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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-17 have been examined in this application. This communication is a final rejection in response to the “Amendments to the claims” and “Remarks” filed 1/5/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 8600781 by Davies
Regarding claim 1, Davies discloses a comfort mattress, for an animal, particularly for equines, comfort mattress comprises two sheets, made of elastic material, namely:
An upper sheet, intended to form an upper face of said comfort mattress (upper layer 12), and
a lower sheet, intended to form a lower face of the comfort mattress (lower layer 13) which is adapted to rest on the ground (page 3, lines 25-27 disclose “In use, the mattress 10 is laid flat on the floor of a stable or similar structure to provide a floor covering and/or bedding material”),
which sheets are joined together and define:
a folding strip (dividing seams 16), suitable for folding said comfort mattress between a folded state, in two, and an unfolded state (a seam is suitable for folding and unfolding mattress 10), and
two sealed cavities (sections 15), each containing a resilient layer (fill material 14) and arranged on either side of said folding strip (Figure 1 shows middle dividing seam 16 forming two sections 15 located on either side of dividing seam 16).
Regarding claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Davies discloses said comfort mattress has a rectangular outline comprising two longitudinal edges (top and bottom edge in Figure 1) and two transverse edges (left and right edge in Figure 1), and said folding strip is arranged along a median line, preferably parallel to said longitudinal edges (see middle dividing seam 16).
Regarding claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), Davies discloses said comfort mattress comprises a peripheral strip, delimiting said comfort mattress and surrounding said sealed cavities (seam 11).
Regarding claim 8 (dependent on claim 1), Davies discloses said sheets are secured at said folding strip (dividing seams 16) and/or, where appropriate, said peripheral strip (seam 11).
Regarding claim 9 (dependent on claim 1), Davies discloses said resilient layer is constituted by a foam plate. Page 3, lines 11-12 disclose “Other suitable forms of fill material include tubular lengths of closed cell elastomeric foam materials”, and Figures 2 and 3 show that the closed cell elastomeric foam material in sections 15 as shown would form a plate shape.
Regarding claim 11 (dependent on claim 1)¸ Davies discloses each resilient layer comprises an upper face, a lower face and side faces, which lower sheet fits the lower face of said resilient layer, and which upper sheet fits the upper face and the side faces of said resilient layer (see Figure 3)
Regarding claim 12 (dependent on claim 1), Davies discloses each resilient layer has the shape of a parallelepiped plate (see the shape of individual sections 15 in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 14 (dependent on claim 2)¸ Davies discloses said folding strip is arranged along a median line, parallel to said longitudinal edges (see middle dividing seam 16 in Figure 1).
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 3-5, 7, 10, 15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over WO 8600781 by Davies
Regarding claim 3 (dependent on claim 2), Davies does not disclose wherein, in its unfolded state, said comfort mattress has a width dimension ranging from 1,500 to 2,000 mm, and a length dimension ranging from 2,000 to 3,000 mm. However, page 3, lines 27-33 disclose “The mattress 10 can be manufactured to have dimensions substantially conforming to that of the floor of the stable or similar structure in which it is to be used. Alternatively, a plurality of mattresses 10 of predetermined dimensions can be used to substantially cover the floor of the stable or similar structure”. It would thus have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the mattress of whatever size is desired to conform to the floor of the stable or to allow a plurality of mattresses to cover the floor of the stable, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 4 (dependent on claim 2), 5 (dependent on claim 1), Davies discloses said folding strip has a longitudinal axis (left to right in Figure 1), and a width dimension, perpendicular to said longitudinal axis (up to down in Figure 1),
Davies does not disclose the width dimension ranging from 40 mm to 200 mm, or wherein in its folded state, said folding strip has a radius of curvature ranging from 40 to 80 mm. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the mattress of whatever size is desired to provide strong dividing seams to prevent the fill material from migrating to other areas of the mattress, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7 (dependent on claim 6), Davies does not disclose said peripheral strip has a width dimension ranging from 40 mm to 200 mm. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the mattress of whatever size is desired to provide strong seams to prevent the fill material from escaping from the sections 15, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10 (dependent on claim 1), Davies does not disclose said resilient layer has a tensile strength ranging from 10 to 20 MPa, and an elongation capacity ranging from 300 to 500%. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a material as needed for its material properties in order to make a comfortable but tough mattress, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 15 (dependent on claim 9), Davies discloses said resilient layer is constituted by a foam plate. Page 3, lines 11-12 disclose “Other suitable forms of fill material include tubular lengths of closed cell elastomeric foam materials”, and Figures 2 and 3 show that the closed cell elastomeric foam material in sections 15 as shown would form a plate shape.
Davies does not disclose the foam plate is constituted by agglomerated or non-agglomerated rubber granules. However, page 3, lines 16-17 disclose “The elastomeric material can include rubber or plastics foam”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use well-known types of rubber form such as those formed by agglomerated or non-agglomerated rubber granules, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claims 13, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over WO 8600781 by Davies in view of US Patent Application Number 2017/0251638 by Staloch.
Regarding claim 13 (dependent on claim 1), Davies does not disclose said comfort mattress comprises at least one handle, suitable for handling said comfort mattress. However, this limitation is taught by Staloch. Staloch discloses a mat for animals, and paragraph 18 discloses “Weaning mat 100 may further optionally include handles on an end to allow for ease of lifting and moving. Handles, or other holes or loops, placed near an edge also allow the mat to be hung up for cleaning or storage”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Davies using the teachings from Staloch in order to make it easier to pick up the mattress.
Regarding claim 16 (dependent on claim 13)¸ Staloch further teaches the at least one handle is provided in a peripheral strip that delimits said comfort mattress and surrounds said sealed cavities (paragraph 18 discloses “Handles, or other holes or loops, placed near an edge also allow the mat to be hung up for cleaning or storage”, and Figure 1 shows the handles on the peripheral edge on the bottom left).
Regarding claim 17 (dependent on claim 16), Staloch further teaches the handle is provided in the peripheral strip in the form of a cutout (see handles on the bottom left in Figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that folding strips 5 is a dedicated structural zone which acts as a hinge, the linear seams of Davies are structural zones which act as a hinge due to their thinner thickness. The linear seams of Davies therefore reads on the folding strip as claimed, and there is no claimed requirement for a “specialized” folding strip.
Regarding the argument that the thickness of adjacent sections creates a mechanical interference that prevents a 180-degree fold, first, the claim does not require a 180-degree fold. Second, pillows, even without fold lines, are able to fold, as pillow-like sections can compress and bend, which decreases the mechanical interference between adjacent sections.
Regarding the argument that Davies has fragmented fill material consisting of shredded plastics, beads, or small particulates and the present invention utilizes a resilient layer, first Davies lists shredded plastics and beads of polyurethane as two possible examples filling material. There is no suggestion that the fill material consists of these materials. Davies also explicitly discloses foam materials as another possible type of fill material. Second, the abstract of Davies states that “Preferably the fill material is resilient”. The layer of fill material therefore comprises a resilient layer.
Regarding the argument that there is no motivation in Davies to limit the structure to two sealed cavities, the claim limitation for two sealed cavities does not exclude more than two cavities, such as the four cavities of Davies.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6554. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6:30.
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, Josh Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
MICHAEL H. WANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/MICHAEL H WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights