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 .
Status of the Application
2. Claims 1—20 have been examined in this application. Claims 21—94 have been canceled. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to Applicant’s “Amendments/Remarks” filed 11/17/2025. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 11/25/2025 & 12/10/2025 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Objections
3. The objection made in the Non-Final to Claim(s) 4 has been withdrawn in light of this claim’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1—3, 5—8, 11—13 and 15—18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S Patent Application 2002/0088052 A1 to Vilsmeier (Vilsmeier hereafter).
As per claim 1, Vilsmeier teaches
A furniture item (1—Fig.1; para [0028]) comprising:
a vertical wall structure (4—Fig.1; para [0028]); a horizontal structure (2—Fig.1; para [0028]) cantilevered off of the vertical wall structure (2—Fig.1; para [0028]) and
adapted to vertically translate along the vertical wall structure (para [0028]); and a pivot point (annotated 2—Fig.1)
at least one support structure attached to the horizontal structure (9—Fig.3; para [0028-29]: support structure attached to horizontal structure) a dedicated support motor connected to the at least one support structure and adapted to extend and retract the at least one support structure (18—Fig.3; para [0055]), wherein loss of power to the dedicated support motor causes extension of the at least one support structure to an extended position (para [0058]: in a case of power failure drive belt can manually move bedframe);
about which the furniture item is configured to pivot upon application of a sufficient normal force to the horizontal structure (S—Fig.4 para [0066] pivot point in which a sufficient normal force causes bed to pivot),
PNG
media_image1.png
587
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a center of gravity of the furniture item is disposed in a location such that a normal force applied to the horizontal structure upon vertical translation of the horizontal structure under a normal operating condition is less than the sufficient normal force (para [0046]: sum of normal forces less than the sufficient forces need to produce a pivot point of the bed).
As per claim 2, Vilsmeier teaches
The furniture item of claim 1, wherein the vertical wall structure houses a translating structure (4, 5 &9 —Fig.1; para [0028]) adapted to vertically translate the horizontal structure along the vertical wall structure (para [0028]).
As per claim 3, Vilsmeier teaches
The furniture item of claim 2, wherein the translating structure comprises a motor configured to drive a pulley or a cable (10—Fig.1; para [0028]).
As per claim 3, Vilsmeier teaches:
The furniture item of claim 3, wherein the normal operating condition comprises a weight on the horizontal structure being below a predetermined maximum weight (para [0046]: sum of normal forces less than the sufficient forces need to produce a pivot point of the bed).
As per claim 6, Vilsmeier teaches:
The furniture item of claim 3, wherein the motor is adapted to backdrive (para [0046]:motor may backdrive i.e. lower the bed frame) when the normal force applied to the horizontal structure exceeds the sufficient normal force (para [0046]: external force on bed frame 2 greater than sufficient normal force acting on element 12), such that the horizontal structure translates vertically without the furniture item pivoting about the pivot point (para [0046]: downward movement of the bed occurs rather than the furniture item pivoting about the pivot point).
As per claim 7, Vilsmeier teaches
The furniture item of claim 1, wherein the horizontal structure comprises a bed (3—Fig.1; para [0028]).
As per claim 8, Vilsmeier teaches
The furniture item of claim 1, further comprising a counterweight disposed adjacent to the vertical wall structure (12—Fig.1; para [0055])
As per claim 11, Vilsmeier teaches:
A method of operating a furniture item (1—Fig.1; para [0028]), the method comprising: obtaining a furniture item comprising: a vertical wall structure (4—Fig.1; para [0028]); a horizontal structure cantilevered off of the vertical wall structure (2—Fig.1; para [0028]); at least one support structure attached to the horizontal structure
(9—Fig.3; para [0028-29]: support structure attached to horizontal structure)a dedicated support motor connected to the at least one support structure and adapted to extend and retract the at least one support structure (18—Fig.3; para [0055]), wherein loss of power to the dedicated support motor causes extension of the at least one support structure to an extended position(para [0058]: in a case of power failure drive belt can manually move bedframe); and a pivot point (annotated 2—Fig.1 above) about which the furniture item is configured to pivot upon application of a sufficient normal force to the horizontal structure (S—Fig.4 para [0066] pivot point in which a sufficient normal force causes bed to pivot); and vertically translating the horizontal structure along the vertical wall structure (2—Fig.1; para [0028]) such that a normal force is applied to the horizontal structure, wherein a center of gravity of the furniture item is disposed in a location such that the normal force is less than the sufficient normal force (para [0046]: sum of normal forces less than the sufficient forces need to produce a pivot point of the bed).
As per claim 12, Vilsmeier teaches
The method of claim 11, wherein the vertical wall structure houses a translating structure (4, 5 &9 —Fig.1; para [0028]) adapted to vertically translate the horizontal structure along the vertical wall structure (para [0028]).
As per claim 13, Vilsmeier teaches:
The method of claim 12, wherein the translating structure comprises a motor configured to drive a pulley or a cable (9 & 10—Fig.1; para [0028]) and wherein vertically translating the horizontal structure along the vertical wall structure further comprises: vertically translating the horizontal structure along the vertical wall structure under a normal operating condition (9 & 10—Fig.1; para [0028]).
As per claim 15, Vilsmeier teaches
The method of claim 13, wherein the normal operating condition comprises a weight on the horizontal structure being below a predetermined maximum weight (para [0046]: sum of normal forces less than the sufficient forces need to produce a pivot point of the bed).
As per claim 16, Vilsmeier teaches
The method of claim 13, wherein the motor is adapted to backdrive (para [0046]:motor may backdrive i.e. lower the bed frame) when the normal force applied to the horizontal structure exceeds the sufficient normal force (para [0046]: external force on bed frame 2 greater than sufficient normal force acting on element 12), such that the horizontal structure translates vertically without the furniture item pivoting about the pivot point (para [0046]: downward movement of the bed occurs rather than the furniture item pivoting about the pivot point).
As per claim 17, Vilsmeier teaches
The method of claim 11, wherein the horizontal structure comprises a bed (3—Fig.1; para [0028]).
As per claim 18, Vilsmeier teaches
The method of claim 11, further comprising a counterweight disposed adjacent to the vertical wall structure (12—Fig.1; para [0055]).
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.
Claim(s) 4 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2002/0088052 A1 to Vilsmeier in view of EP 0418415 B1 to Wuenschmann (Wuenschmann here).
As per claim 4, Vilsmeier teaches The furniture item of claim 3.
Vilsmeier does not teach, wherein the normal operating condition comprises a motor speed below a predetermined maximum motor speed and a motor acceleration or deceleration below a predetermined maximum motor acceleration or declaration.
Wuenschmann teaches , wherein the normal operating condition comprises a motor speed below a predetermined maximum motor speed (pg.4 para [0005]: motor speed decreases as increasing forces is applied) and a motor acceleration or deceleration below a predetermined maximum motor acceleration or declaration (pg.4 para [0005] higher motor reduces its speed decreases as increasing force load is applied)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Vilsmeier (directed to a furniture item secure to a vertical structure adapted to vertically translate along the vertical wall structure) and Wuenschmann (directed to a furniture items configured to move vertically via a motor including a motor capable of acceleration or deceleration below a predetermined maximum motor acceleration or declaration) and arrived at a furniture items configured to move vertically via a motor including a motor capable of acceleration or deceleration below a predetermined maximum motor acceleration or declaration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to ensure the furniture item lowers synchronously via a motor capable of decreasing speed due to increased loads of force as taught in Wuenschmann (pg.4 para [0005]).
As per claim 14, Vilsmeier teaches The method of claim 13.
Vilsmeier does not teach, wherein the normal operating condition comprises a motor speed below a predetermined maximum motor speed and a motor acceleration or deceleration below a predetermined maximum motor acceleration or deceleration.
Wuenschmann teaches , wherein the normal operating condition comprises a motor speed below a predetermined maximum motor speed (pg.4 para [0005]: motor speed decreases as increasing forces is applied) and a motor acceleration or deceleration below a predetermined maximum motor acceleration or deceleration (pg.4 para [0005] higher motor reduces its speed decreases as increasing force load is applied)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Vilsmeier (directed to a furniture item secure to a vertical structure adapted to vertically translate along the vertical wall structure) and Wuenschmann (directed to a furniture items configured to move vertically via a motor including a motor capable of acceleration or deceleration below a predetermined maximum motor acceleration or declaration) and arrived at a furniture item secure to a vertical structure adapted to vertically translate along the vertical wall structure via a motor including a motor capable of acceleration or deceleration below a predetermined maximum motor acceleration or declaration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to ensure the furniture item lowers synchronously via a motor capable of decreasing speed due to increased loads of force as taught in Wuenschmann (pg.4 para [0005]).
Claim(s) 9, 10 & 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2002/0088052 A1 to Vilsmeier in U.S Patent Application 20140159410 A1 to Rasmussen (Rasmussen hereafter).
As per claim 9, Vilsmeier teaches The furniture item of claim 1.
Vilsmeier does not teach, further comprising at least one of a couch, a bedside table, and a desk disposed adjacent to the vertical structure and beneath the horizontal structure.
Rasmussen , further comprising at least one of a couch, a bedside table, and a desk disposed adjacent to the vertical structure and beneath the horizontal structure (60b—Fig.46: deck adjacent vertical structure adjacent horizontal structure).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Vilsmeier (directed to a furniture item secure to a vertical structure adapted to vertically translate along the vertical wall structure) and Rasmussen (directed to at least one of a couch, a bedside table, and a desk disposed adjacent to the vertical structure and beneath the horizontal structure) and arrived at a furniture items configured to move vertically at least one of a couch, a bedside table, and a desk disposed adjacent to the vertical structure and beneath the horizontal structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide an accessible bed for an addition users in a stowed position as taught in Rasmussen (pg.4 para [0005]).
As per claim 10, Vilsmeier teaches:
The furniture item of claim 9, wherein the pivot point is located at a point on at least one of the couch and the bedside table furthest from the vertical structure (annotated 2—Fig.1 above).
As per claim 19, Vilsmeier teaches The method of claim 11.
Vilsmeier does not teach, further comprising at least one of a couch, a bedside table, and a desk disposed adjacent to the vertical structure and beneath the horizontal structure.
Rasmussen teaches, further comprising at least one of a couch, a bedside table, and a desk disposed adjacent to the vertical structure and beneath the horizontal structure (60b—Fig.46: deck adjacent vertical structure adjacent horizontal structure).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Vilsmeier (directed to a furniture item secure to a vertical structure adapted to vertically translate along the vertical wall structure) and Rasmussen (directed to at least one of a couch, a bedside table, and a desk disposed adjacent to the vertical structure and beneath the horizontal structure) and arrived at a furniture items configured to move vertically at least one of a couch, a bedside table, and a desk disposed adjacent to the vertical structure and beneath the horizontal structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide an accessible bed for an addition users in a stowed position as taught in Rasmussen (pg.4 para [0005]).
As per claim 20, Vilsmeier (as modified) teaches:
The method of claim 19, wherein the pivot point is located at a point on at least one of the couch and the bedside table furthest from the vertical structure (annotated 2—Fig.1 above pivot point located furthest from vertical structure).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S Patent Application 2002/0088052 A1 to Vilsmeier
Applicant’s Arguments:
Regarding the Non-Final Rejection filed on 11/17/2025, the Applicant argues,
Regarding independent claims 1 & 11, Without acceding to the rejections, independent claims 1 and 11 are amended herein. Independent claim 1, as amended, recites "at least one support structure attached to the horizontal structure" and "a dedicated support motor connected to the at least one support structure and adapted to extend and retract the at least one support structure, wherein loss of power to the dedicated support motor causes extension of the at least one support structure to an extended position," which Applicant respectfully submits is not described, taught, or suggested by Vilsmeier.
Vilsmeier appears to be directed to a "lift bed with a bed frame carried on at least two carriages, whereby each carriage is supported movably on a guide rail arranged vertically for moving the bed frame in the vertical direction."1 More specifically, Vilsmeier describes "a lift bed 1 according to the invention with a bed frame 2, a mattress 3 indicated as an example as well as a guide device 4" and "[t]he guide device 4 includes a vertical guide rail 5 to which a carriage 6, that is rigidly joined to the bed frame 2, can move vertically up and down."2 However, Vilsmeier is silent regarding at least "at least one support structure attached to the horizontal structure" and "a dedicated support motor connected to the at least one support structure and adapted to extend and retract the at least one support structure" as presently recited in amended claim 1. Further, by failing to describe at least the "at least one support structure" and "dedicated support motor," Vilsmeier necessarily also fails to describe, teach, or suggest "wherein loss of power to the dedicated support motor causes extension of the at least one support structure to an extended position" as presently recited in amended claim 1.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Vilsmeier does not teach or suggest all of the limitations of amended independent claim 1. Independent claim 11 has been amended to include limitations similar to independent claim 1 and is therefore also patentable over Vilsmeier for at least the same reasons. Claims 2-3, 5-8, 12-13, and 15-18 depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claims 1 or 11 and are also patentable over Vilsmeier for at least the same reasons set forth above. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections to claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-13, and 15-18 is respectfully requested.
Examiner's Response to Arguments:
The examiner respectfully disagrees to the Applicant’s Arguments for the following reasons
1) Regarding independent claims 1 & 11, the examiner maintains that Vilsmeier teaches "at least one support structure attached to the horizontal structure" because element (9—Fig.3) of Vilsmeier may be considered a vertical structure because it supports the horizontal structure (para [0028-29]). The examiner further submits that Vilsmeier teaches "a dedicated support motor connected to the at least one support structure and adapted to extend and retract the at least one support structure" because the motor element allows the support structure to extend or retract in a vertical direction. Further it may be appreciated that Vilsmeier teaches "wherein loss of power to the dedicated support motor causes extension of the at least one support structure to an extended position" because under a loss of power in a case of power failure drive belt can manually move bedframe.
2)
3)
Conclusion
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S Patent Application 2004/0262949 A1 discloses a structure is described which includes a system having a support member and a toothed wheel which cooperate with each other to vertically move a bed.
U.S Patent Application 2004/0143901 A1 discloses a retractable bed is disclosed which can be automatically raised and lowered in a vertical fashion. The retractable bed includes a frame for holding a mattress; and means for raising and lowering said bed through vertical displacement, such as one or more motors.
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.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Deborah T Gedeon whose telephone number is (571)272-8863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am to 4:30pm EST.
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.
/D.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3673 01/14/2026
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673