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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that “The Office asserted McMann discloses all of the features recited in claim 1. Specifically, the Office asserted a base 10 discussed in McMann corresponds to the recited "bottom assembly." The Office also asserted a combination of a head board 16, base end 12, foot board 18 and base end 14 discussed in McMann corresponds to the recited "two support assemblies." The Office further asserted uppermost bars of the slatted sides 30 and 32 discussed in McMann correspond to the recited "armrests." The Office additionally asserted McMann discloses when the sides 30 and 32 are slid down to positions below piano hinges 19 and 20, the head board 16 and foot board 18 are folded on top of the sides 30 and 32 based on FIGs. 2 and 3 of McMann. McMann does not disclose "the two support assemblies are configured to be folded in response to the two armrests being slid down to the lowered position." In McMann, slatted crib sides are provided with tongue members slidably received in slotted brackets arranged for allowing vertical disposition of the sides in hooked relation to the head and foot boards, and alternatively facilitating folding over of the crib sides in juxtaposition with each other on top of the crib mattress. The head and foot boards fold from either end over the aforementioned sides. (see, McMann, Abstract). Further, as acknowledged by the Office at page 10 of the Office Action, McMann describes "The crib according to the present invention is foldable into a flat package by first folding sides 30 and 32 over mattress 11. It has been noted that, in normal vertically secured position, the lower edge of side 30, for example, is below the top surface of mattress 11. However, as has also been noted, side 30 is raisable upward from this position. For folding, side 30 is first raised upwardly until tongues 54 clear slots 50 and brackets 49, and the side is then pivoted into a horizontal position on top of mattress 11." (see, McMann, col. 4, lines 17-42). Based on what is discussed in the above cited portions of McMann, the folding of the crib includes sliding the lower edge of the side 30 upwardly along the track 34 (see, McMann, Fig. 4), followed by rotating the upper edge of the side 30 toward the opposite side to position the side 30 in a horizontal state. The moving action of the side 32 on the transverse opposite side is identical to that of the side 30. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the sides 30 and 32 in McMann do not slide down to a lowered position for folding the head and foot boards 16 and 18 of the crib; instead, the sides 30 and 32 are raised upwardly. This is directly opposite to claim 1, which recites "the two support assemblies are configured to be folded in response to the two armrests being slid down to the lowered position."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments that McMann does not disclose the two support assemblies are configured to be folded in response to the two armrests being slid down to the lowered position. The Applicants argue that “One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the sides 30 and 32 in McMann do not slide down to a lowered position for folding the head and foot boards 16 and 18 of the crib; instead, the sides 30 and 32 are raised upwardly. This is directly opposite to claim 1, which recites "the two support assemblies are configured to be folded in response to the two armrests being slid down to the lowered position."” However, the Examiner considers the limitation “when the two armrests are slid down below the pivotally connected points” to be the rotational sliding motion of the entire slatted sides 30 and 32 and not the initial upward sliding motion of the slatted sides as the Applicant is arguing. This upward sliding motion is not positioning the slatted sides into a folded configuration. The rotational sliding motion after the lifting causes the slatted sides to move to the folded configuration as claimed in the previously presented claim 4. Additionally, previously presented claim 4 requires “the two armrests are slid down to positions below the pivotally connected points”. As shown in Figs. 1-3 of McMann, even when the slatted sides are initially slid upward, before the sliding rotational motion to move to the position of Fig. 2, the slatted sides are still below the pivotally connected points (piano hinges 19 and 20 of McMann).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “Amended claim 1 now requires “each of the two support assemblies has a pivotally connected point allowing two ends of the two support assemblies to rotate into folding; the two armrests are configured to be slid down to a lowered position below the pivotally connected point; and the two support assemblies are configured to be folded in response to the two armrests being slid down to the lowered position.” The Office additionally asserted McMann discloses when the sides 30 and 32 are slid down to positions below piano hinges 19 and 20, the head board 16 and foot board 18 are folded on top of the sides 30 and 32 based on FIGs. 2 and 3 of McMann. McMann does not disclose "the two support assemblies are configured to be folded in response to the two armrests being slid down to the lowered position." In McMann, slatted crib sides are provided with tongue members slidably received in slotted brackets arranged for allowing vertical disposition of the sides in hooked relation to the head and foot boards, and alternatively facilitating folding over of the crib sides in juxtaposition with each other on top of the crib mattress. The head and foot boards fold from either end over the aforementioned sides. (see, McMann, Abstract). Further, the drawings of McMann illustrate that the sides 30 and 32 are raised up and pivoted out of the way onto the mattress before the head and foot boards 16 and 18 can fold over the sides. Applicant provides the annotated FIGs. 1 and 2 of McMann as follows for the Examiner's convenience of review.” The Examiner again notes that the sliding motion is a rotational sliding motion of the slatted sides 30 and 32 pivoting into the lowered position shown in Figs. 2-3 of McMann.
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 and 5-26 are 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 1 has been amended to include “the two support assemblies are configured to be folded in response to the two armrests being slid down to the lowered position.” The phrase “folded in response to the two armrests being slid down” implies a connection between the movements of the two support assemblies and the two armrests. The Examiner does not find any teaching that these movements are connected. The Examiner agrees that the two support assemblies are capable of being folded only after the sliding of the armrests but the two support assemblies do not have to fold in response to the sliding.
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.
The term “rod-shaped” in claim 26 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rod-shaped” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what one would consider to be rod-shaped. It is unclear if a rod-shaped element would require a certain relative size, length, shape etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 11, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McMann (US Patent No. 3,680,155).
Regarding Claim 1: McMann discloses a bed frame structure (foldable baby crib – Figs. 1-6 and the abstract of McMann), comprising: a bottom assembly (base 10 forming the bottom assembly of McMann); two support assemblies (head board 16 and base end 12 and foot board 18 and base end 14 of McMann – Figs. 1-6), wherein bottoms of the two support assemblies are fixed to the bottom assembly (see base ends 12 and 14 coupled to base 10 – Fig. 1 of McMann), and the two support assemblies are spaced apart above the bottom assembly (as shown in Fig. 1 of McMann which shows the head board 16 spaced from the foot board 18 of McMann); and two armrests (uppermost bar of the slatted sides 30 and 32 of McMann) each having two ends (as shown in Fig. 1 of McMann), the two armrests spaced apart between the two support assemblies (see side 30 spaced between head board 16 and foot board 18 of McMann), wherein each of the two ends of the two armrests is movably coupled to the two support assemblies and configured to be movable up and down relative to the two support assemblies (sides 30 and 32 described as being movable up and down vertically to enable access to a child in the crib – Col. 3, lines 57-66 of McMann and “For folding, side 30 is first raised upwardly until tongues 54 clear slots 50 and brackets 49, and the side is then pivoted into a horizontal position on top of mattress 11. At this time, the tongues 46 will slide nearly to the top of slots 40.” – Col. 4, lines 24-27 of McMann); the bottom assembly, the two support assemblies and the two armrests cooperatively form a rest space (see the interior of the crib supporting a mattress for receiving an infant – Fig. 1 and the abstract of McMann); each of the two support assemblies has a pivotally connected point (piano hinges 19 and 20 of McMann allowing 16 and 18 to pivot down to the position of Fig. 3) allowing two ends of the two support assemblies to rotate into folding (Figs. 1-3 of McMann showing the transition of the head and foot boards 16, 18 to a folded position); the two armrests are configured to be slid down to a lowered position below the pivotally connected point (the sliding action of McMann being the rotating motion of the sides 30 and 32 into the position of Fig. 3 from that of Fig. 1 of McMann); and the two support assemblies are configured to be folded in response to the two armrests being slid down to the lowered position (see Figs. 1-3 of McMann showing the transition of the sides 30,32 first slid down to the position of Figs. 2-3 and then enabling the folding of the head and foot boards 16, 18 to the folded configuration of Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 11: McMann discloses the bed frame structure according to claim 1, further comprising two support legs (foldable legs 22 and 24 of McMann) spaced apart below the bottom assembly (see Figs. 1-3 of McMann).
Regarding Claim 26: McMann discloses the bed frame structure according to claim 1, wherein each of the two armrests is rod- shaped (see at least the top members of slatted sides 30 and 32 formed of long, straight bars which can be considered rod-shaped).
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) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMann (US Patent No. 3,680,155) in view of Hudry (US Patent No. 1,054,416).
Regarding Claim 5: McMann discloses the bed frame structure according to claim 4, wherein each of the two support assemblies comprises two support rods (members 36 of McMann) […], the pivotally connected point is disposed between first and second ends of each support rod (see Fig. 1 and annotated copy of Fig. 2 of McMann), [….], the second ends of the two support rods are respectively fixed to the bottom assembly (Figs. 1-3), and the two armrests are disposed on the two support rods an configured to be movable up and down (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3, lines 13-16 of McMann – “The side 30 is upraised to a position indicated in dashed lines at 30', with lower tongues 46 sliding along slots 40 in slotted brackets 34.”)
McMann does not explicitly disclose a connecting rod, the connecting rod is fixedly connected between the two support rods.
However, in the same field of endeavor, cribs (see the title of Hudry), Hudry discloses a connecting rod (rails 17 of Hudry including rods fixed between extension posts 16), the connecting rod is fixedly connected between […] two support rods (extension posts 16 of Hudry engaging the rail guards 17).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined McMann (directed to a folding crib) and Hudry (directed to a folding crib with slatted head and end boards) and arrived at a folding crib with slatted head and end boards. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g. forming headboard 18 with slats sandwiched between connecting rods and the support rods) with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g. aesthetic design preferences, enabling more visibility of the interior of the crib and increased airflow).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6: McMann in view of Hudry makes obvious the bed frame structure according to claim 5, wherein each support rod comprises a first rod portion and a second rod portion (see annotated copy of Figs. 3 and 4 showing different views of the first and second rod portions), the first rod portion and the second rod portion are pivotally connected by the pivotally connected point, and the second rod portion is fixed to the bottom assembly (Col. 2, lines 28-33 of McMann –“Referring to the drawings, the foldable crib according to the present invention comprises a frame including a base 10, suitably formed of a relatively thick, flat plywood panel and base ends 12 and 14 secured thereto in upright position by means of wood screws, steel angle brackets, or the like”).
PNG
media_image2.png
510
717
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMann (US Patent No. 3,680,155) in view of Hudry (US Patent No. 1,054,416) further in view of Zhang (CN 107224150).
Regarding Claim 7: McMann and Hudry together make obvious the bed frame structure according to claim 6.
McMann and Hudry do not disclose or teach wherein the support rod further comprises a snapping member, one end of the snapping member is movably disposed on one of the first rod portion and the second rod portion, another end of the snapping member is snapped into the other one of the first rod portion and the second rod portion, the snapping member is driven to move to be disengaged from the first rod portion or the second rod portion, such that the first rod portion is rotatable into folding relative to the second rod portion.
In the same field of endeavor, folding bed for a baby (see the abstract of Zhang), Zhang teaches wherein the support rod (vertical connection base 12 of Zhang) further comprises a snapping member (formed of the locking block 31 and locking button 33 of Zhang), one end of the snapping member is movably disposed (see annotated copy of Fig. 5 of Zhang) on one of the first rod portion (12 of Zhang) and the second rod portion (21 of Zhang), the other end (see annotated copy of Fig. 5 of Zhang) of the snapping member is snapped into the other one of the first rod portion and the second rod portion (compare Figs. 5-6 of Zhang), the snapping member is driven to move to be disengaged from the first rod portion or the second rod portion, such that the first rod portion is rotatable into folding relative to the second rod portion (paragraph 9 on page 4 of the English translation of Zhang teaches removing locking block 31 from the hole 211 to enable folding of the bed).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined McMann (directed to a folding crib), Hudry (directed to a folding crib with slatted head and end boards), and Zhang (directed to a folding crib with a latch for preventing or enabling pivoting of first and second rod portions) and arrived at a folding crib with latches preventing or enabling pivoting of the folding supports. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g. adding a latch between the first and second rod portions of McMann) with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g. creating an added layer of safety by requiring unlatching before folding the head and footboards to a folded position thereby preventing accidental injuries to the child).
Regarding Claim 8: McMann in view of Hudry and Zhang make obvious the bed frame structure according to claim 7, wherein one of the first rod portion or the second rod portion includes a sliding groove (see annotated copy of Fig. 5 of Zhang), the other one of the first rod portion or the second rod portion includes a snapping groove (see annotated copy of Fig. 5 of Zhang), the snapping member comprises a slidable portion (portion 33 of Zhang sliding towards an interior of 12 when pushed) and a snapping portion (31 of Zhang snapping into groove 211) connected to the slidable portion (as shown in Figs. 5-6 of Zhang), the slidable portion is movably disposed in the sliding groove (paragraph 9 on page 4 of the English translation of Zhang teaches movement and spring biasing of the button 33 within the groove 32 since a user pushes on the button 33 to enable folding of the bed), and the snapping portion is snapped in the snapping groove (as shown in Fig. 5 of Zhang).
PNG
media_image3.png
820
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9: McMann in view of Hudry and Zhang make obvious the bed frame structure according to claim 7, wherein each of the two support assemblies further comprises a first elastic reset member (reset spring 34 of Zhang) configured to reset the snapping member (paragraph 9 on page 4 of Zhang teaches reset spring 34 to reset the button 33), and the first elastic reset member is disposed between one of the first rod portion or the second rod portion, and the snapping member (see the spring 34 positioned between portion 31 and the first rod portion of Zhang).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMann (US Patent No. 3,680,155) in view of Draheim et al. (US Patent No. 5,072,464 – hereinafter Draheim).
Regarding Claim 10: McMann discloses the bed frame structure according to claim 1, wherein at least one armrest of the two armrests is provided with an armrest locking assembly (latch mechanism 24 of Draheim) [comprising a pressing member (slide actuating member 60 of Draheim), a rotating wheel (pulleys 68 of Draheim), a wire (wire cable 52 of Draheim) and a locking member (46 of Draheim)] configured to lock the at least one armrest to a top a corresponding support assembly of the two support assemblies (see at least Fig. 5 of Draheim showing the locked position where member 46 is extending into member 12) or unlock the at least one armrest from the top of the corresponding support assembly of the two support assemblies (Col. 1, lines 44-46 of Draheim –“Operation of the latch mechanism causes both ends of the cable to be pulled towards the center of the rail, thereby releasing the dropside from a locked position”).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine McMann (folding crib) and Draheim (folding crib with a double acting latch) with a reasonable expectation of success by including a latch system as taught by Draheim in the invention of McMann. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “A double-acting latch mechanism is employed to prevent the dropside from being inadvertently unlocked” (Col. 1, lines 32-34 of Draheim).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMann (US Patent No. 3,680,155) in view of Lowy (US Patent No. 1,216,709).
Regarding Claim 12: McMann discloses the bed frame structure according to claim 11. McMann further discloses “frame including a base 10, suitably formed of a relatively thick, flat plywood panel and base ends 12 and 14 secured thereto in upright position by means of wood screws, steel angle brackets, or the like”) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the bottom assembly comprises four bottom rods, the four bottom rods are fixedly connected in sequence to form a closed structure, and the two support legs are respectively connected to two opposite bottom rods of the four bottom rods.
In the same field of endeavor, cribs (see the title of Lowy), Lowy teaches a bottom assembly comprises four bottom rods (lateral and longitudinal members 3 and 2 of Lowy – Fig. 1 and Page 1, lines 18-36 of Lowy), the four bottom rods are fixedly connected in sequence to form a closed structure (Fig. 1 and Page 1, lines 18-36 of Lowy), and the two support legs are respectively connected to two opposite bottom rods (as shown in Fig. 1 of Lowy).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined McMann (directed to a folding crib) and Lowy (directed to a folding crib with a frame support) and arrived at a folding crib with a frame support for attaching a base for supporting a mattress. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g. screwing frame members to the interior sides of the crib for supporting the base member) with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g. providing means for supporting and/or coupling the base 10 of McMann to the inside of the crib for supporting a mattress).
Regarding Claim 13: McMann in view of Lowy make obvious the bed frame structure according to claim 12, wherein each support leg is pivotally connected to each of the two opposite bottom rods (legs 22 and 24 foldably coupled beneath the base 10 and base ends of McMann). Adding a frame to support the base 10 of McMann as taught by Lowy (see the rejection of claim 12) would require pivotal connection with the bottom rods with at least an indirect connection.
Regarding Claim 14: McMann in view of Lowy make obvious the bed frame structure according to claim 13, wherein each support leg is rotatable into folding relative to the two opposite bottom rods (legs 22 and 24 shown folding in Fig. 1 by numerals 22’ and 24’ of McMann). Adding a frame to support the base 10 of McMann as taught by Lowy (see the rejection of claim 12) would require pivotal connection with the bottom rods with at least an indirect connection such that the support leg is rotatable into folding relative to the bottom rod.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMann (US Patent No. 3,680,155) in view of Lowy (US Patent No. 1,216,709) further in view of Wei (TW-M276486).
Regarding Claim 15: McMann in view of Lowy make obvious the bed frame structure according to claim 14.
McMann and Lowy do not disclose wherein the bottom assembly further comprises a transverse rod and two sliding assemblies, the transverse rod is connected between the two opposite bottom rods, one end of each sliding assembly is slidably disposed on the transverse rod, another end of the sliding assembly is pivotally connected to the support leg, and the sliding assembly is slid along the transverse rod to drive the support leg to rotate into folding.
In the same field of endeavor, folding horizontal supports (page 1, lines 1-3 of the translation of Wei), Wei teaches wherein the bottom assembly further comprises a transverse rod (sliding rail 20 of Wei) and two sliding assemblies (elements 30-50 of Wei forming sliding assemblies), the transverse rod is connected between [two opposite table ends], one end of each sliding assembly is slidably disposed on the transverse rod (compare Figs. 6-8 of Wei), another end of the sliding assembly is pivotally connected to the support leg (see the connecting frame 40 pivotally coupled with the legs formed of elements 11 and 12 of Wei – Fig. 7), and the sliding assembly is slid along the transverse rod to drive the support leg to rotate into folding (as shown in the comparison between Figs. 7-8 of Wei).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine McMann (directed to a folding crib), Lowy (directed to a folding crib with a frame support), and Wei (pivoting slide rail leg mechanism) with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill would have been motivated to make such a combination because the track slide system enables multiple latched positions of the legs (see positioning slots 21 and 22 of Wei and page 2 of the English translation of Wei which describes unfolding of the legs where the positioning device 50 engages he positioning groove 21) therefore securing the legs in different latched positions.
Regarding Claim 16: McMann in view of Lowy make obvious the bed frame structure according to claim 15, wherein at least one sliding assembly of the two sliding assemblies comprises a slidable sleeve (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Wei pointing to two portions of Wei which form a slidable sleeve) and a linkage member (connecting frame 40 of Wei), the slidable sleeve is slidably disposed on the transverse rod (compare Figs. 7-8 of Wei), one end of the linkage member is pivotally connected to the slidable sleeve (see the connecting frame 40 pivotally coupled with the legs formed of elements 11 and 12 of Wei – Fig. 7), and another end of the linkage member is pivotally connected to the support leg (see the connecting frame 40 pivotally coupled with the legs formed of elements 11 and 12 of Wei – Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image4.png
546
488
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
526
422
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17: McMann in view of Lowy and Wei make obvious the bed frame structure according to claim 16, wherein the at least one sliding assembly further comprises a locking member (elements 51-52 of Wei forming a locking member), the locking member is disposed on the slidable sleeve (as shown in Fig. 5 of Wei) and selectively snapped into the transverse rod (compare Figs. 5 and 6 of Wei), and when the locking member is operated to be disengaged from the transverse rod, the slidable sleeve is slidable along the transverse rod (see the English translation of Wei - “Press the pressing part (51) down to move the engaging part (52) up and down from the state where it is engaged with the unfolding positioning groove (2!). At this time, the slide seat (3 ◦) is available. Displacement, we can fold the table leg (U) toward the table top (10) (as shown in Figure 7) until the engaging part (52) of the pressing positioning device (50) is located on the slide Track ⑵) Collapse of the second end (2 0 b) When the position slot (2 2), the engaging portion (the elastic reset member (53) faces the card holder in the positioning slot (22) to achieve the folding and positioning state of the table leg (1 1) (as shown in FIG. 8 Shown 9 M276486 [Effect description] The fact that this creative effect is enhanced is as follows: The folding structure of the table leg, including the sliding handle, slide seat, link frame and press-type positioning clothes, is an innovative structural space type.”).
Regarding Claim 20: McMann in view of Lowy and Wei make obvious the bed frame structure according to claim 17, wherein the transverse rod is provided with a positioning portion (positioning slots 21 and 22 of Wei) configured to position the locking member (the English translation of Wei describes the positioning slots 21 and 22).
Regarding Claim 21: McMann in view of Lowy and Wei make obvious the bed frame structure according to claim 20, wherein the positioning portion comprises a first snapping position (positioning slot 21 of Wei), and the locking member is snapped into the first snapping position to lock the two support legs in an unfolded state relative to the bottom assembly (as shown by the position of slot 21 in Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 22: McMann in view of Lowy and Wei make obvious the bed frame structure according to claim 21, wherein the positioning portion further comprises a second snapping position (22 of McMann), and the locking member is snapped into the second snapping position to lock the two support legs in a folded state relative to the bottom assembly (see Figs. 7 and 8 which show positioning slot 22 and the folded state).
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMann (US Patent No. 3,680,155) in view of Aarestad (US Patent No. 2,574,610).
Regarding Claim 23: McMann discloses the bed frame structure according to claim 11, but does not disclose wherein at least one support leg of the two support legs comprises a support leg body and a telescopic portion, an upper end of the support leg body is connected to the bottom assembly, and the telescopic portion is disposed at a lower end of the support leg body in a manner of being and configured to be transversely movable.
However, in the same field of endeavor, folding cribs (see the title of Aarestad), Aarestad teaches wherein at least one support leg of the two support legs comprises a support leg body (support posts 1, 2 of Aarestad – Fig. 1) and a telescopic portion (extension legs 3 of Aarestad), [….] and the telescopic portion is disposed at a lower end of the support leg body in a manner of being and configured to be transversely movable (“extension leg 3…slidable inwardly and outwardly of the lower end of the leg into different set positions” – Col. 2, lines 15-20 of Aarestad).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine McMann (directed toward a folding crib) and Aarestad (directed toward a crib with telescopic legs) with a reasonable expectation of success by making the foldable legs formed of tubular members with an inner extension leg. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because the extension legs “to extend or contract the overall length of the legs and vary the height of the crib” (Col. 2, lines 7-15 of Aarestad). Note that converting the legs 22 and 24 of McMann into tubular legs for receiving extension legs would result in a bed with an upper end of the support leg body is connected to the bottom assembly.
Regarding Claim 24: McMann in view of Aarestad make obvious the bed frame structure according to claim 23, wherein the at least one support leg further comprises a caster (casters 6 of Aarestad) pivotally connected to the telescopic portion (see Figs. 1-2 of Aarestad).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 18: McMann in view of Lowy and Wei make obvious the bed frame structure according to claim 17, but do not disclose or make obvious wherein the locking member comprises a hook portion and an unlocking button portion connected to the hook portion, the hook portion is selectively snapped into the transverse rod, the unlocking button portion is pivotally connected to the slidable sleeve, and the unlocking button portion is configured to be driven to rotate to drive the hook portion to be disengaged from the transverse rod.
Claim 19 depends on claim 18 and is therefore objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding Claim 25: McMann discloses the bed frame structure according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein each of the two armrests is slidably disposed on the two support assemblies and configured to slide linearly downward along the two support assemblies to the lowered position to allow the two support assemblies to be folded. The Examiner’s interpretation of the sliding of the armrests of McMann was based on the rotational sliding down to the lowered position. There is no teaching in McMann that the armrests could be slid linearly downward along the two support assemblies to the lowered position below the pivotally connected point.
Claim 27 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: McMann in view of Lowy and Wei make obvious the bed frame structure according to previously presented claim 17 (see pages 23-26 of the Non-Final Rejection dated 5 November 2025) which is now fully incorporated into claim 27. McMann, Lowy and Wei do not disclose or make obvious wherein the locking member comprises a hook portion and an unlocking button portion connected to the hook portion, the hook portion is selectively snapped into the transverse rod, the unlocking button portion is pivotally connected to the slidable sleeve, and the unlocking button portion is configured to be driven to rotate to drive the hook portion to be disengaged from the transverse rod.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG Pub. No. 2020/0046141 to Mu is cited for teaching a bed with telescoping legs and casters.
US Patent No. 2,205,452 to Wright is cited for teaching a collapsible crib.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA L BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 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 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.
/A.L.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights