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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments, filed 7/21/2026, have been entered. Claims 1, 4-5, and 10 have been amended. Claims 6-9 have been cancelled. Claims 1-5 and 10 are currently pending in the application. The amendments to the claims have overcome the previous objections to claims 4 and 5 presented in the previous Office Action.
Applicant argues, on pages 5-10 of Applicant’s remarks, that the previously cited prior art does not sufficiently disclose, teach, or suggest the subject matter of amended claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues, on pages 6-8 that the previously cited Bergstroem (Patent Publication No. WO 8907411 A1) does not teach the plurality of vertical half-cylindrical bulges parallel to each other and uniformly disposed on the vertical surfaces of the bed body and does not teach the bed head being uniformly divided into zones, each zone being provided with a protruding arc structure. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed in the previous Office Action, Bergstroem teaches several profiles that may be used to cover the entire surface of a mattress core (such as shown in Figure 1). Figure 4 of Bergstroem teaches two rounded profiles. The leftmost example of rounded profiles shown in Figure 4 has elongated half-arch shapes with flat surfaces at the end of each half-arch. By its plain definition, a cylinder can have a cross-section of a circle as well as an ellipse. Therefore, the elongated half-arch shaped cross sections of the profile of Figure 4 meet the definition of a half-cylindrical bulge. Additionally, regarding the zones of the bed head, the claims do not provide further detail into what specifically is defined as a zone in the bed head, other than that each zone must be provided with a protruding arc surface structure. As Bergstroem teaches that the surface profiles extend around the entirety of the mattress (Figure 1), then the mattress of Mori (Patent Publication No. EP 2215929 A1) which includes an integral bed head 10” and bed body 10’ would be covered on all surfaces in the same manner. Therefore, each elongated half-arch protrusion in the surface of the bed head could reasonably be considered its own zone, which each protrusion defining the claimed “protruding arc surface structure”. Applicant additionally argues that the combination of Mori and Bergstroem would not further the respective objectives of either reference and therefore lacks the rational underpinning required for an obviousness determination. Examiner respectfully disagrees. A finding of obviousness is not based on whether the proposed combination would further one or both of the respective objectives of either reference. Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as noted in the previous Office Action, Bergstroem teaches that the protuberances provide a massaging effect to an overlying user (see Bergstroem, Page 2, lines 23-28), providing motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a mattress with the protuberances taught by Bergstroem.
Additionally, Applicant argues, on pages 8-10 that the combination of previously cited prior art does not establish a reasonable expectation that the resulting structure would be able to undergo the compression and recovery process of Magni (U.S. Patent No. 4,711,067). Examiner respectfully disagrees. First it is noted that Mori is capable of undergoing a vacuum compression and recovery process (see Mori, paragraph 0009). While Mori does not explicitly describe the details of the vacuum process, Mori does state that the cushion can “easily” be packaged in vacuum bags, making handling, transport, and storage quick and more inexpensive (paragraph 0009). Therefore, Mori contemplates that the mattress may undergo at least some vacuum compression when sealed in vacuum bags, and have the mattress fully recover when the bag is unsealed, as it is highly unlikely that Mori would suggest a storage and transportation option for the mattress that would destroy the shape, and therefore utility, of the mattress. Additionally, both Mori and Bergstroem teach that their respective mattresses are formed of polyurethane foam (see Mori, paragraph 0015 and see Bergstroem, page 4, paragraphs 2-3). Magni notes that the disclosed method can be adopted for many types of mattresses, particularly for those which have an intermediate layer of a synthetic elastic foam resin (Col. 2, lines 4-35), which would include polyurethane foam. It would therefore be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to use Magni’s process for vacuum sealing a variety of types of mattresses in a manner which would not destroy the mattress utility and produce the desired outcome of a compressed mattress.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (Patent Publication No. EP 2215929 A1) in view of Bergstroem (Patent Publication No. WO 8907411 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Mori discloses a vacuum compression bed, comprising a bed body 10’ (as shown in the embodiment of Figures 7-9) that is horizontally placed and a bed head or 10” and 30 (as shown in the embodiment of Figures 7-9) that is connected to one end of the bed body 10’ (Figures 5 or 9, respectively), wherein the bed body 10’ and the bed head 10” are made of foamed sponge (paragraph 0015); and the bed body and the bed head are integrally formed (Figure 9) and are configured to be vacuum- compressed together into a sheet-shaped body in a vacuum state, and the vacuum compression bed automatically recovers to an original shape after release from the vacuum state (paragraph 0009).
Mori does not disclose a plurality of half-cylindrical bulge structures that are parallel to each other are uniformly disposed on an upper surface of the bed body; a plurality of vertical half-cylindrical bulge structures that are parallel to each other are uniformly disposed on each of four side vertical surfaces of the bed body; an upper portion of the bed head facing the bed body is uniformly divided into a plurality of zones, and each zone is provided with a protruding arc surface structure.
Bergstroem (Patent Publication No. WO 8907411 A1) teaches wherein a plurality of half-cylindrical bulge structures 1 that are parallel to each other are uniformly disposed on an upper surface of the bed body (Figures 1-2, where the protuberances are distributed across the top and sides, Figure 4 where the protuberances may be rounded); and a plurality of vertical half-cylindrical bulge structures 1 that are parallel to each other are uniformly disposed on four side vertical surfaces of the bed body 2 (Figures 1-2, where the protuberances are distributed across the top and sides, Figure 4 where the protuberances may be rounded), and zones, wherein each zone is provided with a protruding arc surface structure 1 (Figures 1-2, where the protuberances are distributed across the top and sides, Figure 4 where the protuberances may be rounded).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Mori with Osborn (both being directed to foam mattresses) such that a plurality of half-cylindrical bulge structures that are parallel to each other are uniformly disposed on an upper surface and four side walls of the bed body and an upper portion of the bed head facing the bed body is uniformly divided into a plurality of zones, and each zone is provided with a protruding arc surface structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the protuberances of Bergstroem provide a massaging effect to an overlying user (Page 2, lines 23-28).
Regarding claim 2, Mori, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Mori, as modified, further discloses wherein the foamed sponge is specifically pure high-density foamed sponge (see Mori, paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 3, Mori, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Mori, as modified, further discloses wherein the bed body 10’ (Figure 9) and the bed head 10” (see Mori, Figure 9) are obtained by performing plastic cutting on a foamed sponge raw material (see Mori, Figure 9 and paragraph 0015, where the cushions of Mori are blocks formed of high-density foamed polyurethane). It is noted that the language “obtained by performing plastic cutting on a foamed sponge raw material” is a product-by-process limitation. A product-by-process claim is a claim which is limited and defined by the claimed process, but patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, then the claim is unpatentable even if the prior art product was made by a different process. As the cushions of Mori are large, geometric blocks formed of foamed polyurethane (a foamed sponge material) then the cushions of Mori are the same as or obvious from a structure that would be achieved by plastic cutting a raw foamed sponge material, and, as such, the cushions of Mori meet the claim. In this regard, MPEP 2113 is relevant.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Bergstroem and further in view of Aizawa (Patent Publication No. JP 2000166709 A).
Regarding claim 4, Mori, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Mori, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein a density of the foamed sponge is greater than 22 kg/m3 and is less than and equal to 55 kg/m3.
Aizawa teaches wherein a density of the foamed sponge is greater than 22 kg/m3 and is less than and equal to 55 kg/m3 (paragraph 0008, where the density of the lumbar and chest areas may be 20-65 kg/m3 and the density in other areas may be 15-45 kg/m3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Mori, as modified, with Aizawa (both being directed to folding mattresses) such that a density of the foamed sponge is greater than 22 kg/m3 and is less than and equal to 55 kg/m3. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the foam density of Aizawa is sufficient to reduce sinking of the mattress in the lumbar and chest areas (where a person’s weight is most concentrated) to provide a comfortable posture (paragraphs 0007-0008).
Regarding claim 5, Mori, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Mori, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein a density of the foamed sponge is greater than 25 kg/m3 and is less than 33 kg/m3.
Aizawa teaches wherein a density of the foamed sponge is greater than 25 kg/m3 and is less than and equal to 33 kg/m3 (paragraph 0008, where the density of the lumbar and chest areas may be 20-65 kg/m3 and the density in other areas may be 15-45 kg/m3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Mori, as modified, with Aizawa (both being directed to folding mattresses) such that a density of the foamed sponge is greater than 22 kg/m3 and is less than and equal to 55 kg/m3. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the foam density of Aizawa is sufficient to reduce sinking of the mattress in the lumbar and chest areas (where a person’s weight is most concentrated) to provide a comfortable posture (paragraphs 0007-0008).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Bergstroem and further in view of Magni (U.S. Patent No. 4,711,067).
Regarding claim 10, Mori, as modified, discloses a compression storage method of a vacuum compression bed (see Mori, paragraph 0009), used to compress and store the vacuum compression bed according to claim 1 (see discussion of claim 1, above), wherein the bed body 10’ and the bed head 10” are provided together (see Mori, Figure 9).
Mori, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the method comprising: storing the vacuum compression bed in a vacuum storage bag made of a thermoplastic packaging material, wherein the vacuum storage bag is made of an airtight material; placing the vacuum storage bag storing the vacuum compression bed in a compression plastic packaging machine for volume compression, and performing plastic packaging on the vacuum storage bag, to enable the vacuum compression bed to be compressed to a sheet-shaped body with a certain thickness and to be kept sheet-shaped in a vacuum state formed by the vacuum storage bag, thereby obtaining a sheet-shaped package of the vacuum compression bed; and placing the sheet-shaped package of the vacuum compression bed on a crimper for crimping, to obtain a tubular package of the vacuum compression bed.
Magni teaches storing the vacuum compression bed in a vacuum storage bag 3 made of a thermoplastic packaging material (Col. 4, lines 38-41), wherein the vacuum storage bag 3 is made of an airtight material (Col. 4, lines 38-41); placing the vacuum storage bag 3 storing the vacuum compression bed 1 in a compression plastic packaging machine 33 for volume compression (Figure 9 and Col. 4, line 54-Col. 5, line 4), and performing plastic packaging on the vacuum storage bag 3 (Col. 3, lines 57-60), to enable the vacuum compression bed 1 to be compressed to a sheet-shaped body with a certain thickness and to be kept sheet-shaped in a vacuum state formed by the vacuum storage bag 3 (Figures 4-5 and 9 and Col. 4, line 54-Col. 5, line 4), thereby obtaining a sheet-shaped package of the vacuum compression bed 1 (Figures 4-5); and placing the sheet-shaped package of the vacuum compression bed 1 on a crimper 45 for crimping, to obtain a tubular package of the vacuum compression bed (Figures 6-9 and 14-19 and Col. 5, lines 5-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Mori, as modified, with Magni (both being directed to vacuum compressible mattresses) such that the method comprises: storing the bed body and the bed head together in a vacuum storage bag made of a thermoplastic, airtight packaging material, placing the vacuum storage bag storing the vacuum compression bed in a compression plastic packaging machine for volume compression and performing plastic packaging on the vacuum storage bag to enable the bed body and the bed head together to be compressed to a sheet-shaped body with a certain thickness and to be kept sheet-shaped in a vacuum state formed by the vacuum storage bag, thereby obtaining a sheet-shaped package of the vacuum compression bed; and placing the sheet-shaped package of the vacuum compression bed on a crimper for crimping, to obtain a tubular package of the vacuum compression bed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the vacuum compression and rolling method of Magni allows for the mattress to be compressed and rolled into a much smaller volume which can be more easily carried or transported (Col. 7, lines 4-10).
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 ALISON N LABARGE whose telephone number is (571)272-6098. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:00.
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 at (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.
/ALISON N LABARGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
