CTNF 19/311,286 CTNF 94799 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-14 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. 06-16 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of implying phrases (e.g. “user M”) and speculative uses (e.g. “a user in a lying position” “during use” (twice)). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeFranks (U.S. Pat. No. 9657800) in view of itself and Peter (European Pat. No. EP0036158A1); with Peter used as a teaching reference . Regarding claim 1, DeFrank discloses (FIGS. 2, 3, and 7) a mattress for stretching, the mattress comprising: a first cushion member (702; FIG. 2-3) disposed on at least a head side of a user in a lying position (as conveyed in FIGS. 7, and further conveyed in [1:15-22]: “mattresses, sofas…” and [2:11-15]: “However, it may be understood that the systems and methods described herein may be applied to provide for any type of cushioning article. For example, the systems and methods of the invention may be used for seat cushions, pillows, and other such cushioning articles.”), the first cushion member being configured to generate, during use, a reaction force on the head side and in a deflection direction intersecting with a load input direction (as illustrated between FIGS. 2 and 3 with horizontal direction advancing as a result of load and weight thereon). However, while DeFrank does express that there may be a second cushion (through [1:15-22] and [2:11-15] that would as a duplicate be possessed of the same reaction force generation and angles); DeFrank does not explicitly disclose a second cushion member disposed on a side closer to at least a foot side of the user in the lying position than a head of the user in the lying position is, the second cushion member being configured to generate, during use, a reaction force on the foot side and in a deflection direction intersecting with a load input direction. Regardless, DeFrank discloses the claimed invention except for possessing a second mattress (or cushion). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have duplicated the mattress (or cushion), since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. And furthermore, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177,179. Where there is no criticality expressed as to the separability of the two cushions expressed be applicant, only that there are at least two cushions present. Where the results would have been predictable as DeFrank already expresses that the invention may be used in sofa cushions (through [1:15-22] and [2:11-15]) which are known to the art to be in counts of two or more. And where Peters additionally demonstrates how the forces may beneficially stretch at the waist of the person (FIG. 4 as indicated by the force diagrams). Regarding claim 2, DeFrank in view of itself and Peters discloses (DeFrank: FIGS. 2, 3, and 7) the mattress according to The mattress according to wherein the first cushion member and the second cushion member include a first mat base portion (As illustrated in DeFrank: FIGS. 2, 3, and 7) and a second mat base portion having substantially flat plate shapes and are disposed to face each other (as set forth in claim 1 prior and as illustrated in DeFrank: FIGS. 2, 3, and 7), and a reaction force applying portion that is disposed between the first mat base portion and the second mat base portion to couple the first mat base portion and the second mat base portion in a substantially S-shaped pattern in a side view, and that is configured to be elastically deformable, the reaction force applying portion being configured to generate, during use by the user, the reaction force in the deflection direction intersecting with the load input direction (As illustrated in DeFrank: FIGS. 2, 3, and 7). Regarding claim 3, DeFrank in view of itself and Peters discloses (Peter: FIG. 4) the mattress according to claim 1, wherein a boundary between the first cushion member and the second cushion member is located at any one of a neck, a waist, and a leg (as illustrated in FIG. 4, Peter at a minimum in the teaching and combination set forth in claim 1 discloses the cushions acting at the waist). Regarding claim 4, DeFrank in view of itself and Peters discloses (DeFrank: FIGS. 2, 3, and 7) the mattress according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first cushion member and the second cushion member is divided into a plurality of pieces along a longitudinal direction of the mattress. Where, as previously expressed in claim 1, and as set forth in [1:15-22] and [2:11-15] of DeFrank, DeFrank can be multiple cushions such as ‘sofa cushions’ and similar and otherwise the combination set forth in claim 1 establishes a minimum of two cushions. Regarding claim 5, DeFrank in view of itself and Peters discloses (DeFrank: FIGS. 2, 3, and 7) the mattress according to claim 1, wherein a pattern that enables the deflection direction of the reaction force to be identified is displayed on a surface of at least one of a first cover that covers the first cushion member and a second cover that covers the second cushion member. Were as illustrated in FIGS. 2, 3, and 7 of DeFrank, the cover provides a patterning plurality of holes and occupations that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the ordinary and intended use of the invention would discern a direction of operation for the force to apply, with such applying to both cushions as set forth in the combination/duplication/separation set forth in claim 1 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references cited on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) were considered pertinent because they address the state of the art concerning manifolds in cushions, spring constructions, shapes and profiles therein, alongside multi-cushion arrangements and features thereof . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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 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. /LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673 /JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/311,286 Page 2 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/311,286 Page 3 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/311,286 Page 4 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/311,286 Page 5 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/311,286 Page 6 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 19/311,286 Page 7 Art Unit: 3673
Prosecution Insights