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 .
Claims 1, 3-15 and 17-20 are pending in the application. Claim 20 is newly added. Claims 2 & 16 have been canceled.
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-15 and 17-20 are drawn to a bed chest having a A-frame hinge, classified in A47C17/58.
II. Claims 6 & 7 drawn to a bed chest having a foldable leg, classified in A47C17/48.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different structures and arrangement.
Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants. Invention I requires a chest with a sleeping platform with a focus on the use of a pair of A-frame hinges. Inventions II requires a chest with a sleep platform with a focus on foldable legs attached to the platform for supporting the sleep platform.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(A) Separate classification thereof: This shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification.
(B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together: Even though they are classified together, each invention can be shown to have formed a separate subject for inventive effort when the examiner can show a recognition of separate inventive effort by inventors. Separate status in the art may be shown by citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and also of a separate field of search.
(C) A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries, a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Michael Teich on 11/06/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of I, claims 1, 3-5, 8-15 and 17-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 6 & 7 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8-11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication US2004/0093669A1 hereinafter referred to as Arason in view of US Patent 1,483,979 hereinafter referred to as Luery.
Re-Claim 1
Arason disclose a chest 10 fig.1, comprising: a front panel 15 fig.1, side panels 21, 22 fig.1 and a top panel 12 fig.1, the front panel including a first portion 15 and a second portion 75 fig.11, the first portion of the front panel being hingably connected (see 30 fig.12) to a base 27 fig.11 of the chest, and the second portion of the front panel connected to the first portion of the front panel via a pair of hinges 78 fig.12 such that the second portion of the front panel is configured to rotate relative to the first portion of the front panel to transition a sleeping platform between a folded state to an unfolded state.
However does not disclose a pair of A-frame hinges each including a pair of elongated plates each having one end secured within grooves in side rails of the respective one of the first portion of the front panel and the second portion of the front panel, and a central connecting plate connecting another end of the pair of elongated plates together; while maintaining a gap, defined by the central connecting plate, between the first portion of the front panel and the second portion of the front panel.
Luery teaches a frame fig.1 comprising a first portion 19 fig.1 and a second portion 19 fig.6, the second portion of the frame connected to the first portion of the frame via a pair of A-Frame hinges 20 fig.1 each including a pair of elongated plates 21 fig.6 & 7 each having one end secured within grooves 29 fig.6 & 7 in side rails 19 of the respective one of the first portion and the second portion, and a central connecting plate 23 fig.6 & 7 connecting another end of the pair of elongated plates together such that the second portion of the frame is configured to rotate relative to the first portion of the frame; while maintaining a gap (see fig.6 & 7), defined by the central connecting plate, between the first portion of the front panel and the second portion of the front panel.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the bed chest of Arason and the A-Frame hinges of Luery and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at bed chest with A-Frame hinges. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of jointing the first and second portions of the front panel so as to be folded one way as taught in Luery [page 1 lines 109-111 and page 2 lines 5-14].
Re-Claim 5
Arason as modified by Luery above discloses,
wherein the second portion of the front panel is stored within an enclosure formed by at least the first portion of the front panel, the side panels and the top panel when the sleeping platform is in the unfolded state (see fig. 1 & 11 Arason).
Re-Claim 8
Arason as modified by Luery above discloses,
Arason discloses wherein the second portion and the first portion of the front panel form a lower portion 75 fig.13 and a middle portion 15 fig.13 of the sleeping platform, respectively, when the sleeping platform is in the unfolded state, and an interior of the base of the chest forms an upper portion 27 fig.13 of the sleeping platform when the sleeping platform is in the unfolded state (see fig.13 Arason).
Re-Claim 9
Arason as modified by Luery above discloses,
wherein the chest is configured to, store a foldable mattress 45 fig.10 Arason (see abstract “the invention comprises a cabinet that houses a mattress, such as a futon” Arason) in an interior of the chest when the chest is in a closed position.
Re-Claim 10
Arason as modified by Luery above discloses,
wherein, when the chest is in the closed position, an outer surface of the first portion of the front panel is visible (see fig.1 Arason), and when the chest is in an open position, the sleeping platform is configured to support the foldable mattress such that the foldable mattress rests on an interior of the base of the chest, an inner surface of the first portion of the front panel and the second portion of the front panel, the inner surface of the first portion of the front panel being opposite the outer surface (see fig.10 & 13 Arason).
Re-Claim 11
Arason as modified by Luery above discloses,
further comprising: a back panel 18 fig.10 Arason connected to the side panels, the back panel configured as a headboard of the sleeping platform when the chest is in an open position.
Re-Claim 20
Arason as modified by Luery above discloses,
Luery teaches wherein each A-Frame hinge of the pair of A- frame hinges further comprises: a pair of stops 28 fig.6 & 7 attached to respective ones of the pair of elongated plates, the pair of stops configured to interact with the central connecting plate to limit a maximum amount that the second portion of the front panel is configured to rotate relative to the first portion of the front panel [page 2 lines 5-14].
Claim(s) 3 & 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arason in view of Luery further in view of US Patent 394,688 hereinafter referred to as Green.
Re-Claim 3
Arason as modified by Luery discloses the claimed apparatus however does not discloses wherein the first portion of the front panel includes a first pair of the side rails and the second portion of the front panel includes a second pair of the side rails, a first one of the pair of A-frame hinges is connected between a first one of the first pair of the side rails attached to the first portion of the front panel and a first one of the second pair of the side rails attached to the second portion of the front panel, and a second one of the pair of A-frame hinges is connected between a second one of the first pair of the side rails attached to the first portion of the front panel and a second one of the second pair of the side rails attached to the second portion of the front panel.
Green teaches a chest fig.3 wherein the first portion 14 fig.2 of the front panel includes a first pair of the side rails 16 fig.2 and the second portion 15 fig.2 of the front panel includes a second pair of the side rails 16, a first one of the pair of A-frame hinges [page 1 lines 44-49 “The body of the bed is divided centrally into two sections, 14 and 15, which sections consist of the side boards, 16, end board, 17, and headboard 18, the said side boards being centrally divided and hinged at their upper faces, as best shown in Fig. 1”] is connected between a first one of the first pair of the side rails attached to the first portion of the front panel and a first one of the second pair of the side rails attached to the second portion of the front panel, and a second one of the pair of A-frame hinges is connected between a second one of the first pair of the side rails attached to the first portion of the front panel and a second one of the second pair of the side rails attached to the second portion of the front panel (see fig.1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the bed chest of Arason as modified by Luery and the bed chest of Green having side rails and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at bed chest with side rails. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of containing the bedding (mattress) within the first and second portions of the front panel when the portions are folded as taught in Green [page 1 lines 7-14].
Re-Claim 4
Arason as modified by Luery and Green above discloses,
wherein a thickness of the side rails is greater than a rest of the front panel (see fig.1 & 2 Green) such that the side rails of the front panel and the pair of A-frame hinges form a movable support structure of the front panel configured to support a load applied to the sleeping platform when the sleeping platform is in the unfolded state (see fig.1 & 13 Arason/ fig. 1 & 2 Green).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arason as modified by Luery further in view of US Patent Publication US2016/0022048A1 hereinafter referred to as Flora.
Re-Claim 12
Arason as modified by Luery discloses the claimed apparatus however does not discloses wherein the back panel is hingably connected to the side panels.
Flora teaches a chest 100 fig.1 comprising a back panel 148 fig.5 hingably connected to side panels 104 , 104A fig.2.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the bed chest of Arason as modified by Luery and the bed chest having foldable side panels of Flora and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at bed chest with foldable side panels. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of allowing a person sleeping to enjoy a much more open side view than had the cabinet sides 104 been fixed in place and/or if the side support structure 125 were not designed to support the necessary weight of the cabinet top 102 while permitting viewing therethrough as taught in Flora [0030].
Claim(s) 13-15 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arason as modified by Luery further in view of US Patent Publication US2014/0047638A1 hereinafter referred to as Zimmer.
Re-Claim 13
Arason as modified by Luery discloses the claimed apparatus however does not discloses a desk, comprising: the chest of claim 1, wherein the top panel includes a plurality of corners and each of the corners of the top panel extend beyond the side panels in a length direction of the desk and front ones of the corners of the top panel extend beyond the front panel in a depth direction of the desk when the sleeping platform is in the folded state.
Zimmer teaches a desk 180, 184 fig.1A, comprising: a chest 110 fig.1A, wherein the top panel 184 includes a plurality of corners (see fig.1A) and each of the corners of the top panel extend beyond the side panels in a length direction of the desk and front ones of the corners of the top panel extend beyond the front panel in a depth direction of the desk when the sleeping platform is in the folded state (see fig.1A & 1B).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the bed chest of Arason as modified by Luery and the desk having a bed chest of Zimmer and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at bed chest within a desk. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of allowing for space-savings and convenience of a sleeper sofas in a desk as taught by Zimmer [see abstract].
Re-Claim 14
Arason as modified by Luery and Zimmer above discloses,
Zimmer teaches support legs 186, 188 fig.1A, 285-288 fig.2A attached to respective ones of the plurality of corners of the top panel.
Re-Claim 15
Arason as modified by Luery and Zimmer above discloses,
Zimmer teaches side shelves 381 fig.3d extending in a width direction of the desk and supported by the support legs 385 fig.3d.
Re-Claim 19
Arason as modified by Luery and Zimmer above discloses,
further comprising: a handle 33 fig.1 & 11 Arason attached to the first portion of the front panel, wherein when the sleeping platform is in the unfolded state the handle is configured to contact a ground to support at least a portion of the sleeping platform (see fig.1 & 11 Arason).
Claim(s) 17 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arason in view of Luery further in view of Zimmer and Green.
Re-Claim 17
Arason as modified by Luery and Zimmer discloses the claimed apparatus however does not discloses wherein the first portion of the front panel includes a first pair of the side rails and the second portion of the front panel includes a second pair of the side rails, a first one of the pair of A-frame hinges is connected between a first one of the first pair of the side rails attached to the first portion of the front panel and a first one of the second pair of the side rails attached to the second portion of the front panel, and a second one of the pair of A-frame hinges is connected between a second one of the first pair of the side rails attached to the first portion of the front panel and a second one of the second pair of the side rails attached to the second portion of the front panel.
Green teaches a chest fig.3 wherein the first portion 14 fig.2 of the front panel includes a first pair of the side rails 16 fig.2 and the second portion 15 fig.2 of the front panel includes a second pair of the side rails 16, a first one of the pair of A-frame hinges [page 1 lines 44-49 “The body of the bed is divided centrally into two sections, 14 and 15, which sections consist of the side boards, 16, end board, 17, and headboard 18, the said side boards being centrally divided and hinged at their upper faces, as best shown in Fig. 1”] is connected between a first one of the first pair of the side rails attached to the first portion of the front panel and a first one of the second pair of the side rails attached to the second portion of the front panel, and a second one of the pair of A-frame hinges is connected between a second one of the first pair of the side rails attached to the first portion of the front panel and a second one of the second pair of the side rails attached to the second portion of the front panel (see fig.1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the bed chest of Arason as modified above and the bed chest of Green having side rails and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at bed chest with side rails. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of containing the bedding (mattress) within the first and second portions of the front panel when the portions are folded as taught in Green [page 1 lines 7-14].
Re-Claim 18
Arason as modified by Luery and Green above discloses,
wherein a thickness of the side rails is greater than a rest of the front panel (see fig.1 & 2 Green) such that the side rails of the front panel and the pair of A-frame hinges form a movable support structure of the front panel configured to support a load applied to the sleeping platform when the sleeping platform is in the unfolded state (see fig.1 & 13 Arason/ fig. 1 & 2 Green).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, filed 09/29/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1,3-15 and 17-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Arason as modified by Luery, Arason as modified by Luery and Green, Arason as modified by Luery and Zimmer, Arason as modified by Luery, Zimmer and Green, Arason as modified by Luery and Flora.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See notice of references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFEOLU A ADEBOYEJO whose telephone number is (571)270-3072. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10AM-5PM 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.
/IFEOLU A ADEBOYEJO/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673