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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the
contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0146709 to Lafleche et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,749,111 to Pearce. With respect to claims 1, 7, 12, 15, 17 and 18, Lafleche et al. '709 provides the basic teaching of a mattress or cushion (10) comprising: a foundation (16, 19) defining a receptacle; a pressurizable layer (12) comprising at least one pressurizable air chamber (20), the pressurizable layer positioned within the receptacle; and a top layer (18) positioned over at least a portion of the pressurizable layer (12) within the receptacle, the top layer comprising a gel (as shown in Figures 1-6 and as described on page 4, in paragraphs 0062-0065; page 5, paragraphs 0070, 0076 & 0077; page 6, paragraphs 0077 & 0081 and on page 7, in paragraph 0087). However, with further respect to claims 1, 12 and 17 and with respect to claims 2-6, 13 and 14, Lafleche et al. '709 does not specifically disclose a first sublayer including first walls defining a plurality of first buckling columns, and a second sublayer including second walls defining a plurality of second buckling columns, at least a portion of the second walls being offset from the first walls, wherein the first sublayer and the second sublayer each comprises an elastomer gel; wherein the elastomer gel comprises a block copolymer and wherein the block copolymer comprises an A-B-A triblock copolymer; wherein the elastomer gel further
comprises a plasticizer, the plasticizer comprising an oil; wherein at least one of the first sublayer or the second sublayer defines a structured grid with a plurality of openings; and first walls defining a plurality of first buckling columns and second walls defining a plurality of second buckling columns, at least a portion of the second walls being offset from the first walls. Pearce ‘111 provides the basic teaching of a cushioning element (601) comprising a first sublayer including first walls (605) defining a plurality of first buckling columns (603), and a second sublayer including second walls (605) defining a plurality of second buckling columns (602), at least a portion of the second walls being offset from the first walls, wherein the first sublayer and the second sublayer each comprises an elastomer gel (609) (as shown in Figures 5 & 6 and as described in column 5, lines 17-40 & column 9, lines 33-47); wherein the elastomer gel comprises a block copolymer and wherein the block copolymer comprises an A-B-A triblock copolymer (as described in column 20, lines 27-47 and in column 22, lines 30-53); wherein the elastomer gel further comprises a plasticizer, the plasticizer comprising an oil (as described in column 21, lines 36-60); wherein at least one of the first sublayer or the second sublayer defines a structured grid with a plurality of openings (also as shown in Figures 5 & 6); and first walls (804) defining a plurality of first buckling columns (803) and second walls (804) defining a plurality of second buckling columns (803), at least a portion of the second walls being offset from the first walls (as shown in Figure 8 and as described in column 9, lines 65-67 and in column 10, lines 1-13). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mattress or cushion disclosed in Lafleche et al. '709 with the elastomer gel comprising an A-B-A triblock copolymer and a plasticizer, and
defining respective pluralities of first and second buckling columns which are offset from each other or a structured grid with a plurality of openings as taught in Pearce '302 with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a cushioning element which is “suitable for medical applications and other applications where the object being cushioned may be immobile for long periods of time, such as in …seats, furniture, mattresses, and other applications” which “eliminates pressure peaks” and “does not tend to constrict blood flow in the tissue of a human being on the [mattress or] cushion” as taught by Pearce ‘111 (see column 5, lines 7-22).
With respect to claims 8, 9, 16 and 19, Lafleche et al. '709 further discloses conditions wherein the pressurizable layer (12) comprises a plurality of pressurizable chambers or bladders (20) (as shown in Figures 3-6 and as described on page 5, in paragraphs 0076 & 0077 and on page 6, in paragraphs 0077 & 0081); wherein the plurality of pressurizable chambers (20) are independently pressurizable (as described on page 6, in paragraph 0083); and wherein the plurality of pressurizable chambers (20) extends a width of the mattress (10) and are positioned adjacent to a periphery of the mattress (as shown in Figures 2 & 3 and as described on page 5, in paragraph 0076).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafleche et al. ‘709 in view of Pearce ‘111 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0167302 to Pearce. Lafleche et al. ‘709 as modified by Pearce ‘111 does not specifically disclose the use of a coiled spring layer. Pearce ‘302 provides the
basic teaching of a cushioning element (100, 200) comprising an elastomer gel (as shown in Figures 1A & 2A and as described on page 3, in paragraphs 0036, 0039 & 0045 and on page 4, in paragraph 0056), and further comprising a coiled spring layer (as described on page 7, in paragraph 0079). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mattress disclosed in Lafleche et al. '709 with the coiled spring layer as taught in Pearce '302 with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable result of "[providing] additional stabilization of the [mattress]" as taught by Pearce '302 (see page 7, paragraph 0079).
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafleche et al. ‘709 in view of Pearce ‘111 as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0204706 to Karschnik et al. Lafleche et al. '709 as modified by Pearce '111 does not specifically disclose the use of at least one sensor associated with the top layer (18). Karschnik et al. '706 provides the basic teaching of a mattress or cushion comprising: a pressurizable layer (220, 920) (as shown in Figures 2, 3 & 31 and as described on page 17, paragraphs 0198 & 0199; page 18, paragraph 0199 and on page 32, paragraph 0316); a top layer (902, 970) over at least a portion of the pressurizable layer (920), the top layer comprising a gel (as shown in Figure 31 and as described on page 31, in paragraphs 0313 & 0315 and on page 32, in paragraphs 0318 & 0319); and at least one sensor (1342) associated with the top layer (902, 970) (as shown in Figure 34 and as described on page 37, in paragraph 0363). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mattress or cushion disclosed in Lafleche et al. '709 as modified by Pearce '111 with the at least one sensor taught in Karschnik et al. '706 with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a standard means "for detecting one or more features of the mattress [or cushion] and/or external to the mattress [or cushion]", thereby helping to ensure proper functioning of the mattress or cushion as taught by Karschnik et al. '706 (see page 37, paragraph 0363).
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s arguments on page 7 of the amendment with respect to the objection to the specification, the examiner respectfully agrees. Hence, this objection has been respectfully withdrawn.
Moreover, in response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 7 and 8 of the amendment with respect to the rejections of claims 1-8 and 10-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting, the examiner also respectfully agrees. Accordingly, these rejections have been respectfully withdrawn.
Lastly, Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-11 of the amendment with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 ROBERT G SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-7048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-11:30am and 2pm-7:30pm.
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 C 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.
/ROBERT G SANTOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights