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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-7 are pending in this application. This communication is the first action on its merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 11/5/2025 has been considered by the office.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dyevich (WO 2013049647 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Dyevich discloses a foam mattress (See Fig. 1, mattress 100 made up foam) comprising a lower mattress body (See Fig. 1, base structure 108) and an upper mattress body (See Fig. 1, top layer 102) wherein during use the upper mattress body rests on the lower mattress body (See Fig. 1, top layer 102 on top of base structure 108), characterised in that the upper mattress body is arranged to be able to slide over the lower mattress body (See Fig. 1-3, top layer 102 flush with base structure 108); wherein the upper mattress body is formed from a slab of foam material with a first hardness h1 (See Table 1, top layer 102 having IDF range of 16-30 and made of latex foam), the lower mattress body is formed from a slab of foam material with a second hardness h2 wherein the first hardness h1 of upper mattress body is equal to or lower than the second hardness h2 of the lower mattress body (See Table 1, base structure 108 having IDF range of 16-30 and made of densificated polyurethane foam) and the lower mattress body and/or the upper mattress body comprise at least one support-providing insert made of a material with a third hardness h3 which is greater than the second hardness h2 (See Fig. 1-3 and Table 1, calf pillow 104 having IDF range of 24-46).
PNG
media_image1.png
657
487
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
546
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Dyevich discloses the foam mattress (See Fig. 1, mattress 100 made up foam) according to claim 1 wherein the lower mattress body comprises a lower back to upper thigh insert for providing support in a lower back to upper thigh region of the mattress (See Fig. 1-5, core layer 110 providing support in zones 112, 114, 116).
PNG
media_image3.png
621
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Dyevich discloses the foam mattress (See Fig. 1, mattress 100 made up foam) according to claim 2 characterised in that the lower back to upper thigh insert comprises a lower back support and a thigh support which are connected by a pelvic support (See Fig. 1-5, core layer 110 providing support in zones 112, 114, 116, “additional core layers may be disposed at different locations such as, for example within the region of the scapular”; [00033]).
Regarding Claim 7, Dyevich discloses the foam mattress (See Fig. 1, mattress 100 made up foam) according to claim 6 characterised in that at least one of the lower back support and the thigh support has a central portion which is concave when viewed from an end of the mattress (See Fig. 5, core layer exhibited concave features when viewed from the side of mattress 100).
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyevich (WO 2013049647 A1) in view of Bastiaens (EP 1149547 A1)
Regarding Claim 3, Dyevich discloses the foam mattress (See Fig. 1, mattress 100 made up foam) according to claim 1, a wedge- profiled calf insert for providing support in a calf region of the mattress (See Fig. 1-5, calf pillow 104).
Dyevich fails to explicitly disclose wherein the upper mattress body comprises a wedge-profiled neck and shoulder insert for providing support in a neck and shoulder region of the mattress.
However, Bastiaens teaches wherein the upper mattress body comprises a wedge-profiled neck and shoulder insert for providing support in a neck and shoulder region of the mattress (See Fig. 4, “the support blocks 26-42 can have different heights, the interior of the mattress or cushion can be adapted individually to the height of the user, whereby head, shoulders, lumbar region, hips, thighs, legs and feet are optimally supported”).
PNG
media_image4.png
409
718
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Dyevich by adding the inserts taught by Bastiaens. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the “head, shoulders, lumbar region, hips, thighs, legs and feet are optimally supported”; (Bastiaens). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 4, Dyevich discloses the foam mattress (See Fig. 1, mattress 100 made up foam) according to claim 1.
Dyevich fails to explicitly disclose wherein the lower mattress body comprises a neck and shoulder insert for providing support in a neck and shoulder region of the mattress and/or a calf insert for providing support in a calf region of the mattress.
However, Bastiaens teaches wherein the lower mattress body comprises a neck and shoulder insert for providing support in a neck and shoulder region of the mattress and/or a calf insert for providing support in a calf region of the mattress (See Fig. 4, “the support blocks 26-42 can have different heights, the interior of the mattress or cushion can be adapted individually to the height of the user, whereby head, shoulders, lumbar region, hips, thighs, legs and feet are optimally supported”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Dyevich by adding the inserts taught by Bastiaens. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the “head, shoulders, lumbar region, hips, thighs, legs and feet are optimally supported”; (Bastiaens). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 5, Dyevich discloses the foam mattress (See Fig. 1, mattress 100 made up foam) according to claim 1.
Dyevich fails to explicitly disclose wherein the upper mattress body comprises a wedge-profiled lower back support body and/or a wedge-profiled thigh support body.
However, Bastiaens teaches wherein the upper mattress body comprises a wedge-profiled lower back support body and/or a wedge-profiled thigh support body (See Fig. 4, “the support blocks 26-42 can have different heights, the interior of the mattress or cushion can be adapted individually to the height of the user, whereby head, shoulders, lumbar region, hips, thighs, legs and feet are optimally supported”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Dyevich by adding the inserts taught by Bastiaens. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the “head, shoulders, lumbar region, hips, thighs, legs and feet are optimally supported”; (Bastiaens). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO 2007129981 A1: Hoegberg discloses a foam mattress comprising a concave shaped insert supporting the back, waist and thighs.
US 3639927 A: Munch discloses a foam mattress with a wedge-shaped portion configured to support the legs and thighs.
US 2013049647 A1: Lafleche discloses a patient support with multiple wedge insert portions configured to provide additional support.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights