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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/01/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
PNG
media_image1.png
646
1245
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Section of Clark Fig. 6
PNG
media_image2.png
598
1334
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Section of Travis Fig. 2
Claims 1 – 13 & 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark US 2568055 A (hereinafter Clark) in view of Travis US 1051466 A (hereinafter Travis).
Re. Cl. 1, Clark discloses a cushion for a seating furniture (Fig. 1, Ref. 2) comprising a plurality of pocket springs (Fig. 3A, Ref. 12 & 13) with a first height (Fig. 6, Ref. H1) that differs from a second height (Fig. 6, Ref. H2) such that a top side of the cushion is non-flat (See Fig. 7).
Re. Cl. 1, Clark fails to explicitly disclose groupings of separate sets of springs. Travis teaches a cushion for a seating furniture comprising a first set of springs (Fig. 1 & 2, Ref. 1) with a first height (Fig. 2, Ref. H1) and a second set of springs (Fig. 1 & 2, Ref. 3) with a second height (Fig. 2, Ref. H3) that differs from the first height. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clark with Travis's teaching of separate sets of springs. Doing so would allow for modularization in the spring structure.
Re. Cl. 2, Clark discloses that the plurality of pocket springs all have the same diameter (Ref. 12 & 13; Col. 4, Ln. 31 – 32).
Re. Cl. 3, Clark discloses that the pocket springs are arranged in rows and columns (See Fig. 3A).
Re. Cl. 4, Clark discloses that the first height is higher than the second height (See Fig. 6). Travis also teaches that the first height is higher than the second height (See Fig. 2).
Re. Cl. 5, Clark discloses pocket springs arranged such that the top side of the cushion is tapered (See Fig. 6).
Re. Cl. 5, Clark fails to disclose a separate first set of springs. Travis teaches that the first set of springs (Fig. 1 & 2, Ref. 1) are arranged towards a front edge of the cushion such that the top side of the cushion is tapered (See Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clark with Travis's teaching of a first set of springs. Doing so would create modular grouping of springs that form a zone with a uniform height and compression across the set of springs separate from the other sets of springs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Clark with Travis’s teaching of a separate first set of springs such that the first set of pocket springs is arranged in the center of the cushion such that the top side of the cushion is convex, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Re. Cl. 6, Clark discloses pocket springs arranged such that the top side of the cushion is tapered (See Fig. 6).
Re. Cl. 7, Clark discloses pocket springs with a third height (Fig. 6, Ref. H3) being lower than the first and the second heights.
Re. Cl. 7, Clark fails to disclose a third set of springs. Travis teaches a third set of springs (Fig. 1 & 2, Ref. 2) that has a third height being lower than the first and the second heights (Fig. 2, Ref. H2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clark with Travis's teaching of a third set of springs. Doing so would make the top surface of the cushion more adjustable by introducing a third zone of springs that can be arranged with the first and second sets to form desired contours in the cushion surface.
Re. Cl. 8, Clark discloses that the third set of springs with the third height is arranged on the opposite side of the second set of pocket springs with regard to the first set of pocket springs (See Fig. 6).
Re. Cl. 9, Clark discloses that the plurality of pocket springs are arranged such that there is a stepwise increase of pocket spring height from an edge of the cushion to the center (See Fig. 6, Ref. H3 to H2).
Re. Cl. 10, Clark discloses that the plurality of pocket springs are arranged in a first layer (See Fig. 6).
Re. Cl. 11, Clark discloses that the plurality of pocket springs are arranged such that a bottom side of the cushion is flat (Fig. 6, Ref. 8 - 10; Col. 4, Ln. 15 – 23).
Re. Cl. 12, Clark discloses a top layer arranged on top of the plurality of pocket springs (Fig. 1, Ref. 25; Col. 5, Ln. 29 – 31).
Re. Cl. 13, Clark discloses a cover layer arranged around the plurality of pocket springs (Fig. 1, Ref. 27; Col. 5, Ln. 32).
Re. Cl. 15, Clark discloses a seating furniture comprising at least one cushion according to claim 1 (Fig. 1, Ref. 2; Col 3, Ln. 51 – 52).
Re. Cl. 16, Clark discloses plurality of pocket springs (Fig. 3A, Ref. 12 & 13) in rows and columns (See Fig. 3A); with a first height (Fig. 6, Ref. H1) that differs from a second height (Fig. 6, Ref. H2) such that a top side of the cushion is non-flat (See Fig. 7).
Re. Cl. 16, Clark fails to explicitly disclose groupings of separate sets of springs. Travis teaches a cushion for a seating furniture comprising a first set of springs (Fig. 1 & 2, Ref. 1) with a first height (Fig. 2, Ref. H1) and a second set of springs (Fig. 1 & 2, Ref. 3) with a second height (Fig. 2, Ref. H3) that differs from the first height. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clark with Travis's teaching of separate sets of springs. Doing so would allow for the modification and replacement sets of springs within the spring structure rather than as individual springs.
Concerning method claim 16, in view of the structure disclosed by Clark in view of Travis above, the method of manufacturing the device would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since Clark’s invention provides the same structure as the device described in the specification and claims. The Examiner submits that it can be assumed that the cushion of Clark is capable of performing the claimed method of manufacturing.
Re. Cl. 17, Clark discloses that the plurality of pocket springs are arranged such that there is a stepwise increase of pocket spring height from an edge of the cushion to the center (See Fig. 6, Ref. H3 to H2).
Concerning method claim 17, in view of the structure disclosed by Clark in view of Travis above, the method of manufacturing the device would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since Clark’s invention provides the same structure as the device described in the specification and claims. The Examiner submits that it can be assumed that the cushion of Clark is capable of performing the claimed method of manufacturing.
Claims 14, 18, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Travis as applied to claims 1 – 13 & 15 – 17 above, and further in view of Kaspar US 1741847 A (hereinafter Kaspar).
Re. Cl. 14, Clark discloses a plurality of pocket springs and a top layer.
Re. Cl. 14, Clark as modified by Travis fails to disclose a water-resistant material. Kaspar teaches that the plurality of pocket springs and/or the cover layer comprises a water-resistant material (Fig. 2, Ref. 9 & 10; Pg. 1, Ln. 84 – 87). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Clark 's invention with Kaspar's teachings of a water-resistant material. Doing so would protect the pocket springs from liquid spills when in use in the seat cushion of the seat, extending their lifespan.
Re. Cl. 18, Clark discloses a plurality of pocket springs arranged in a first layer (See Fig. 6).
Re. Cl. 18, Clark as modified by Travis fails to disclose a second layer.
Re. Cl. 18, Kaspar teaches the plurality of pocket springs are arranged in a first layer and a second layer (Fig. 2, Ref. C1 & C2; Pg. 2, Ln. 95 – 103). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Clark 's invention with Kaspar's teachings of a second layer of pocket springs. Doing so would MOTIVATION reinforce the spring structure the additional layer of springs to provide a more staunch and durable cushion (Pg. 2, Ln. 99 - 100).
Concerning method claim 18, in view of the structure disclosed by Clark in view of Travis and Kaspar above, the method of manufacturing the device would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since Clark’s invention provides the same structure as the device described in the specification and claims. The Examiner submits that it can be assumed that the cushion of Clark is capable of performing the claimed method of manufacturing.
Re. Cl. 20, Clark discloses a plurality of pocket springs and a top layer
Re. Cl. 20, Clark as modified by Travis fails to disclose a water-resistant material. Kaspar teaches that the plurality of pocket springs and/or the top layer comprises a water-resistant material (Fig. 2, Ref. 9 & 10; Pg. 1, Ln. 84 – 87). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Clark 's invention with Kaspar's teachings of a water-resistant material. Doing so would protect the pocket springs from rain and snow in outdoor furniture applications, preventing rusting and degradation.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Travis as applied to claims 1 – 13 & 15 – 17 above, and further in view of Mossbeck US 20160166076 A1 (hereinafter Mossbeck).
Re. Cl. 19, Clark as modified by Travis fails to disclose roll-packaging. Mossbeck teaches roll-packaging the cushion (Para. 009). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Clark 's invention with Mossbeck's teachings of roll-packaging the cushion. Doing so would allow for the cushion to be “shipped to a desired destination for further manufacture and unrolled without damage to the individual pocketed spring assemblies” (Para. 009).
Concerning method claim 19, in view of the structure disclosed by Clark in view of Travis and Kaspar above, the method of manufacturing the device would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since Clark’s invention provides the same structure as the device described in the specification and claims. The Examiner submits that it can be assumed that the cushion of Clark is capable of performing the claimed method of manufacturing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Manuszak et al. US 20220408945 A1 and Albæk et al. US 20200178698 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GELILA S KEBEDE whose telephone number is (571)270-0369. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00AM - 2:00PM, Mon - Thurs.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at (571) 272-4797. 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.
/GELILA KEBEDE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
