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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11317733 issued to Pearce in view of WIPO Publication No. WO2004039215 issued to Edling.
Regarding claim 1,
Pearce discloses a mattress assembly, (Pearce: FIG. 1 (100)) comprising: a coil layer (Pearce: FIG. 2 (104)) comprising a first plurality of coils with a first height (Pearce: FIG. 2 (118)) … and an elastomeric cushioning element at least partially supported by the coil layer (Pearce: FIGS. 1-2 (108)) and comprising a plurality of interconnected buckling walls that define a plurality of hollow columns. (Pearce: FIG. 3 (122, 124) see also col. 6 lines 35-38 “The buckling walls 122 of the elastomeric cushioning element 108 may be interconnected to one another and may define hollow columns 124 or voids in an expanded form.”)
Pearce does not appear to disclose comprising a first plurality of coils with a first height and a second plurality of coils with a second height greater than the first height;
However, Edling discloses comprising a first plurality of coils with a first height and a second plurality of coils with a second height greater than the first height; (Edling: FIGS. 1, 3, 5 (31, 30) see also page 11 (“The spring units 30, 31 with different heights can advantageously be distributed over the surface of the mattress. In the first embodiment, shown in Figs 1, 3 and 5, the number of low spring units 31 is essentially the same as the number of high spring units 30, i.e. the ratio of the number of units in the group with the smallest number of units to the number of units in the group with the largest number of units is essentially 1.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pearce’s coil layer 104 to include Edling’s arrangement of the spring units of differing heights. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to do so to obtain a mattress having different support characteristics in different regions of the sleep surface using substantially identical springs thereby simplifying and reducing the cost of manufacture and to provide an elevation at the outer edge that resists a sleeper rolling off the bed. (Edling: page 18)
Regarding claim 2,
Pearce in view of Edling discloses the mattress assembly of claim 1, wherein the second plurality of coils extends around an outer peripheral edge of the first plurality of coils to define a receptable. (Edling: FIG. 13A, 13B see also page 18 “For example, it is possible to arrange lower spring units in the center of the mattress and higher spring units as a frame round the mattress, or at least along one or some of the sides. An example of such an embodiment is shown in Fig. 13a, where a frame with a width of two spring units of higher spring units is arranged round the mattress. Fig. 13b is a cross-sectional view of part of the mattress, where the higher frame spring units are positioned to the left.” Another words, the higher perimeter spring units of Edling FIG. 13A-13b surround the lower central spring units thereby defining a recess, cavity, insert, or receptacle)
Regarding claim 3,
Pearce in view of Edling discloses the mattress assembly of claim 2, wherein the elastomeric cushioning element is positioned at least partially within the receptacle. (Pearce: FIG. 4 (108, 128) (104) is positioned at least partially within the receptacle)
Regarding claim 8,
Pearce in view of Edling discloses the mattress assembly of claim 2, wherein the elastomeric cushioning element extends at least partially over the first plurality of coils and the second plurality of coils. (Pearce: FIG. 9 (902) the cushioning element provides complete coverage over the mattress assembly (900))
Regarding claim 9,
Pearce in view of Edling discloses the mattress assembly of claim 1, wherein each of the first plurality of coils and the second plurality of coils comprise a plurality of pocketed coils arranged in an array and spaced apart. (Pearce: FIG. 2 (118, 120))
Regarding claim 10,
Pearce in view of Edling discloses the mattress assembly of claim 1, further comprising a stabilization layer comprising a scrim fabric between the coil layer and the elastomeric cushioning element. (Pearce: FIG. 2 (116)
Regarding claim 11,
Pearce in view of Edling discloses the mattress assembly of claim 1, wherein an elastomeric material of the elastomeric cushioning element seeping through a stabilization layer secures an upper surface of the stabilization layer to the elastomeric cushioning element, the elastomeric material exposed and defining a reduced slip surface or a non-slip surface on a lower surface of the stabilization layer. (Pearce: FIG. 2 (116, 108) portions of the elastomeric cushioning element seep through the scrim fabric of the material, and portions extending through the scrim create a non-slip or reduced-slip surface on the lower surface of the material, see claim 1 of Pearce)
Regarding claim 12,
Pearce discloses a mattress assembly, (Pearce: FIG. 1 (100)) comprising: a coil layer (Pearce: FIG. 2 (104)) comprising a first plurality of coils with a first height (Pearce: FIG. 2 (118)) … and an elastomeric cushioning element at least partially supported by the coil layer (Pearce: FIGS. 1-2 (108)) and comprising a plurality of interconnected buckling walls that define a plurality of hollow columns. (Pearce: FIG. 3 (122, 124) see also col. 6 lines 35-38 “The buckling walls 122 of the elastomeric cushioning element 108 may be interconnected to one another and may define hollow columns 124 or voids in an expanded form.”) an intermediate layer (Pearce: FIGS. 1-2 (106))
Pearce does not appear to disclose comprising a first plurality of coils with a first height and a second plurality of coils with a second height greater than the first height; wherein the second plurality of coils extend around an outer peripheral edge of the first plurality of coils to define a receptacle, nor the elastomeric cushioning element and intermediate layer being disposed at least partly within the receptacle.
However, Edling discloses comprising a first plurality of coils with a first height and a second plurality of coils with a second height greater than the first height; wherein the second plurality of coils extend around an outer peripheral edge of the first plurality of coils to define a receptacle, nor the elastomeric cushioning element and intermediate layer being disposed at least partly within the receptacle. (Edling: FIGS. 1, 3, 5 (31, 30) see also page 11 (“The spring units 30, 31 with different heights can advantageously be distributed over the surface of the mattress. In the first embodiment, shown in Figs 1, 3 and 5, the number of low spring units 31 is essentially the same as the number of high spring units 30, i.e. the ratio of the number of units in the group with the smallest number of units to the number of units in the group with the largest number of units is essentially 1.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pearce’s coil layer 104 to include Edling’s arrangement of the spring units of differing heights. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to do so to obtain a mattress having different support characteristics in different regions of the sleep surface using substantially identical springs thereby simplifying and reducing the cost of manufacture and to provide an elevation at the outer edge that resists a sleeper rolling off the bed. (Edling: page 18)
Regarding claim 13,
Pearce in view of Edling discloses the mattress assembly of claim 12, wherein the intermediate layer is an at least partly foam layer. (Pearce: FIG. 2 (106) see also col. 5 lines 20-25 “the base layer 102 and the upper layer 106 may include a polyurethane foam”)
Regarding claim 14,
Pearce in view of Edling discloses the mattress assembly of claim 13, wherein the intermediate layer is disposed between the elastomeric cushioning element and the first plurality of coils. (Pearce: FIGS. 1-2, 4-7 (106) disposed over (104) and beneath (108))
Regarding claim 17,
Pearce discloses a cushion assembly, (Pearce: FIG. 1 (100)) comprising: a coil layer (Pearce: FIG. 2 (104)) … and an elastomeric cushioning element at least partially supported by the coil layer (Pearce: FIGS. 1-3 (108)) and disposed at least partly within the receptacle, wherein a top surface of the elastomeric cushioning element is one of substantially coplanar with or extends vertically above a top surface of the second coil layer.
Pearce does not appear to disclose comprising a first coil layer with a first height and a second coil layer with a second height greater than the first height, wherein the second coil layer extends around an outer peripheral edge of the first coil layer to define a receptable; … and disposed at least partly within the receptacle, wherein a top surface of the elastomeric cushioning element is one of substantially coplanar with or extends vertically above a top surface of the second coil layer.
However, Edling discloses comprising a first coil layer with a first height and a second coil layer with a second height greater than the first height, wherein the second coil layer extends around an outer peripheral edge of the first coil layer to define a receptable; … and disposed at least partly within the receptacle, wherein a top surface of the elastomeric cushioning element is one of substantially coplanar with or extends vertically above a top surface of the second coil layer. (Edling: FIGS. 1, 3, 5 (31, 30) see also page 11 (“The spring units 30, 31 with different heights can advantageously be distributed over the surface of the mattress. In the first embodiment, shown in Figs 1, 3 and 5, the number of low spring units 31 is essentially the same as the number of high spring units 30, i.e. the ratio of the number of units in the group with the smallest number of units to the number of units in the group with the largest number of units is essentially 1.” The examiner notes that both Edling and Pearce disclose wherein a top surface of the elastomeric cushioning element is one of substantially coplanar with or extends vertically above a top surface of the second coil layer since Pearce teaches configuring the layers above the coil layer to provide “an at least substantially planar upper surface of the mattress assembly 100”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pearce’s coil layer 104 to include Edling’s arrangement of the spring units of differing heights. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to do so to obtain a mattress having different support characteristics in different regions of the sleep surface using substantially identical springs thereby simplifying and reducing the cost of manufacture and to provide an elevation at the outer edge that resists a sleeper rolling off the bed. (Edling: page 18)
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Pearce and Edling further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8561236 issued to Witherell.
Regarding claim 4,
Pearce in view of Edling discloses the mattress assembly of claim 3.
Pearce in view of Edling does not appear to disclose wherein a cross-section of the elastomeric cushioning element is substantially T-shaped.
However, Witherell discloses a bedding assembly in which a coil layer has two different regions of height defining a “stepped-edge” (Witherell: FIG. 2A (38) provided by interior area (40) of the interior pocketed coils (32A) at an interior height H_i and pocketed coils 32B having an interior height H_p) and a cushioning member having a profile complementary to the coil-height differential, the member being “formed by a top portion and a side portion, the top portion arranged perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the side portion” (Witherell: FIG. 2B (44), FIG. 2C (37) top portion resting on top surface (46) of the coils (48) side portion.) Witherell further discloses
L-shaped profiles (FIGS. 2B-2D), C-shaped profiles (FIGS. 9A-9C), and stair-stepped (FIGS. 10B-10F) cross-sectional profiles and states that the form and shape of the perimeter side portions and the heights and dimensions of the components are within the scope of the disclosure (Witherell: col. 16 lines 15-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shape the elastomeric cushioning element of Pearce in view of Edling so as to be complementary to the coil-height differential i.e. with a thicker central portion received in the receptacle and a thinner peripheral portion extending outward over the taller coils, thus yielding a T-shaped cross-section. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to do so, so that the top surface of the cushioning member is planar or flush with the interior region and so that the outward extending portion is supported by the coils beneath it, resisting compression set and providing a graduated transition in firmness between the interior and the edge. Furthermore, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claim 5,
Pearce in view of Edling in view of Witherell discloses the mattress assembly of claim 4, wherein the substantially T-shaped cross-section of the elastomeric cushioning element comprises a web corresponding to a vertical stroke of a T and a flange corresponding to a horizontal stroke of the T. (Witherell: FIG. 2C (44) has a side portion (48) oriented vertically and a top portion (47) oriented horizontally and perpendicular thereto)
Regarding claim 6,
Pearce in view of Edling in view of Witherell discloses the mattress assembly of claim 5, wherein the web is at least partially supported by the first plurality of coils, and the flange is at least partially supported by the second plurality of coils. (Witherell: FIG. 2B-2C (45) of the side-support member (44) placed on the top surface (46) of the pocketed coils (32B) such that the coils provide spring support to the member, the examiner notes that when the teachings of Witherell are combined with Pearce in view of Edling, the result is a cushioning element that fits the T-shaped profile where the flanges are supported by the taller coils while the middle part of the cushioning element is supported by the shorter coils)
Regarding claim 7,
Pearce in view of Edling in view of Witherell discloses the mattress assembly of claim 5, wherein the flange extends at least partially over the second plurality of coils extending around the outer peripheral edge of the first plurality of coils. (Witherell: FIG. 2B-2C (45) of the side-support member (44) placed on the top surface (46) of the pocketed coils (32B) such that the coils provide spring support to the member, the examiner notes that when the teachings of Witherell are combined with Pearce in view of Edling, the result is a cushioning element that fits the T-shaped profile where the flanges are supported by the taller coils while the middle part of the cushioning element is supported by the shorter coils)
Regarding claim 8,
Pearce in view of Edling discloses the mattress assembly of claim 2, wherein the elastomeric cushioning element extends at least partially over the first plurality of coils and the second plurality of coils. (Pearce: FIG. 9 (902) the cushioning element provides complete coverage over the mattress assembly (900))
Regarding claim 9,
Pearce in view of Edling discloses the mattress assembly of claim 1, wherein each of the first plurality of coils and the second plurality of coils comprise a plurality of pocketed coils arranged in an array and spaced apart. (Pearce: FIG. 2 (118, 120))
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce and Edling further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20240251964 issued to Bin.
Regarding claim 15,
Pearce in view of Edling discloses the mattress assembly of claim 13.
Pearce in view of Edling does not appear to disclose wherein the intermediate layer is disposed above the elastomeric cushioning element.
However, Bin discloses wherein the intermediate layer is disposed above the elastomeric cushioning element. (Bin: FIGS. 31-32 mattress assembly 500 in which the memory foam layer 504 is positioned on top of the elastomeric layer 502 and the support layer 506 is positioned below (502), the memory foam layer (504) but all of which are positioned above the coil layer (512) The examiner notes that the foam intermediate layer would otherwise be partly within the receptacle created by the combination since Edling does not limit the magnitude of the height differential between the higher and lower spring units.)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mattress assembly of Pearce in view of Edling to further include a foam intermediate layer disposed above the elastomeric cushioning element, as taught by Bin. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to do so since the memory foam layer would be constructed to contour to the human body during use, providing bounce-back support and relieving localized pressure points at the shoulders, hips, back, and legs.
Regarding claim 16,
Pearce in view of Edling in view of Bin discloses the mattress assembly of claim 15, wherein the intermediate layer is one of substantially coplanar with a top surface of the second plurality of coils or extends vertically above the top surface of the second plurality of coils. (Bin: FIGS. 31-32 mattress assembly 500 in which the memory foam layer 504 is positioned on top of the elastomeric layer 502 and the support layer 506 is positioned below (502), the memory foam layer (504) but all of which are positioned above the coil layer (512) The examiner notes that the foam intermediate layer would otherwise be partly within the receptacle created by the combination since Edling does not limit the magnitude of the height differential between the higher and lower spring units. Pearce teaches having layers above the coil layer to be planar (Pearce: FIG. 4))
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce and Edling further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20160262561 issued to Pearce (561)
Regarding claim 18,
Pearce in view of Edling discloses the cushion assembly of claim 17, wherein the top surface of the elastomeric cushioning element is substantially coplanar with the top surface of the second coil layer, (Pearce: FIG. 4 (108, 128)) in combination with Edling’s frame of higher spring units (30) surrounding the lower central spring units (31) the cushioning element received in the resulting receptacle presents a top surface substantially coplanar)
Pearce in view of Edling does not appear to disclose and wherein the cushion assembly further comprises a stabilization layer coupled to the top surface of the elastomeric cushioning element.
However, Pearce 561 discloses and wherein the cushion assembly further comprises a stabilization layer coupled to the top surface of the elastomeric cushioning element. (Pearce 561: [0050] “In some embodiments, the cushioning element 102 may be attached indirectly to the top layer 104 by the intermediate layer 106. The intermediate layer 106 may be secured (e.g., bonded) to the top layer 104. For example, the intermediate layer 106 may be laminated to the top layer 104 by an adhesive bonding process, a thermal bonding process, a welding process, and the like.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cushion assembly of Pearce in view of Edling to further include a stabilization layer coupled to the top surface of the elastomeric cushioning element as taught by Pearce 561. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to do so to secure the elastomeric cushioning element to the materials above it and to maintain those materials in a selected shape conforming to the top surface of the buckling walls.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce and Edling further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20160262561 issued to Pearce (561) further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11013340 issued to Jewett.
Regarding claim 19,
Pearce in view of Edling in view of Pearce 561 discloses the cushion assembly of claim 18.
Pearce in view of Edling in view of Pearce 561 does not appear to disclose wherein the stabilization material extends at least partly over the second coil layer.
However, Jewett discloses wherein the stabilization material extends at least partly over the second coil layer. (Jewett: FIG. 2 (36) a scrim sheet corresponds to the pocketed spring assembly core 34, extending over the strings 26 of pocketed springs 28 see also FIG. 3 (34a) where (36) extends over those as well))
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the stabilization layer of Pearce in view of Edling in view of Pearce 561 at least partly over the second coil layer, as taught by Jewett. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to do so to maintain the positions of the strings of pocketed springs relative to one another, eliminate length and width elasticity of the coil spring assembly, and to facilitate handling of the assembly during manufacture and upholstery.
Regarding claim 20,
Pearce in view of Edling in view of Pearce 561 in view of Jewett discloses the cushion assembly of claim 19, wherein at least some of the stabilization material is adhered to at least part of the second coil layer. (Jewett: FIG. 4 (36, 68) (36) is secured to (68) of at least some of the strings 26 of the pocketed spring assembly core 34 with glue see col. 6 lines 60-67 of Jewett)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C ORTIZ whose telephone number is (303)297-4378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-3:30 pm.
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.
/ADAM C ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights