Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/053,038

AMBIENT BED HAVING A HEAT RECLAIM SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Feb 13, 2025
Examiner
KURILLA, ERIC J
Art Unit
3619
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
BEDGEAR, LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
560 granted / 788 resolved
+19.1% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
820
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
40.2%
+0.2% vs TC avg
§102
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
§112
24.0%
-16.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 788 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 as follows: The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 61/926,526, 61/926,540, 14/595537, 15/429984, 15/789346, 15/974093, 16/781503, and 17/156913, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Claim 1 requires “a chassis having an open configuration to receive other layers of the mattress, the chassis comprising a lower wall and a vertical wall that is connected to the lower wall, the lower wall including at least one opening for at least one duct of the mattress.” The drawings and specification associated with the instant application do not show a mattress that comprises a chassis having “an open configuration to receive other layers of the mattress”. The mattress as shown by reference numeral 26 in at least Fig. 3 is a unitary structure with no “open configuration” to receive other layers of the mattress. Provisional application 61/926,540 provides for a chassis that has an open configuration to receive other layers of a mattress in reference numeral 22 and described as a “flow delivery housing” in the provisional’s specification. Even with this disclosure in the provisional, the 61/926,540 application fails to disclose “the chassis comprising a lower wall and a vertical wall that is connected to the lower wall, the lower wall including at least one opening for at least one duct of the mattress” as required by Claim 1. It appears Applicant is combining embodiments from two distinct disclosures in provisional 61/926,540 and provisional 61/926,526. “[I]n Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1371, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the examiner made a prima facie case by clearly and specifically explaining why applicant’s specification did not support the particular claimed combination of elements, even though applicant’s specification listed each and every element in the claimed combination. The court found the "examiner was explicit that while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was lack of adequate description of their combination" and, thus, "[t]he burden was then properly shifted to [inventor] to cite to the examiner where adequate written description could be found or to make an amendment to address the deficiency." Id.; see also Stored Value Solutions, Inc. v. Card Activation Techs., 499 Fed.App’x 5, 13-14 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (non-precedential) (Finding inadequate written support for claims drawn to a method of processing debit purchase transactions requiring three separate authorization codes because "the written description [did] not contain a method that include[d] all three codes" and "[e]ach authorization code is an important claim limitation, and the presence of multiple authorization codes in [the claim] was essential".).” See MPEP 2163 (II)(A). See comparison of drawings from the two provisional applications below. PNG media_image1.png 927 1435 media_image1.png Greyscale Furthermore, Applicant has not shown possession of the subject matter in claims 24, 28, 30-33, and 34. Regarding Claim 24, Applicant has defined sections 48a and 48b, however these sections are not described as varying in firmness or a characteristic indicative of firmness, e.g. Indentation Load Deflection (IFD). Regarding Claims 28 and 30-33, neither provisional discloses at least one sensor is positioned within the chassis. Regarding Claim 34, neither provisional discloses wherein chassis is made at least in part from foam. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “chassis” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Please provide antecedent basis in the specification for “chassis”. 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. Claim(s) 21-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mikkelsen (US 2012/00173776). Regarding Claim 21, Mikkelsen discloses a bedding system (508) comprising: a base platform (511); and a mattress (510) configured to be positioned on top of the base platform, the mattress comprising: a chassis (area surrounding internal chamber 513, see para. [0133]) having an open configuration to receive other layers of the mattress (513), the chassis comprising a lower wall and a vertical wall that is connected to the lower wall, the lower wall including at least one opening (516) for at least one duct of the mattress (see Fig. 14). Regarding Claim 22, Mikkelsen discloses wherein the base platform is adjustable (fans 518 in base platform have adjustable speeds). Regarding Claim 23, Mikkelsen discloses wherein the mattress is divided into a driver side and a passenger side, the driver side being configured to support a first sleeper, the passenger side being configured to support a second sleeper (see para. [0148] describing “two or more fans 518 are located in different positions of a body support 510 to provide different rates of cooling to different individuals on the body support 510 (e.g., his and hers sides of the body support 510 having independently controllable fans 518 located in different sides of the foundation 511)”). Regarding Claim 24, Mikkelsen discloses wherein the driver side has a firmness that is different than a firmness of the passenger side (see para. [0154]). Regarding Claim 25, Mikkelsen discloses wherein the driver side includes a first connection (516) and the passenger side includes a second connection (516, see Figs. 14-15 and para. [0148]). Regarding Claim 26, Mikkelsen discloses comprising at least one sensor (526) selected from the group consisting of temperature sensors, pressure sensors, moisture sensors and mass flow sensors (see para. [0140]). Regarding Claim 27, Mikkelsen discloses wherein the at least one sensor is positioned within the mattress (see Fig. 14). Regarding Claim 28, Mikkelsen discloses wherein the at least one sensor is positioned within the chassis (see Fig. 14). Regarding Claim 29, Mikkelsen discloses wherein the at least one sensor is positioned on top of the mattress (see para. [0146], i.e. “any or all of sensor(s) 526 employed in a body support 510 described and/or illustrated herein can be positioned elsewhere on the body support 510, such as on the top surface 512 of the body support 510, embedded in the foam of the body support 510 immediately below the top surface 512 thereof, and the like.”). Regarding Claim 30, Mikkelsen discloses at least one temperature sensor (see para. [0140]), wherein the chassis includes a sleep surface (512) and a bottom surface (514) opposite the sleep surface, the chassis including a side wall extending from the sleep surface to the bottom surface, the at least one temperature sensor being positioned between the sleep surface and the bottom surface (see Fig. 14). Regarding Claim 31, Mikkelsen discloses wherein the chassis includes a sleep surface (512) and a bottom surface (514) opposite the sleep surface, the chassis including a side wall extending from the sleep surface to the bottom surface, the at least one pressure sensor being positioned between the sleep surface and the bottom surface (see Fig. 14). Regarding Claim 32, Mikkelsen discloses at least one moisture sensor (see para. [0140]), wherein the chassis includes a sleep surface (512) and a bottom surface (514) opposite the sleep surface, the chassis including a side wall extending from the sleep surface to the bottom surface, the at least one pressure sensor being positioned between the sleep surface and the bottom surface (see Fig. 14). Regarding Claim 33, Mikkelsen discloses at least one mass flow sensor (see para. [0140]), wherein the chassis includes a sleep surface (512) and a bottom surface (514) opposite the sleep surface, the chassis including a side wall extending from the sleep surface to the bottom surface, the at least one mass flow sensor being positioned between the sleep surface and the bottom surface (see Fig. 14). Regarding Claim 34, Mikkelsen discloses wherein chassis is made at least in part from foam (see para. [0131]). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC J KURILLA whose telephone number is (571)270-7294. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7AM-6PM. 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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. /ERIC J KURILLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 13, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599257
PILLOW WITH GUSSET AND OPEN CELL CONSTRUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599526
SURGICAL SUPPORT SYSTEM WITH SUPPORT TOP HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588775
LYING NECK PILLOW THAT IS EASY TO ADJUST AND USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589839
AQUATIC BODYBOARD FOLDING CHAIR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582239
MATTRESS AND BED
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+27.1%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 788 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month