DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the filing of the application on 10/12/2022. Since the initial filing, no claims have been amended, added or cancelled. Thus, claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
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 Objections
Claims 6 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6 and 15 recite the term “bottom surface of said right” in line 2 and line 20 respectively. Examiner suggests changing to read --bottom surface of said right frame-- in order to be consistent with the terminology.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 recite the limitation “each of said mattresses being configured for being compressible wherein facilitating in reposing the user” (in lines 16-17 of claim 1, lines 3-4 of claim 9, and lines 35-36 of claim 15). It is unclear what this limitation means, due to the awkward syntax and grammatical issues. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be understood to mean that the mattresses are compressible in response to movement/ repositioning of the user.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “for producing heat wherein reposing the user” in line 2. It is unclear what this limitation means, due to the awkward syntax and grammatical issues. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be understood to mean that the applied heat is delivered regardless of the position of the user.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a range of frequencies to soothe the body” in lines 2-3. The limitation is ill-defined. Different people will have different ideas of what a “soothing” massage feels like. As such, it is a relative term, and leaves the actual claimed range of frequencies indefinite.
Any remaining claims are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 1-2 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carsner (US Pat. 5,505,513) in view of Smith et al. (US Pub. 2022/0167751) in view of Cramer et al. (US Pat. 3,524,673) in view of Stevenson (US Pat. 6,163,900), in view of DeLaney (US Pat. 5,007,410).
Regarding claim 1, Carsner discloses a portable bed assembly (see the foldable bed 14 in Figs. 1-4), the portable bed assembly comprising: a right frame (see Figs. 1-4 a first section at cushion 46, having a rectangular frame 24) having a pair of lateral beams (see Fig. 1 the beams of frame 24 that run in the left/right direction of the figure) and a pair of side beams (see Fig. 1 the beams of frame 24 that run in the up/down direction on the perimeter, such that one of them connects with hinge 66), said right frame having a top surface and a bottom surface (see Figs. 1-4 where a top surface of frame 24 is in contact with cushion 46, and a bottom surface faces the floor); a left frame (see Figs. 1-4 a second section at cushion 48, having a rectangular frame 26) having a pair of lateral beams (see Fig. 1 the beams of frame 26 that run in the left/right direction of the figure) and a pair of side beams (see Fig. 1 the beams of frame 26 that run in the up/down direction on the perimeter, such that one of them connects with hinge 66), said left frame having a top surface and a bottom surface (see Figs. 1-4 where a top surface of frame 26 is in contact with cushion 48, and a bottom surface faces the floor), a first side beam of said pair of side beams of said left frame being coupled to a first side beam of said pair of side beams of said right frame by a pair of hinges (see Fig. 1 where a first side beam of frame 24 and a first side beam of frame 26 are connected to one another via the pair of hinges 66), said pair of hinges being configured for positioning said right frame and said left frame in an open and a closed position relative to each other (see Fig. 2 and Col. 5 lines 25-54 where the hinges 66 allow for a pivoting motion between the right and left frame, between an open (flat) position, and a closed (folded-up) position); a pair of mattresses being positioned upon a respective one of each of said frames (see Fig. 1 cushions 46 and 48), each of said mattresses being configured for being compressible wherein facilitating in reposing the user (where the cushions are understood to be soft such that they can be compressed in response to the movement and posture of the user).
Carsner lacks a detailed description of the bed being a heated massage bed assembly, a pair of bases being positioned upon a respective one of said top surface of said right frame and said top surface of said left frame; a plurality of heating coils being positioned upon a respective one of each of said bases, a plurality of massaging units being integrated within said pair of mattresses, and a control panel being in electric communication with said plurality of heating coils and said plurality of massaging units.
However, Smith teaches a portable, foldable bed system with two sections connected by a hinge, having a pair of bases being positioned upon a respective one of said top surface of said right frame and said top surface of said left frame (see Figs. 2-3 where a first base is back side 18, and a second surface is forward side 52); a plurality of heating coils being positioned upon a respective one of each of said bases (see [0028] where each mattresses 70/80 has a heating pad, and the heating pad can be an electric heating coil), a plurality of massaging units being integrated within said pair of mattresses (see [0029]-[0030] and Fig. 3 where massagers 92/ 94 are on the mattresses 70/80), and a control panel being in electric communication with said plurality of heating coils and said plurality of massaging units (see Fig. 2 control 96; see also [0031] where it controls the heating pad and massagers).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mattress pads of Carsner to each have a base, heating coils, massagers, all controlled by a control unit as taught by Smith, as it would provide integrated and controllable heat and massage therapy, for a more relaxing and therapeutic rest.
The modified Carsner device lacks a detailed description of the bed being configured to be used in a day cab of a semi truck.
However, Cramer teaches a bed for use in the day cab of a semi truck (see Figs. 1-3 where a truck cab 10 has bed 25 within it).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of use of the modified Carsner bed to be within the cab of a semi truck as taught by Cramer, as it would provide the foldable therapeutic bed in a truck cab space, for use by truck drivers, to receive the therapeutic benefits of the modified bed.
The modified Carsner device lacks a detailed description of a pair of stands having a pair of legs configured for supporting said left and right frames.
However, Stevenson teaches a folding bed for a vehicle, where each section has a pair of stand having a pair of legs to support each frame (see Fig. 8 where a first frame at left unit 108/ seat portion 114 has a pair of legs 136, and a second frame at right unit 106/ seat portion 110 has a pair of legs 136).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the supports of the modified Carsner device to be a pair of legs on each frame as taught by Stevenson, as it would be a simple substitution of one type of support member for another, to yield the predictable result of providing support to the frame for holding it upright.
The modified Carsner device lacks a detailed description of a pair of mattress covers enwrapping a respective one of said pair of mattresses.
However, DeLaney teaches a mattress system that delivers a massage to a user, where a cover is placed over the mattress pad (see Figs. 1-2 where mattress covers 46/49 can have zipper 50 so as to be able to fully encompass the foam layers 47/48; see Col. 1 line 58 to Col. 2 line 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mattresses of the modified Carsner device to be wrapped in a mattress pad as taught by DeLaney, as it would protect the mattress and massager/ heater units from dirt and grime, while being easy to remove and replace in order to adjust the mattress (DeLaney; Col. 1 line 58 to Col. 2 line 4).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Carsner device has said pair of lateral beams being positioned parallel relative to each other (Carsner; see Figs. 1-4 where the lateral sides of frames 24/26 are parallel to one another), said pair of lateral beams being positioned perpendicular relative to said pair of side beams (Carsner; see Figs. 1-4 where the lateral beams of frames 24/26 are perpendicular to the sides that have the hinges 66).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Carsner device has each of said heating coils being configured for producing heat wherein reposing the user (Smith; see [0028] where each mattresses 70/80 has a heating pad, such that the user receives heat when positioned on the mattress).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Carsner device has said plurality of heating coils being position between said pair of mattresses and said pair of bases (Smith; see [0028] where each mattresses 70/80 has a heating pad, and the heating pad can be an electric heating coil, which is positioned between the mattresses 70/80 and sides 18/52), each of said mattresses being configured for being compressible wherein facilitating in reposing the user (Carsner; see Figs. 1-4 where each cushion is understood to be soft and compressible in response to motion of the user), said pair of mattresses being configured for evenly distributing the heat from said plurality of heating coils (Smith; see [0028] where each mattress 70/80 has a heating pad, and thus the heat is evenly distributed from the heating coils to the mattresses).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Carsner device has each of said massaging units being configured for vibrating within a range of frequencies to soothe the body of the user (Smith; see [0029]-[0030] where the massagers are understood to operate at a frequency that delivers a massage effect, and thus is soothing), each of said massaging units being in electric communication with each other (Smith; see [0031] where the electrical components are all in communication with one another via the control 96).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carsner in view of Smith in view of Cramer in view of Stevenson in view of DeLaney as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Light (US Pat. 5,170,521).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Carsner device has said right frame having a pair of center beams (Carsner; see Figs. 1 and 3 where cross-braces 74 are center beams, each frame 24/26 having two), said pair of center beams being configured for providing support to said right frame (Carsner; see Figs. 1 and 3 where cross-braces 74 provide supports to frames 24/26).
The modified Carsner device lacks a detailed description of each of said center beams intersecting each other in a middle of each of said center beams.
However, Light teaches a portable sleeping bed for a vehicle, where the sleeping portion that holds the user’s weight is supporting by two center supports, which cross and intersect one another at a midpoint (see Fig. 1 where straps 22/23 cross one another on support member 20, to provide support).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the center cross-braces of the modified Carsner device to be X-shaped across the frame to support the user as taught by Light, as it would be a simple substitution of one type of center support unit for another center support unit, to yield the predictable result of supporting the weight of the user near the middle of the mattress.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Carsner device has further comprising said left frame has said pair of center beams (Light; see straps 22/23 in Fig. 1, as modifying the location of cross-braces 74 in Figs. 1-4 of Carsner).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Carsner device has said open position being configured for said right frame and said left frame being coplanar to each other (Carsner; see Figs. 1 and 4 where each segment of the bed is coplanar when deployed in an open position), said closed positioned being configured for said left frame and said right frame abutting each other (Carsner; see Fig. 3 where frames 24/26 abut one another when folded into the closed position).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carsner in view of Smith in view of Cramer in view of Stevenson in view of DeLaney in view of Light as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Milenovich (US Pat. 6,899,379).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Carsner device has said open position and said closed position.
The modified Carsner device lacks a detailed description of said open position being configured for said bottom surface of said right and said bottom surface of left frame resting upon a pair of seats within a day cab, said closed position being configured for being stored behind said pair of seats within the day cab.
However, Milenovich teaches a bed system for a truck cab space, where an open position is configured for said bottom surface of said right and said bottom surface of left resting upon a pair of seats within a day cab (see Fig. 25 where seat bottoms 66 are deployed such that bed 96 rests on the seats; see also Col. 8 lines 36-48), said closed position being configured for being stored behind said pair of seats within the day cab (see Fig. 25 where when in the closed position, the bed 96 is held vertically in bed storage space 110, behind the seats; see also Col. 8 lines 36-48).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bed system of the modified Carsner device to rest upon the seats when deployed and be behind the seats when closed as taught by Milenovich, as it would provide means for increasing the width of the bed using the seats when deployed, as well as fully stowing the bed out of the way when closed (Milenovich; see Col. 8 lines 36-48).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carsner in view of Smith in view of Cramer in view of Stevenson in view of DeLaney in view of Light as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Brykalski et al. (US Pat. 8,191,187).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Carsner device has each of said bases having a rectangular shape (Smith; see Fig. 3 sides 18 and 52 being rectangular, fitting with the rectangular frames 24/26 in Figs. 1-4 of Carsner).
The modified Carsner device lacks a detailed description of each of said bases having a plurality of clips, each of said clips being configured for latching to a respective one of said pair of lateral beams and said pair of side beams of said right frame and a respective one of said pair of lateral beams and pair of side beams of said left frame.
However, Brykalski teaches a topper member for a bed system, where a mat or topper can be removably attached to a support structure by means of clips (see Col. 24 lines 9-25).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection between the base and frame of the modified Carsner device to be a connection via clips as taught by Brykalski, as it would be a simple substitution of one method of connecting the base to the frame for another, to yield the predictable result of removably coupling the base to the frame in the modified Carsner device.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carsner in view of Smith in view of Cramer in view of Stevenson in view of DeLaney as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Dorfman et al. (US Pat. 11,122,911).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Carsner device has each mattress cover.
The modified Carsner device lacks a detailed description of has each of said mattress covers coupling each of said mattresses to a respective one of each of said bases by an elastic band wherein retaining each of said mattresses in a fixed position relative to each of said bases.
However, Dorfman teaches a mattress and mattress pad system, where the mattress pad has four corners and its sides fitted with elastic so as to fit over the mattress and remain taught in position (see Col. 2 lines 1-12 and Col. 5 lines 1-12).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mattress cover of the modified Carsner device to be fitting with elastic on its sides and corners so as to stretch over the mattress and base to remain in place as taught by Dorfman, as it would be a simple substitution of one means for securing the cover to the mattress and base for another means, to yield the predictable result of removably coupling the cover to the mattress and base.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Carsner device has each of the mattress covers being a supple material configured for being elastic to stretch across each of said bases (Dorfman; see Col. 2 lines 1-12 and Col. 5 lines 1-12 where the pad is an elastic bedding material, and thus a supple material), each of said mattress covers being removable and washable (Dorfman; see Col. 2 lines 1-12 and Col. 5 lines 1-12 where the pad is capable of being removed, and thus being washable).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carsner in view of Smith in view of Cramer in view of Stevenson in view of DeLaney in view of Dorfman as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Grutta (US Pat. 11,812,856).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Carsner device has said control panel having a display (Smith; see Figs. 2-3 where control 96 has a top face with buttons that is a display face), said control panel having a heat actuator and a massage actuator (Smith; see [0032] where buttons 106 in Figs. 2-3 control the heat and massage effects), said heat and massage actuators being a pair of buttons (Smith; see [0032] buttons 106 in Figs. 2-3).
The modified Carsner device lacks a detailed description of said control panel having a universal serial bus port configured for providing power to said control panel.
However, Grutta teaches a remotely controlled bed, where a control panel has a USB power port (see Col. 9 lines 30-39).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of the modified Carsner device to be powered by USB as taught by Grutta, as it would be applying a well-known connection type for providing power to the electrical components in the controller.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carsner in view of Smith in view of Cramer in view of Stevenson in view of DeLaney as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jin et al. (US Pat. 7,461,601).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Carsner device has said legs of each stand.
The modified Carsner device lacks a detailed description of each of said legs of each of said stands being coupled to each other by a pivot joint in a center of each of said legs, each of said legs of each of said stands having a foot end and a frame end, said frame end of each of said legs having a slot configured for being nested around a first lateral beam of said pair of lateral beams of said frame wherein retaining each of said stands to said frame, said foot end of each of said legs being configured for being positioned upon a floor of a day cab of a semi truck.
However, Jin teaches a foldable furniture piece, having each of said legs of each of said stands being coupled to each other by a pivot joint in a center of each of said legs (see Fig. 9 where each leg is separated by a hinge 50a that pivots them relative one another, the hinge located in the center of each leg), each of said legs of each of said stands having a foot end (see Fig. 9 foot end 164a) and a frame end (see Fig. 9 frame end 164b), said frame end of each of said legs having a slot configured for being nested around a first lateral beam of said pair of lateral beams of said frame wherein retaining each of said stands to said frame (see Fig. 4 where, when folded up into the closed position, the sections 32a/32b create a slot between them which fits the legs of the table, the legs being nestles alongside side rails 44a/44b (see Fig. 2)), said foot end of each of said legs being configured for being positioned upon a floor (see Fig. 9 where foot section 164a is configured to touch the floor).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the legs of the modified Carsner device to have a pair of pivotally connected legs that are able to gold into a slot next to a lateral beam of the frame as taught by Jin, as it would be a simple substitution of one type of leg folding structure for another, to yield the predictable result of folding up the legs under the bed device when not in use, while also having the benefit of allowing the modified mattress to be readily moved between a locked and unlocked position (Jin; see Col. 11 lines 19-25). It is understood that the modified Carsner device is capable of being placed on the floor of the cab of a semi truck.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carsner in view of Smith, in view of Cramer, in view of Stevenson, in view of DeLaney, in view of Light, in view of Milenovich, in view of Jin, in view of Dorfman, in view of Brykalski, in view of Grutta.
Regarding claim 15, it is noted that claim 15 is the combination of claims 1-14. As such, every element of claim 15 has been rejected in the above rejections of claims 1-14. It is for the same reasons that Carsner discloses a portable bed frame assembly, and the teachings of the teaching references are then applied to Carsner to reach a modified Carsner device that teaches all of the limitations of claims 1-14, and thus claim 15. It is further noted that none of the teaching references interfere with one another, and as such the same teachings and motivations from the rejections of claim 1-14 are applicable to claim 15. Hence, claim 15 is rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Friedman (US Pub. 2004/0194211) and Stevenson (US Pat. 7,073,217) are cited to show similar foldable furniture pieces and their frames.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D ZIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-3349. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00.
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, Justine Yu can be reached at (571)272-4835. 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.
/MATTHEW D ZIEGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JUSTINE R YU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785