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
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, 9-11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2,801,633 to Allman et al. in view of DE 102016125881 to Mueller et al.
Claims 1, 11, and 15, Allman discloses a mattress assembly, comprising a base 76; coil springs 74 over the base; and a side panel 78(1)-78(4) around at least a portion of the coil springs. Allman is silent to a spacer fabric. Mueller discloses a three-dimensional fabric 1 that has a first and second knit layers (4,5) with fibrous spacer yarns 11 extending between the knit layers (fig. 5A). Selecting from a plethora of known cushioning materials is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the spacer fabric disclosed in Mueller with the mattress assembly of Allman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have improved protection, and ensuring better contour adaptation of the fabric for the mattress assembly of Allman.
Claim 9, Allman, as modified, discloses the mattress assembly, but is silent to the fibrous material being a microfilament yarn. Selecting from a plethora of known materials is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a microfilament yarn material with the cushion of Allman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative material for the mattress of Allman.
Claim 10, Allman, as modified, discloses the mattress assembly wherein the first knit layer and the second knit layer comprise two separate panels interconnected by the microfilament yarn.
Claim(s) 2, 12, 16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2,801,633 to Allman et al. in view of DE 102016125881 to Mueller et al., and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 3,920,609 to Lehmann.
Claims 2 and 12, Allman discloses the mattress assembly further comprising a cushion 129 over the coil springs (fig. 2C), but is silent to the cushion being elastomeric. Lehmann discloses an elastomeric cushion material for a mattress assembly [Claim 9]. Selecting from a plethora of known materials for a cushion is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the elastomeric material disclosed in Lehmann with the cushion of Allman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative material for the cushion of Allman.
Claim 16. Allman discloses a mattress comprising a coil layer 74 and a side cushioning layer 78(1)-78(4) extending around a portion of the coil springs, and a cushion 129 over the coil layer. Allman is silent to a spacer fabric. Mueller discloses a three-dimensional fabric 1 that has a first and second knit layers (4,5) with fibrous spacer yarns 11 extending between the knit layers (fig. 5A). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the spacer fabric disclosed in Mueller with the side cushion layer of Allman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have improved deformability, protection, and ensuring better contour adaptation of the fabric along the side cushioning layer of Allman. Allman is silent to the cushion being elastomeric. Lehmann discloses an elastomeric cushion material for a mattress assembly [Claim 9]. Selecting from a plethora of known materials for a cushion is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the elastomeric material disclosed in Lehmann with the cushion of Allman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative material for the cushion of Allman.
Claim 18, Allman, as modified, discloses the mattress assembly, but is silent to the fibrous material being a microfilament yarn. Selecting from a plethora of known materials is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a microfilament yarn material with the cushion of Allman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative material for the mattress of Allman.
Claim 19, Allman, as modified, discloses the mattress assembly wherein the first knit layer and the second knit layer comprise two separate panels interconnected by the microfilament yarn.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2,801,633 to Allman et al. in view of DE 102016125881 to Mueller et al., and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,435,026 to Cavazos.
Claims 3, 5, 14, Allman, as modified, discloses the mattress assembly, but is silent to the spacer fabric coupled to the coil springs by a fastener being directly coupled to a knit layer. Cavazos discloses that it is well known to fasten a fabric layer to an innerspring with hog rings (col. 1 lines 10-30). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fastening of the fabric layers to the inner spring disclosed in Cavazos with the mattress of Allman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative means to assemble the mattress of Allman.
Claim 4, Allman, as modified, discloses the mattress assembly wherein the fastener comprises a ring coupled to a rung of an outermost coil spring of the coil springs (fig. 2D).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2,801,633 to Allman et al. in view of DE 102016125881 to Mueller et al., and further in view of WO 2015/101632 to Schilthuizen et al.
Claims 6-8, Allman, as modified, discloses the mattress assembly, but is silent to at least one of the knit layers having a greater modulus of elasticity along a first axis than along a second axis perpendicular to the first axis. Schilthuizen discloses the elongation of the top warp knitted pattern surface structure is capable of being smaller than the elongation of the bottom knitted surface structure, and materials used in the warp axis direction are used to enable greater compression and elasticity (pg. 6 lines 21-27)(pg. 19 lines 8-16). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the knitted structure disclosed in Schilthuizen with the fabric layers of Allman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have improved deformability/compressibility along the side layer, protection, and ensure better contour adaptation of the fabric.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2,801,633 to Allman et al. in view of DE 102016125881 to Mueller et al., U.S. Pat. No. 3,920,609 to Lehmann, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,435,026 to Cavazos.
Claim 17, Allman, as modified, discloses the mattress assembly, but is silent to the knit layer coupled to the coil springs. Cavazos discloses that it is well known to fasten a fabric layer to an innerspring with hog rings (col. 1 lines 10-30). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fastening of the fabric layers to the inner spring disclosed in Cavazos with the mattress of Allman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative means to assemble the mattress of Allman.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2,801,633 to Allman et al. in view of DE 102016125881 to Mueller et al., U.S. Pat. No. 3,920,609 to Lehmann, and further in view of WO 2015/101632 to Schilthuizen et al.
Claim 20, Allman, as modified, discloses the mattress assembly, but is silent to at least one of the knit layers having a greater compressibility along a second perpendicular axis than along a first axis. Schilthuizen discloses materials used in the warp axis direction are used to enable greater compression (pg. 19 lines 8-16). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the knitted structure disclosed in Schilthuizen with the fabric layers of Allman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have improved deformability deformability/compressibility along the side cushion layer of Allman.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0307170 to Burke et al. discloses a three dimensional fabric that has a first and second knit layers (12,16) with spacer yarns 16 extending between.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,243,900 to Gladney et al. discloses attaching a layer to vi hog rings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDRICK C CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached on (571) 270-3654. 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.
/FREDRICK C CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights