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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/20/2025 has been entered.
Specification
The specification is no longer objected to.
Drawings
In the remarks dated 11/20/2025, Applicant requested clarification regarding the drawings dated 04/12/2024. The drawings were accepted in the office action dated 04/23/2024. The discrepancy in Patent Center has been addressed.
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite the same substructure multiple times when referring to different structures. An example of this is “front support piece” is recited for both the left side and right-side vertical supports. The substructures will be interpreted as clearly defined (as opposed to unclear) when the claim provides context to which structure they belong with/to.
Claim 4 recites “facing said left-side hinge pin toward said right-side hinge pin”. There was no explicit support found for this limitation in the specification, but it is interpreted as an inherent result of positioning the two vertical supports in position where the hinges are facing towards the inside of the frame assembly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-12 are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 has been newly added in the response dated 11/20/2025. The claim recites “wherein said bundled slat is not wider than ninety-six and five tenths centimeters wide”. Applicant points to ¶0074 alongside Figures 17-18 and 22 as to where the support for the newly added claim can be found. Figures 17-18 do not show the slats or indicate dimensions of the foundation. ¶0074 discusses Figures 17-19 and the cover (2) placed over the foundations. The paragraph does not disclose dimensions or discuss the slats. Figure 22 is a table showing the dimensions/weight of a mattress and corresponding box. Figure 22 does not discuss the slats or their dimensions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 3-6, 8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US20210227985A1) in view of Suh (US8850638B1).
Claim 1
Thompson teaches a method for assembling a mattress foundation (Figures 3A and 3B teach the mattress foundation (12) separated and put together.), which comprises: a left side vertical support, said left side vertical support having a front support piece, a rear support piece (Figure 3A teaches the side trusses (22) have a front support section and a rear support section in that there is a part of the trusses that is closer to the front (20) and rear (20) trusses. In addition, the combination with Suh below adds the hinge and a clear delineation between the front and rear sections of the rails.) a right side vertical support, said right side vertical support having a front support piece, a rear support piece, (Figure 3A teaches the side trusses (22) have a front support section and a rear support section in that there is a part of the trusses that is closer to the front (20) and rear (20) trusses. In addition, the combination with Suh below adds the hinge and a clear delineation between the front and rear sections of the rails.) placing a front horizontal support against said front support piece of said left side vertical support; placing said front horizontal support against said front support piece of said right side vertical support; (Figures 3A-B teach the front horizontal support (20) is placed against the side rails (22) (interpreted as left and right vertical supports) when assembled.) placing a rear horizontal support against said rear support piece of said left side vertical support; placing said rear horizontal support against said rear support piece of said right side vertical support; (Figures 3A-B teach the rear horizontal support (20) is placed against the side truss (22) (interpreted as left and right vertical supports) when assembled.) attaching said front section of said left side vertical support to said front horizontal support; attaching said front section of said right side vertical support to said front horizontal support; (Figure 4A teaches the side truss (22) is attached to the end truss (20) at a joint. Figure 3B shows the assembled condition of the side and end truss, where the “front section” of the left side and right side vertical support (22) is jointed to the front horizontal support (20).) attaching said rear section of said left side vertical support to said rear horizontal support; (Figure 4A teaches the side truss (22) is attached to the end truss (20) at a joint. Figure 3B shows the assembled condition of the side and end truss, where the “rear section” of the left side vertical support (22) is jointed to the rear horizontal support (20).) and attaching said rear section of said right side vertical support to said rear horizontal support. (Figure 4A teaches the side truss (22) is attached to the end truss (20) at a joint. Figure 3B shows the assembled condition of the side and end truss, where the “rear section” of the right side vertical support (22) is jointed to the rear horizontal support (20).) forming a bundle slat receptacle in said front support piece of said left side vertical piece (Figure 4A shows a shelf (54) that is formed on the “front” section of the side truss (22). The shelf is used to support the slats (58) [0036] and is interpreted as a receptacle as it is a portion of the side truss that receives and contains the slat.); providing a bundled slat (Figure 3B, Item 58), said bundled slat having four horizontal slats (Claim 1 is a comprising claim, which is open ended and allows for the prior art to contain more than what is claimed. In this case, Thompson Figure 3B teaches the slat bundle has a plurality of slats (58), which includes at least four.); and a vertical slat (Figure 3B shows a slat (60) that extends transverse to the slats (58).) supporting said four horizontal slats (Figure 3B shows the vertical slat (60) is connected to at least four of the slats (58).), said vertical slat floating apart from said front support piece of said left side vertical support and said front support piece of said right side vertical support (Figure 3B shows the vertical slat (60) is separate from the two side supports (22).) and disposing said front bundled horizontal slat in said bundle slat receptacle of said front support piece of said left side vertical piece. (Figure 3B shows the slats (58) are placed on the shelf (interpreted as the receptacle) in the side truss (22).)
Thompson does not explicitly disclose the spacing between the slats, and as such does not disclose said four horizontal slats being spaced eight and nine-tenth centimeters.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to size the slat gap of Thompson with the claimed 8.9 cm because applicant has not disclosed that having spacing provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Thompson’s slats, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the spacing taught by Thompson or the claimed spacing because both spacings would perform the same function of providing a surface for the mattress to rest on.
It is noted that applicant points to ¶0068 of the specification for the support for the amendment to Claim 1. ¶0068 discloses the claimed dimension, but does not disclose a criticality or reason for choosing said dimension.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Thompson to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 1 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Thompson.
See also MPEP 2144.04, subsection IV. A. – change in size or proportion.
Thompson does not disclose that the side trusses (left and right vertical supports) have a hinge or are unfolded and does not explicitly disclose they are split into a front and rear support piece.
However, Suh teaches a mattress foundation that has the side and end truss structures split into two separate structures delineated by a hinge that allows them to be folded/unfolded at the center. (Figures 1 and 10 teach a modular foldable mattress foundation that includes a headboard (12), footboard (14), and side rails (16) that are each foldable (See Figures 2, 6, and 8) with a hinge (34). Figure 2A shows the unfolding of the headboard (12).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known hinge and folding structure of Suh to the truss members of Thompson in order to allow for packaging of the components in a smaller area (Suh Col. 4, Line 10-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to combine the known hinge and folding structure of Suh to the truss members of Thompson because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to combine prior art structures according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The predictable result is that the truss members of Thompson will be foldable/unfoldable about the midpoint due to the hinge of Suh.
Claim 3
Thompson in view of Suh teaches the method according to Claim 1, which further comprises placing said left side vertical support to be parallel to said right side vertical support. (Thompson, Figure 3B teaches the side trusses (22) are parallel to one another.)
Claim 4
Thompson in view of Suh teaches the method according to Claim 1, which further comprises: including a left-side hinge pin in said left-side hinge: including a right-side hinge pin in said right-side hinge; and facing said left-side hinge pin toward said right-side hinge pin. (Thompson, Figure 3B teaches the side trusses (22) are placed parallel to one another. Suh, which is used to modify the side trusses of Thompson to provide hinges, teaches in Figure 8a teaches that the side rails (16) have a hinge (34) connecting them and that they are unfolded. The hinge is shown in Figure 1 as facing the inside of the frame. Thus, the pins (Figure 8a, Item 38) will “face” one another when the frame is assembled.)
Claim 5
Thompson in view of Suh teaches the method according to Claim 1, which further comprises, before placing said front horizontal support, unfolding said front horizontal support, said front horizontal support having a left support piece, a right support piece, and a front hinge interconnecting said left support piece and said right support piece. (Thompson, Figure 3A teaches front and rear horizontal supports (20). The combination with Suh above adds hinges to each of the perimeter pieces of the frame. Suh, Figure 1 shows the front horizontal support (14) completely unfolded. Figure 6a shows the front horizontal support (14) originally is folded at a hinge (34) and has two side portions (14a, b).)
Claim 6
Thompson in view of Suh teaches the method according to Claim 5, which further comprises, before placing said rear horizontal support, unfolding said rear horizontal support, said rear horizontal support having a left support piece, a right support piece, and a rear hinge interconnecting said left support piece and said right support piece. (Thompson, Figure 3A teaches front and rear horizontal supports (20). The combination with Suh above adds hinges to each of the perimeter pieces of the frame. Suh, Figure 1 shows the rear horizontal support (12) completely unfolded. Figure 2a shows the front horizontal support (12) originally is folded at a hinge (34) and has two side portions (14a, b).)
Claim 8
Thompson in view of Suh teaches the method according to claim 1, which further comprises: providing a cover (Thompson Figures 1-2, item 14), said cover having a right wall, a left wall, a front wall, a rear wall (Figure 1, Item 18), and a bottom rim connected to said right wall, said left wall, front wall, and rear wall (Figures 1-2 show the cover (14) from a top view, but it is interpreted as being open on the bottom (since that’s how it is placed on the foundation) and thus has a bottom rim.); placing said front wall of said cover over said front horizontal support; placing said rear wall of said cover over said rear horizontal support; placing said right wall of said cover over said right side vertical support; and placing said left wall of said cover over said left side vertical support. (Although Figure 2 does not show an x-ray view of the entire cover, comparing the views of Figure 2 and 3B shows that the cover fits over the foundation structures as claimed.)
Claim 10
Thompson in view of Suh teaches the method according to Claim 1, further comprising: unfolding a central vertical support, said central vertical support having a front support piece, a rear support piece, and a central hinge interconnecting said front support piece and said rear support piece; attaching said front support piece of said central vertical support to said front horizontal support; and attaching said rear support piece of said central vertical support to said rear horizontal support. (Thompson, Figure 3A shows a central support (22) that is in between the left and right side supports and connects at the ends to the front and rear supports (20). Suh teaches the use of hinges (34) for the foundation structures. The same motivation to combine the hinge (thus creating the claimed front and rear support pieces) of Suh to the side trusses of Thompson is relevant to the central truss.)
Claim 11
Thompson in view of Suh teaches the method according to Claim 10, which further comprises placing said central vertical support to be parallel to and between said right side vertical support and said left side vertical support. (Thompson, Figure 3B shows the assembled foundation where the central truss (22) is parallel between the left and right truss.)
Claim 12
Thompson in view of Suh teaches the method according to Claim 1, further comprising bracing at least one of said left hinge and said right hinge. (Suh, Figures 1 and 8a teach the hinge (34) is at the center of the two sections of the side rails (16a, b). Figure 9 shows the support bar (26) that is rotated to brace the hinge against rotation when the side rail is moved to the unfolded position. Col. 6 Lines 25-35 teach that the support bar (26) is rotated to provide stability the hinge (34). The support bar is being interpreted as being incorporated alongside the hinge in the combination as presented in Claim 1. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine the support bar of Suh to the modified invention of Thompson in view of Suh in order to provide stability to the hinge.)
Claim 13
Thompson in view of Suh teaches the method according to Claim 1, wherein said bundled slat has a width. (Thompson, Figure 3B teaches the slats have a width.)
Thompson in view of Suh does not explicitly disclose bundled slat is not wider than ninety-six and five tenths centimeters wide.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to size the slat of Thompson with the claimed 96.5 cm because applicant has not disclosed that having said width provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Thompson’s slats, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the size taught by Thompson or the claimed size because both sizes would perform the same function of providing a surface for the mattress to rest on.
It is noted that there is no disclosure in applicant’s specification or drawings of a slat having the claimed size, therefore there is no indication or criticality or motivation for choosing the size.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Thompson to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 1 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Thompson
See also MPEP 2144.04, subsection IV. A. – change in size or proportion.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US20210227985A1) in view of Suh (US8850638B1, as applied in claim 8, further in view of Rawls-Meehan (US20160242558A1).
Claim 9
Thompson in view of Suh teaches the method according to Claim 8, providing a first leg segment (Thompson Figure 1, Item 104), said first leg segment having a top, a bolt extending from said top (Thompson Figure 4A teaches the leg (104) has a bolt (106) extending from the top.); screwing said bolt of said first leg segment through said bottom rim of said cover into said threaded socket of said front support piece of said left vertical support. (Thompson Figure 4A teaches the leg (104) is screwed into a threaded socket (88) that is associated with the “front support piece” (front of the side truss (22)). Figure 2 shows the foundation assembled with the cover and no legs attached, while Figure 1 shows the legs attached. This is interpreted as the legs being able to be attached after the cover is installed and thus applying the legs through the bottom rim of the cover.)
Thompson in view of Suh does not disclose the first leg segment has a threaded portion on the bottom, or providing a second leg segment, said second leg segment having a top, and a bolt extending from said top; and screwing said bolt of said second leg segment into said threaded socket of said first leg segment.
However, Rawls-Meehan teaches a two-part leg for a mattress foundation that has a first and second leg segment wherein the first leg segment has a threaded socket on the bottom, or providing a second leg segment, said second leg segment having a top, and a bolt extending from said top; and screwing said bolt of said second leg segment into said threaded socket of said first leg segment. (Figures 59-63 show a modular leg assembly (6010) for use with a bed foundation [0343]. The assembly has a first (6012) and second (6014) leg member that connect to each other or individually to the frame. Figure 61 shows the first leg segment (6012) has a threaded socket (6074) on the bottom that the threaded member (6062) of the second leg (6014) fits into.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to substitute the known modular leg system of Rawls-Meehan for the leg of Thompson in order to allow for three different leg heights to be provided (Rawls-Meehan, [0344]) which increases the adjustability of the bed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to substitute the known modular leg system of Rawls-Meehan for the leg of Thompson because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The predictable result is the legs of Thompson will be modular and add height adjustability to the bed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues against the use of Klute to teach the newly amended features of Claim 1. Klute is not currently relied upon for rejecting these features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited Form. The following table outlines the most pertinent prior art with relevant sections and interpretations. This table is not a rejection.
Document
Date
Description
US1051838A
1911-03-16
Figure 1 teaches a slatted base where a vertical slat (B) extends along at least 4 horizontal slats (A) and is set apart from the frame members on the sides.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached on 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726