam, polyester fiber, cotton, or other natural fibers”).
Regarding Claim 6: Boyd in view of Roma make obvious the adjustable mattress assembly of claim 1, wherein the inflatable air chamber and the support block fit together snugly to substantially prevent movement of the inflatable air chamber and the support block relative to one another (Col. 3, lines 12-14 of Boyd which describes the sections all having the same size and shape and Figs. 1-3 of Boyd showing the support blocks positioned directly adjacent to one another and inflatable member 38 described as having the same size as the blocks 13 and 17).
Regarding Claim 7: Boyd in view of Roma make obvious the adjustable mattress assembly of claim 1, wherein the inflatable air chamber fits in the support tray snugly to substantially prevent movement of the inflatable air chamber relative to the support tray (see Col. 2, lines 33-37 of Boyd which teaches replacing the center foam section with an inflatable chamber of the same shape 38 as shown in Fig. 1 – since the layer 11 is shown being adjacently positioned with no gaps between the blocks/inflatable member, and since the blocks/inflatable members are positioned within the tray, one can determine that the support tray substantially prevents movement of the air chamber and blocks).
Regarding Claim 8: Boyd in view of Roma make obvious the adjustable mattress assembly of claim 1, wherein the support block fits in the support tray snugly to substantially prevent movement of the support block relative to the support tray (see Col. 2, lines 33-37 of Boyd which teaches replacing the center foam section with an inflatable chamber of the same shape 38 as shown in Fig. 1 – since the layer 11 is shown being adjacently positioned with no gaps between the blocks/inflatable member, and since the blocks/inflatable members are positioned within the tray, one can determine that the support tray substantially prevents movement of the air chamber and blocks).
Regarding Claim 9: Boyd in view of Roma make obvious adjustable mattress assembly of claim 1. Boyd includes zipper top 25 which the Examiner considers the pad as provided above. Boyd therefore does not teach an upper cover removably attached to lower cover, the upper cover and the lower cover enveloping the support tray and the upper pad.
However, Roma teaches further comprising an upper cover (upper portion 108 of cover 102b of Roma – Fig. 2A) removably attached to lower cover (Fig. 102b and Col. 7, lines 22-28 of Roma – “FIG. 2B illustrates an embodiment of a two-piece cover 102b for a modular mattress. The cover 102b is, in some respects, similar to the cover 102a discussed above, except that the upper portion 108 is fully removable from the base portion 110. This can be achieved by extending the fastener 114 entirely around the upper portion 108 and the base portion 110”), the upper cover and the lower cover enveloping the [base] and the upper pad (Col. 5, lines 49-51 of Roma “cover 102, surrounding a single comfort layer 104 positioned on top of a single support layer 106”).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Boyd (directed to a mattress with adjustable core) and Roma (bonded layer sections and separate pad and top cover) with a reasonable expectation of success and arrived at a mattress with a separate pad layer and upper cover. One having ordinary skill it the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “the interchangeable components are replacable as needed, thereby reducing the amount of parts being thrown in landfills”. In other words, adding a pad layer separate from the upper cover of Boyd enables further interchangeability and replacement possibilities.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd (US Patent No. 5,960,496) in view of Roma et al. (US Patent No. 10,582,779 – hereinafter Roma) further in view of Hochschild (US PG Pub. No. 2007/0022540).
Regarding Claim 5: Boyd in view of Roma make obvious the adjustable mattress assembly of claim 1, wherein the support block is a first support block (13 of Boyd) and further comprising a second support block (17 of Boyd forming the second support block), the second support block being […..] [the same size and shape as] the first support block (see claim 1 of Boyd which describes the foam sections all having the same size and shape), the inflatable air chamber being between the first support block and the second support block (see Fig. 1 of Boyd showing air bladder 38 between blocks 13 and 17 of Boyd), and the upper pad removably overlaying the second support block (covered by the zipper top 25 of Boyd).
Boyd in view of Roma do not disclose or make obvious the first support block being identical to the second support block.
However, in the same field of endeavor, reconfigurable mattresses (see the abstract of Hochschild), Hochschild teaches identical support blocks (paragraph [0016] of Hochschild - “These layers may each be provided with physical properties selectable to provide appropriate and desired support to the portion of the body which rests atop each zone. In some of these layers, the adjacent regions or zones may be identical, and in others the properties may vary.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined Boyd (directed to a mattress with adjustable core), Roma (bonded layer sections) and Hochschild (directed to identical or variable support blocks) and arrived at a mattress with identical layered support blocks. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g. selecting identical materials for the layered blocks 13 and 17 of Boyd as modified by Roma with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g. still enabling rearranging of elements for different support while simplifying manufacturing by only requiring formation of one block used in different locations).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd (US Patent No. 5,960,496) in view of Roma et al. (US Patent No. 10,582,779 – hereinafter Roma) further in view of Hiatt et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0074906 – hereinafter Hiatt).
Regarding Claim 10: Boyd in view of Roma make obvious the adjustable mattress assembly of claim 1, but do not disclose further comprising a slipcover enveloping the upper pad and secured to the support tray.
However, in the same field of endeavor, bedding (see the abstract of Hiatt), Hiatt teaches a slipcover (incontinence bed cover 100 of Hiatt) enveloping the upper pad and secured to the [mattress] (see the cover 100 of Hiatt shown covering the uppermost surface of the mattress and securing to the bottom of the mattress via elastic corner straps – [0004] of Hiatt).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Boyd (directed to a mattress with adjustable core), Roma (bonded layer sections and separate pad and top cover) and Hiatt (incontinence cover) with a reasonable expectation of success and arrived at a mattress with an incontinence cover. One having ordinary skill it the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because the incontinence pad covers the whole mattress without getting messed up, does not soak through the mattress and absorbs the wetting completely to prevent skin breakdown and controls odor and mess” (paragraph [0003] of Hiatt).
The Examiner notes that since Boyd comprises a tray at the bottom of the mattress, combining the teachings of Hiatt to include a slip cover that wraps around the bottom of the mattress would result in the slip cover being secured to the tray.
Claim(s) 3, 11-15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd (US Patent No. 5,960,496) in view of Roma et al. (US Patent No. 10,582,779 – hereinafter Roma) further in view of Palashewski (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0007393).
Regarding Claim 3: Boyd in view of Roma make obvious the adjustable mattress assembly of claim 1. Boyd and Roma do not explicitly disclose or make obvious wherein the inflatable air chamber is configured to be selectively inflated and deflated.
Boyd and Roma do not explicitly disclose wherein the inflatable air chamber is configured to be selectively inflated and deflated.
However, in the same field of endeavor, sleep systems (see the abstract of Palashewski), Palashewski teaches a sleep system comprising inflatable air chambers configured to be selectively inflated and deflated (see the abstract of Palashewski – “A sleep system comprises a mattress comprising a plurality of zones, each zone comprising at least one fluid inflatable bladder, a controller configured to control a fluid pressure within the at least one fluid inflatable bladder of each of the plurality of zones, and a user controlling device in communication with the controller, the user controlling device being configured to display a firmness identifier, the firmness identifier comprising a plurality of symbols, each symbol corresponding to a pressure setting within the at least one fluid inflatable bladder of a corresponding one of the plurality of zones.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine Boyd (directed to a mattress with adjustable core), Roma (bonded layer sections) and Palashewski (directed to a mattress with adjustable inflatable bladders) with a reasonable expectation of success by including a pump and control unit in the invention of Boyd as modified by Roma. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “each side of the bed can be provided with its own inflatable bladder or set of inflatable bladders and controls to allow each user to separately adjust their own side of the bed to their preferred individual comfort level.”
Regarding Claim 11: Boyd discloses a variable firmness sleep system (see the abstract of Boyd) comprising: […] the adjustable mattress assembly including a support tray (foam member 21 of Boyd – Fig. 1); an inflatable air chamber (Col. 2, lines 33-37 of Boyd - “if desired, the center foam section may be replaced by an inflatable air chamber of the same shape 38”) removably disposed in the support tray (see Figs. 1 and 3 of Boyd), […], and a support block (13 of Boyd – Fig. 3) removably and reorientably disposed in the support tray (see Fig. 3, Col. 2, lines 53-54 and claim 1 of Boyd - “It is preferred that sections 13, 15, and 17 be disposed in a cavity 19 defined by a foam member 21” and “wherein all the foam sections are the same size and readily separable, movable, and interchangeable by a user from one location in the mattress to another”), [….]
Boyd does not explicitly disclose a remote control; a pump in communication with the remote control; and an adjustable mattress assembly connected to the pump, and in fluid communication with the pump, the support block including a first layer formed of a first foam, and a second layer, the second layer being formed of a second foam, the first foam being firmer than the second foam.
However, in the same field of endeavor, mattress systems (see the abstract of Roma), Roma teaches a support block (support layer 106 or Roma – Fig. 3) including a first layer (first layer 120 of Roma – Fig. 3) formed of a first foam (Col. 8, lines 6-9 of Roma - “For example, the extra soft dual-layer support layers 106 can include a first layer 120 that is first degree of extra soft and a second layer 122 that is a second degree of extra soft.), and a second layer (second layer 122 of Roma – Fig. 3) bonded to the first layer (Col. 7, lines 48-51 of Roma - “The first layer 120 can be joined to the second layer 122 at a seam 124. The first layer 120 can be joined to the second layer 122 by any appropriate method, including, for example, adhesives, stitching, etc.”), the second layer being formed of a second foam, the first foam being firmer than the second foam (Col. 8, lines 15-19 of Roma - “In some embodiments, dual-layer support layers 106 can have first and second layers 120, 122 of disparate degrees of firmness. For example, a dual-layer support 106 can include a first layer 120 that is extra soft and a second layer 122 that is extra firm.”).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Boyd (directed to a mattress with adjustable core) and Roma (bonded layer sections) with a reasonable expectation of success by substituting the single layer 13 of Boyd with an element with bonded layers which can be flipped over for accessing the different firmnesses as taught by Roma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g. substituting the individual layers 13 of Boyd with bonded layers as taught by Roma) with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g. rearranging the elements are simplified since flipping over one element would be fast and easy for any user to understand).
Boyd and Roma do not explicitly disclose or make obvious a remote control; a pump in communication with the remote control; and an adjustable mattress assembly connected to the pump, and in fluid communication with the pump.
However, in the same field of endeavor, adjustable sleep systems (see the abstract of Palashewski), Palashewski teaches a mattress (mattress 10 of Palashewski) comprising an inflatable air chamber (any of the inflatable bladders 62A-62C of Palashewski – Fig. 2), a remote control (remote controls 32 and 34 of Palashewski); a pump (fluid pump 21 of Palashewski) in communication with the remote control (paragraph [0056] of Palashewski – “The remote control 32, 34 can include a display 104 and one or more controls, such as controls 106 and 108, which are configured for control of the fluid dispensing system. The one or more controls 106, 108 can include an output selecting control, a pressure increase control, and a pressure decrease control. The output selecting control can be configured to allow a user to switch the output of the fluid pump 21 between the first mattress 18A and the second mattress 18B so that each remote control 32, 34 can be enabled control of multiple air chambers with a single remote control 32, 34”); and an adjustable mattress assembly connected to the pump (first and second mattresses 18A and 18B forming part of either of the mattresses 18A,18B of Palashewski), and in fluid communication with the pump (paragraph [0056] of Palashewski).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Boyd (directed to a mattress with adjustable core), Roma (bonded layer sections) and Palashewski (directed to a mattress with adjustable inflatable bladders) with a reasonable expectation of success by including a pump and control unit in the invention of Boyd as modified by Roma. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “each side of the bed can be provided with its own inflatable bladder or set of inflatable bladders and controls to allow each user to separately adjust their own side of the bed to their preferred individual comfort level” with a reasonable expectation of success by substituting the single layer 13 of Boyd with an element with bonded layers which can be flipped over for accessing the different firmnesses as taught by Roma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g. substituting the individual layer 13 of Boyd with bonded layers as taught by Roma) with a reasonable expectation of success by including a pump and control unit in the invention of Boyd as modified by Roma. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “each side of the bed can be provided with its own inflatable bladder or set of inflatable bladders and controls to allow each user to separately adjust their own side of the bed to their preferred individual comfort level” (paragraph [0001] of Palashewski).
Regarding Claim 12: Boyd in view of Roma and Palashewski make obvious the variable firmness sleep system of claim 11, wherein the remote control selectively instructs the pump to adjust an internal air pressure of the inflatable air chamber (paragraph [0003] of Palashewski - “a controller configured to control a fluid pressure within the at least one fluid inflatable bladder of each of the plurality of zones”).
Regarding Claim 13: Boyd in view of Roma and Palashewski make obvious the variable firmness sleep system of claim 12, wherein the pump selectively inflates and deflates the inflatable air chamber (paragraph [0022] of Palashewski - “In the example shown in FIG. 1, the sleep system 10 includes a first fluid pump 21 for inflating or deflating, or both, the inflatable bladders associated with the first sleep area 20.”)
Regarding Claim 14: Boyd in view of Roma and Palashewski make obvious the variable firmness sleep system of claim 12, wherein the pump adjusts the internal air pressure of the inflatable air chamber to a predetermined value (paragraph [0120] of Palashewski – “In the example shown in FIG. 1, the sleep system 10 includes a first fluid pump 21 for inflating or deflating, or both, the inflatable bladders associated with the first sleep area 20.”)
Regarding Claim 15: Boyd in view of Roma and Palashewski make obvious the variable firmness sleep system of claim 11, wherein the inflatable air chamber and the support block are disposed within the support tray (see Fig. 3 and Col. 2, lines 53-54 of Boyd - “It is preferred that sections 13, 15, and 17 be disposed in a cavity 19 defined by a foam member 21.”)
Regarding Claim 17: Boyd in view of Roma and Palashewski make obvious the variable firmness sleep system of claim 11, wherein the support block is a first support block (13 of Boyd) and further comprising a second support block (17 of Boyd), the inflatable air chamber being between the first support block and the second support block (38 of Boyd shown being between 13 and 17 in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 18: Boyd in view of Roma and Palashewski make obvious the variable firmness sleep system of claim 11. The embodiment of Fig. 2 of Boyd does not explicitly disclose wherein the inflatable air chamber is a first inflatable air chamber and further comprising a second inflatable air chamber in fluid communication with the pump, the first inflatable air chamber abutting the second inflatable air chamber. However the first embodiment of Boyd teaches inflatable chamber 38 utilized in the single side configuration shown in Fig. 1. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the embodiments of Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 by duplicating the inflatable chamber 38 to include two side by side inflatable chambers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g. replacing a foam section with an inflatable bladder) with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g. enabling a different type of support and adjustability). Additionally, Palashewski also teaches wherein the inflatable air chamber is a first inflatable air chamber (62b of the mattress 18A of Palashewski - Figs. 1, 2 and 7) and further comprising a second inflatable air chamber (62b of the mattress 18B of Palashewski - Figs. 1, 2 and 7) in fluid communication with the pump (see Figs. 1 and 7 of Palashewski), the first inflatable air chamber abutting the second inflatable air chamber (see the side-by-side configuration of Fig. 1 of Palashewski).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined Boyd (directed to a mattress with adjustable core), Roma (bonded layer sections) and Palashewski (side by mattresses) and arrived at a mattress with first and second inflatable air chambers with the first inflatable air chamber abutting the second. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g. creating a mattress with individual sides for different users as taught by Palashewski) with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g. enabling multiple users to control their own sides of the bed).
Regarding Claim 19: Boyd in view of Roma and Palashewski make obvious the variable firmness sleep system of claim 18, wherein the remote control selectively instructs the pump to toggle between the first inflatable air chamber and the second inflatable air chamber (paragraph [0056] of Palashewski -“the one or more controls 106, 108 can include an output selecting control, a pressure increase control, and a pressure decrease control. The output selecting control can be configured to allow a user to switch the output of the fluid pump 21 between the first mattress 18A and the second mattress 18B so that each remote control 32, 34 can be enabled control of multiple air chambers with a single remote control 32, 34.).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd (US Patent No. 5,960,496) in view of Roma et al. (US Patent No. 10,582,779 – hereinafter Roma) further in view of Palashewski (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0007393) further in view of Oakhill et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0289667- hereafter Oakhill).
Regarding Claim 16: Boyd in view of Roma and Palashewski make obvious the variable firmness sleep system of claim 11.
Boyd in view of Roma and Palashewski do not explicitly disclose or make obvious wherein the support tray defines a passage, the inflatable air chamber is connected to the pump via tubing, and the tubing extends through the passage.
However, in the same field of endeavor, adjustable sleep systems (see the apparatus of Oakhill), Oakhill teaches wherein the support tray (foam layer 70 of Oakhill – Fig. 5A) defines a passage (channel 98 of Oakhill), the inflatable air chamber is connected to the pump via tubing (fluid supply hoses or tubing 96 connecting a fluid bladder 64 with a pump 62of Oakhill – Fig. 5A and paragraph [0032]), and the tubing extends through the passage (see Fig. 5A paragraph [0032] of Oakhill).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g. by forming a passage receiving tubing through the tray of Boyd as modified by Roma and Palashewski) with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g. enabling placement of a pump at a location exterior to or beneath the mattress).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karschnik et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0017015 – hereinafter Karschnik) in view of Roma et al. (US Patent No. 10,582,779 – hereinafter Roma).
Regarding Claim 20: Karschnick discloses a method for customizing an adjustable mattress (method of using the mattress system 100 of Karschnick) comprising: removing an upper cover of the adjustable mattress from a lower cover of the adjustable mattress (see Fig. 2 of Karschnik which shows the cover 112 removed from the bottom cover to enable access to the mattress system); […] removing an upper pad (upper pad 710 requiring removal in order to access the foam inserts 708A, 708B of Fig. 7A of Karschnik) of the adjustable mattress [removable] from a base of the adjustable mattress (Fig. 7A); orienting one or more support blocks (foam inserts 708A, 708B of Fig. 7A of Karschnik) of the base (see paragraph [0062] of Karschnik – “the foam inserts can be interchangeable, removed, and/or replaced with other types and/or sizes of foam inserts.”), [….] and adjusting, with a pump, internal pressures of one or more inflatable air chambers of the base (paragraph [0102] of Karschnik – “ FIG. 8 depicts the example mattress system 100 with a pump 820 and a controller 824. The controller 824 can be configured to operate the pump 820 to cause increases and decreases in fluid pressure of the first air chamber 102A, the second air chamber 102B, the third air chamber 106A, and the fourth air chamber 106B. In some implementations, the controller 824 is integrated into a housing of the pump 820.”)
Karschnik does not explicitly disclose or make obvious each of the one or more support blocks including a first layer formed of a first foam, and a second layer bonded to the first layer, the second layer being formed of a second foam, the first foam being firmer than the second foam; returning the upper pad to the base.
Roma teaches a method for customizing an adjustable mattress (see the abstract of Roma) comprising: removing an upper cover of the adjustable mattress from a lower cover of the adjustable mattress (Col. 2, lines 40-47 of Roma - “In another aspect, a method for customizing a mattress includes, for example, selecting a plurality of modular support components, wherein at least some of the modular support components comprise different foam densities, arranging the plurality of modular support components within a recess in an encasement, and enclosing the encasement and the plurality of modular support components within a fabric cover”); removing an upper pad of the adjustable mattress from a base of the adjustable mattress (Col. 2, lines 49-55 of Roma – “positioning a foam layer within the fabric cover over the encasement and the plurality of modular support components” – since Roma teaches positioning a foam layer over top of the modular support components and further teaches rearranging the modular support components the step of removing the upper pad is required); orienting one or more support blocks of the base mattress (Col. 2, lines 49-55 of Roma – “adjusting the mattress by removing at least one of the plurality of modular support components, and replacing it with another modular support components having a different foam density”), each of the one or more support blocks (support layers 106 or Roma – Fig. 3) including a first layer (first layer 120of Roma – Fig. 3) formed of a first foam (Col. 8, lines 6-9 of Roma - “For example, the extra soft dual-layer support layers 106 can include a first layer 120 that is first degree of extra soft and a second layer 122 that is a second degree of extra soft.), and a second layer (second layer 122 of Roma – Fig. 3) bonded to the first layer (Col. 7, lines 48-51 of Roma - “The first layer 120 can be joined to the second layer 122 at a seam 124. The first layer 120 can be joined to the second layer 122 by any appropriate method, including, for example, adhesives, stitching, etc.”), the second layer being formed of a second foam, the first foam being firmer than the second foam (Col. 8, lines 15-19 of Roma - “In some embodiments, dual-layer support layers 106 can have first and second layers 120, 122 of disparate degrees of firmness. For example, a dual-layer support 106 can include a first layer 120 that is extra soft and a second layer 122 that is extra firm.”) returning the upper pad to the base (see the finished mattresses 100a-100c including the upper pads on the base of the mattresses therefore requiring the repositioning of the upper pad); reattaching the upper cover to the lower cover (Col. 2, lines 49-55 of Roma – “positioning a foam layer within the fabric cover over the encasement and the plurality of modular support components” – since Roma teaches positioning a foam layer over top of the modular support components and further teaches rearranging the modular support components the step of removing the upper pad is required – also see Figs. 1a-1c which show the cover surrounding the pad 104 and blocks 106 in the assembled configuration); [….].
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Karschnik (directed to a method of customizing a mattress with adjustable core) and Roma (a method of customizing a mattress with bonded layer sections) with a reasonable expectation of success by substituting at least one of the foam supports of Karschnik with an element with bonded layers which can be flipped over for accessing the different firmnesses as taught by Roma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g. substituting the individual layers of Karschnik with bonded layers as taught by Roma) with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g. rearranging the elements are simplified since flipping over one element would be fast and easy for any user to understand).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG Pub. No. 2006/0096034 to Tucci is cited for teaching a mattress with panels of different layers which are flappable for achieving different support characteristics.
US Patent No. 6,397,419 to Mechache is cited for teaching a mattress with different sleep surfaces within a tray.
US Patent No. 9,888,783 to Hui is cited for teaching a mattress structure with many reconfigurable sections.
US Patent No. 3,534,417 to Boyles is cited for teaching a reversible foam mattress having different degrees of firmness.
US PG Pub. No. 2015/0296993 to Boyd is cited for teaching a mattress assembly comprising a plurality of elements of different firmnesses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA L BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/AMANDA L BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3673