DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The Amendments filed March 6th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-2, 5, 9-24, and 26 remain pending in the application, and claims 27-29 are newly entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every previous 112b Rejection alongside several 103 Rejections (concerning claims 19 and 20 and dependents thereof) previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed December 10th, 2025, and are hereby withdrawn in light of their correction. Several new 112a and 112b Rejections are necessitated due to amendments to the claims as set forth in the pertinent section, alongside Drawing Objections in the pertinent sections.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “determining that the adjustable foundation is in a horizontal position; and based on the determination that the adjustable foundation is in the horizontal position and…” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: There respectfully is no antecedent basis for the newly claimed subject matter of “determining that the adjustable foundation is in a horizontal position; and based on the determination that the adjustable foundation is in the horizontal position and sensing snoring from the user of the bed system, tilting the mattress from the horizontal position about the midpoint axis of the mattress to the predetermined position such that the head portion of the mattress and the adjustable foundation is higher than the foot portion of the mattress and the adjustable foundation”. Notably, there is a distinct lack of any terminology, verbatim or synonymous (looking for terms such as “based” “in response” “as a result”/”resulting” alongside reviewing all instances of “detecting” “determining” “sensing” and like terms; alongside terms such as “position” “horizontal” “flat” “level”) appears to be stated in the body of the disclosure nor the figures.
The amendment filed March 6th, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “determining that the adjustable foundation is in a horizontal position; and based on the determination that the adjustable foundation is in the horizontal position and…” As set forth previously, the language is lacking both antecedent basis in the specification and also lacking in the depictions. Wherein the matter respectfully appears to introduce new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 29 (under the construing necessary due to issues of drawing/specification objection alongside 112a/112b rejection) will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). As claim 1 already establishes the at least one processor and a memory storing instructions that is/are configured to sense snoring from the user of a bed system, tilting the mattress from the horizontal position about the midpoint axis of the mattress to a predetermined position such that the head portion of the mattress and the adjustable foundation is higher than the foot portion of the mattress and the adjustable foundation.
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.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 29, the limitation “determining that the adjustable foundation is in a horizontal position; and based on the determination that the adjustable foundation is in the horizontal position and sensing snoring from the user of the bed system, tilting the mattress from the horizontal position about the midpoint axis of the mattress to the predetermined position such that the head portion of the mattress and the adjustable foundation is higher than the foot portion of the mattress and the adjustable foundation” is recited. There appears to be both a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation in the specification as well as depictionally in the drawings, where there is considerable question as to where support for the rather narrow limitation of “determining that the adjustable foundation is in a horizontal position; and based on the determination that the adjustable foundation is in the horizontal position and sensing snoring from the user of the bed system, tilting the mattress…” Where there does not appear to be any language that is synonymous with ‘determing a horizontal position’, ‘based on that determination”, nor the combination of two specific data types (a position data and a sensed snoring data). The only features which respectively seem remotely correspondent to is in [00222] “memory 1804 stores information within the computing device 1800.” And those such as in [0057] “detecting that a user is snoring based on correlating different sensor data, such as acoustic signals and pressure signals”. However, applicant appear to be claiming more narrowly than what is reasonably provided by the genus or broader nature of the claims, by claiming both specific data types (one that does not appear to be present, such being the position data, nor is there a correlation of ‘pressure’ or ‘acoustic signals’ to be correlated or synthesize position data), that is there after particularly compared to the snore-sensing data. As such, the limitation “determining that the adjustable foundation is in a horizontal position; and based on the determination that the adjustable foundation is in the horizontal position and…” is considered to be new matter, and should respectfully be cancelled. Otherwise considerable explanation and clarity with identifying citation are respectfully necessitated.
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 1-2, 5, 9-18, 21-24, and 29 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.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 9, 11, and 29 the limitations “storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform the following operations: sensing snoring from a user of the bed system; and generate, in response to sensing snoring from the user of the bed system, instructions for tilting the adjustable foundation, thereby tilting the mattress about a midpoint axis of the mattress to a predetermined position such that…” (claim 1), “store instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to further perform the operation of sensing snoring from the user of the bed system by performing the following operations: receive acoustic signals and pressure signals from the acoustic sensor and the pressure sensor; and analyze the acoustic signals to determine that the user is snoring” (claim 2), “store instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to further perform the following operations: correlate the acoustic signals with the pressure signals to determine (i) whether the user is snoring and (ii) a left side or right side of the mattress from which the snoring originates” (Claim 9), and “store the instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to further perform the following operations: transmit, in response to determining that the user is snoring, the instructions to the articulation system to tilt the adjustable foundation to the predetermined position; and the articulation system is configured to: raise, in response to receiving the instructions from the at least one processor, legs supporting the head portion of the adjustable foundation to a height that corresponds to….” (claim 11); and “determining that the adjustable foundation is in a horizontal position; and based on the determination that that the adjustable foundation is in the horizontal position and sensing snoring from the user of the bed system, tilting the mattress from the horizontal position about the midpoint axis of the mattress to the predetermined position such that the” (claim 29) are recited. The claims notably introduce considerable indefiniteness in that the claims are directed to an apparatus (e.g. “a/the bed system”), but there is considerable active verbiage and language that appears to be more attributed to a method or method of using the applications “the… memory store the instructions that when executed by the at least one processor causes the at least one processor to further perform the following operations:” and thereafter the previous language of the claims appears to be possibly framed as steps or a sequence of steps (e.g. “sensing snoring from a user of the bed system” and (thereafter) “generate, in response to sensing snoring, instructions for tilting…and thereby tilting the mattress… such that a head portion… is higher than a foot portion”. It has been previously held a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (MPEP 2173.05(p) is relevant), It becomes unclear whether infringement occurs when a system is provided that is so configured as to achieve the operation/method, or whether infringement occurs when the method is actually carried out, but would otherwise not infringe if a configured system never enacted such actions/steps.
Due to the considerable number of changes provided, that applicant has particularly cancelled the previous “configured to” language makes reversion to a ‘configured to’ construing of the claim difficult to consider; however, if the claim is now a method claim, the claim would be restricted as by Original Presentation (The original claims drawn particularly to the apparatus, and there being clear and definitive distinctnesses between the seemingly newly claimed/amended into method claim of claim 1, and the remaining apparatuses of claims 19 and 20, and the previously examined claim 1 (not previously necessitating a memory for storing such instructions that when executed by the processor causes a series of operations). It’s unclear if the claims should be treated now as prospectively withdrawn as being drawn to a restricted subject matter as being drawn to an unelected invention (a method of using or otherwise process) to the original apparatus previously examined. Such is particularly convoluting as claims 19 and 20 are found to be in allowance and if claims 1 and dependents thereof were found to be withdrawn, but without unresolved traverse and notice to applicant would complicate prosecution.
However, in the interest of compact prosecution, claims 1, 2, 9 and 11 are construed as reverted to their original ‘configured to’ consideration, and do not invoke or as a sake of convenience do not avail any patentable weight to “storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform the following operations:” (claims 1, 2, 9, and 11) “sensing snoring from a user of the bed” (Claim 1), “causes the at least one processor to further perform the operation of sensing snoring from the user of the bed system by performing the following operations: (claim 2). And such limitations are construed as being intended use or allowing or capabilities of the system that are not generally granted patentable weight in their current form. As an example, claim 1 is construed effectively as “A bed system comprising: a mattress; an adjustable foundation configured to support and tilt the mattress; and a controller comprising at least one processor and memory storing instructions that are configured to facilitate, cause the adjustable foundation t: tilt about a midpoint axis to a predetermined position in response to detection of snoring from a user, such that a head portion of the mattress is elevated relative to a foot portion.”
Further regarding claim 29, the limitations “the at least one processor is further configured to and memory store instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor…” is recited. This appears to be a fragmented sentence as the sentence structure appears to start to say the process is further configured to (something), but then pivots to and memory store instructions that which doesn’t appear to make any grammatical or linguistical sense
Claims 5, 10, 12-18, 21-24 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 (second paragraph) as being dependent on a rejected antecedent claim (at least claim 1)
Due to the convolution of issues present within 29, posing both its own issues of indefiniteness through the use of apparent method language in an otherwise apparatus claim, presenting language that is fragmented and cannot be exactly discerned, issues of new matter, alongside compounding issues with claim 1 previously, and lacking a previous ‘configured to’ consideration unlike claim 1/2/9/11 that the claim can reasonably be considered reverted to, further clarity and explanation are respectfully requested and otherwise amendment is necessary. For the purposes of examination, claim 29 is construed as an apparatus claim, and the limitation “further configured to and memory store instruction that” to the best of examiner’s understanding may be read as “with a memory configured to store instructions, and that is further configured to facilitate: sensing snoring from the user of the bed system, tilting the mattress from the horizontal position about the midpoint axis of the mattress to the predetermined position such that the head portion of the mattress and the adjustable foundation is higher than the foot portion of the mattress and the adjustable foundation”. Where the limitation “determining that the adjustable foundation is in a horizontal position; and based on the determination that that the adjustable foundation is in the horizontal position and…” is construed as withdrawn from the claim.
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) 1-2, 5, 9-18, 21-24, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grey et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20190201271); hereafter "Grey", in view of Butler (U.S. Pat. No. 4856129),
Regarding claim 1, Grey discloses (FIGS. 1-25) a bed system comprising: a mattress (correspondent 114a/b; FIGS. 1-3); an adjustable foundation (Correspondent 1902-1908; FIGS. 19-23; and conveyed in FIG. 1-3); and a controller (100/124: FIG. 1-3; as illustrated in FIG. 5-18 and 25), comprising at least one processor (502; FIG. 5; and further illustrated throughout FIGS. 5-18), and memory (“a memory 137” [0044]) storing instructions that, when executed (“The computer program product can also contain instructions that, when executed, perform one or more methods,” [0180]) by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform the following operations: wherein the processor is configured to generate {upon sensing snoring from a user of the bed system (FIG. 25), in response to sensing snoring from a user of the bed system (FIG. 25), instructions for tilting the adjustable foundation (“The computer program product can also contain instructions that, when executed, perform one or more methods,” [0180] and correspondent to the protocols of [0196], a method of raising the bed in response to sensor data as further elucidated by FIG. 25 which eminently demonstrates a clear and present method), thereby tilting the mattress to a predetermined position such that a head portion of the adjustable foundation is higher than a foot portion of the mattress and adjustable foundation (as eminently illustrated in FIG. 25). Where “storing instructions that, when executed by the processor causes the following operations:” is construed as intended use/capability or otherwise withdrawn as previously set forth in the 112b section previously
However, Grey does not explicitly disclose wherein the tilting of the adjustable foundation is particularly about a midpoint axis of the mattress.
Regardless, Butler teaches (FIGS. 1-10), a mattress tilting system (FIGS. 1-10) that facilitates tilting of the adjustable foundation (80/82/74/76; FIGS. 1-3, and 5) is particularly about a midpoint axis (about 70; FIG. 3) of the mattress (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3, and 5, and an alternative lifting arrangement of driven pistons in FIGS. 7-9A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have modified/located the tilting at the midpoint of the adjustable foundation in capacities analogous with Butler (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3, 4, and alternatively 7-9A) for/into the assembly of Grey (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3, and 5 Where the results would have been predictable as both Grey and Butler concern articulated bedding assemblies, where Butler avails a parallel set of rails/rectilinear support surface frame which appears analogous with 1956 and 1948 (FIG. 25). Where the incorporation/combination therewith would continue to avail orienting the bed about the midpoint, and maintain support of the bed in a parallel state and operably articulable thereon. Where Butler further acknowledges to predictability “However, such an improved tiltable bed frame assembly should maintain the capabilities of providing the use of a standard mattress on the bed frame assembly, permit the desired inclination of the mattress,” [2:1-17] Where Butler advantageously acknowledges “the leg members of the mattress frame can be telescopically moved relative to the foot and head post members of the main frame during pivotal movement of the mattress frame” [2:66-3:5], thereby availing further operable positions to the bedding assembly as acknowledged by Butler reasonably without interfering with Grey’s operation by still facilitating a rested upon, articulable bed frame thereon the stabilized framework of the pitch/tilt mechanism. For the convenience of prosecution, citations are respectfully considered to refer to Grey unless otherwise indicated/cited/explained in the body of the rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Grey in view of Butler discloses (FIGS. 1-25) the bed system of claim 1, further comprising at least one of an acoustic sensor (1901; FIG. 25) for sensing audio at the bed system or a pressure sensor for sensing pressure on the mattress (as illustrated in FIGS. 17-25; “pressure sensor” “acoustic sensor”; and as illustrated in FIGS. 17 and 25 with flow charts of signals thereof produced toward the processor), wherein the at least one processor and memory store instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to further perform the operation of sensing snoring from the user of the bed system by performing the following operations: is further configured to: receive acoustic signals and pressure signals from the acoustic sensor and the pressure sensor {respectively} (As eminently illustrated in FIG. 25); and analyze the acoustic signals to determine that the user is snoring (as eminently illustrated in FIG. 25, and as illustrated in FIG. 17 and conveyed through [0172] “this data can provide the behavior analysis module 1700 with information about the current state of the environment around the bed. For example, the behavior analysis module 1700 can access readings from the pressure sensor 902 to determine the pressure of an air chamber in the bed. From this reading, and potentially other data, user presence in the bed can be determined” alongside [0242]: “Moreover, some embodiments can detect snoring using audio sensors alone, while other embodiments can detect snoring using audios sensors in conjunction with other sensors, such as air pressure sensors”)).
Regarding claim 5, Grey in view of Butler discloses (FIGS. 1-25) the bed system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of pressure sensors, wherein each of the plurality of pressure sensors are positioned in a support leg of the adjustable foundation, wherein the plurality of pressure sensors are configured to sense pressure on the bed system indicative of a location of the user on the mattress (as clarified in [0066] concerning “pressure pads”, [0050] notes multiple sensors “the pressure of the air chambers 114A and/or 114B can be continuously monitored using multiple pressure sensors (not shown)”; and clarified in [0196] concerning sensors positioned in the panels (such as the leg portions that can arbitrarily be 1902 or 1908 in the ordinary use of the invention).
Regarding claim 9, Grey in view of Butler discloses (FIGS. 1-25) the bed system of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to and memory store instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to further perform the following operations: correlate the acoustic signals with the pressure signals to determine (i) whether the user is snoring and (ii) a left side or right side of the mattress from which the snoring originates (as clarified in [0066][0050][0172] and [196] and illustrated in FIGS. 17 and 25).
Regarding claim 10, Grey in view of Butler discloses (FIGS. 1-25) the bed system of claim 1, further comprising an articulation system configured to tilt the adjustable foundation to the predetermined position (as illustrated in FIG. 25 and clarified in [0005] “Adjusting the determined side of the bed comprises adjusting an angle of a head of the determined side of the bed. The angle can be adjusted from horizontal to substantially seven degrees above horizontal in response to determining the determined side” and [0006] and [0008]).
Regarding claim 11, Grey in view of Butler discloses (FIGS. 1-25) the bed system of claim 10, wherein: the at least one processor and the memory store the instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to further perform the following operations: is configured to transmit, in response to determining that the user is snoring, instructions to the articulation system to tilt the adjustable foundation to the predetermined position (as illustrated in FIG. 25; clarified in [0005]-[0007]); and the articulation system is configured to: raise, in response to receiving the instructions from the processor, legs (As illustrated in FIG. 21) supporting the head portion of the adjustable foundation to a height that corresponds to an angle between the head portion of the adjustable foundation and a ground supporting the legs when the adjustable foundation is in the predetermined position (as illustrated and conveyed in FIGS. 25 and [0005]-[0008]).
Regarding claim 12, Grey in view of Butler discloses (Butler: FIG. 3, 5, 7 and 8) alongside alternatively 7-9A) the bed system of claim 11, wherein the articulation system is further configured to lower, in response to receiving the instructions from the at least one processor, legs (correspondent 100; FIG. 5 and alternatively 350, FIG. 7) supporting the foot portion of the adjustable foundation to a height that corresponds to the angle between the foot portion of the adjustable foundation and the ground when the adjustable foundation is in the predetermined position (as eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 3, 5 and 7-8).
Regarding claim 13, Grey in view of Butler discloses (Grey: [0196]) the bed system of claim 12, wherein the angle between the foot portion of the adjustable foundation and the ground is less than 7 degrees (wherein Grey avails an identified angle of articulation conducive to sleep apnea/snoring reduction of 0 to 7 degrees [0196], which respectfully eminently falls within applicant’s claimed range)
Regarding claim 14, Grey in view of Butler discloses (FIGS. 1-25) the bed system of claim 11, wherein: the at least one processor is configured to transmit, in response to determining that the user has woken up, instructions to the articulation system to move the adjustable foundation into a neutral position (as clarified in [0095]: “the control circuitry 334 can cause portions of the bed 302 to articulate (e.g., cause the head section to raise or lower) in order to wake the user 308” alongside [0094]: “in response to determining that the user 308 is awake for the day (e.g., user 308 is no longer present on the bed 302 after 6:00 am)” and [0104] “the control circuitry 334 can cause the articulation controller to adjust the bed 302 to a first recline position for the user 308 in response to sensing user bed presence for the user 308. The control circuitry 334 can cause the articulation controller to adjust the bed 302 to a second recline position (e.g., a less reclined, or flat position) in response to determining that the user 308 is asleep”); and the articulation system is configured to lower, in response to receiving the instructions from the at least one processor, the legs supporting the head portion of the adjustable foundation to a second height that corresponds to the neutral position, wherein in the neutral position, the adjustable foundation is parallel with the ground (as set forth in [0094][0095] and [0104]). Where clearly and eminently the system can both detect the user is awake and alter the configuration of the articulation system readily per the user’s parameters/preset conditions.
Regarding claim 15, Grey in view of Butler discloses (FIGS. 1-25) the bed system of claim 14, wherein the articulation system is configured to raise, in response to receiving the instructions from the at least one processor, the legs supporting the foot portion of the adjustable foundation to the second height that corresponds to the neutral position (as set forth in [0094][0095][0104] and [0103], correspondent to different sections articulatable, “For example, the bed 302 can include an adjustable foundation and an articulation controller configured to adjust the position of one or more portions of the bed 302 by adjusting the adjustable foundation that supports the bed”, with FIG. 21 eminently demonstrating a head and foot articulation means).
Regarding claim 16, Grey in view of Butler discloses (FIGS. 1-25) the bed system of claim 11, wherein the articulation system is configured to adjust, based on receiving an indication of user input from a user device indicating selection of an option to move the adjustable foundation to another position, a height of one or more of the legs supporting the adjustable foundation to move the adjustable foundation to the another position (as set forth in [0140]: “The computing device 412 can run one or more applications 1110. These applications can include, for example, application to allow the user to interact with the system 400….in some cases, the computing device 412 can be used in addition to, or to replace, the remote control 122 described previously” and as portrayed through the connection of the user account cloud 410c of FIG. 17 being connected and accessible/operative to the behavior module that controls the orientation of components in the system).
Regarding claim 17, Grey in view of Butler discloses (FIGS. 1-25) the bed system of claim 1, wherein in the predetermined position: the head portion of the adjustable foundation is tilted above the foot portion of the adjustable foundation, and the adjustable foundation remains inclined along a substantially straight plane (as set forth in FIG. 25, where the head is configured to be raised in response, and wherein the adjustable foundation remains inclined by disposition and tendency along a substantially flat plane (e.g. the floor)).
Regarding claim 18, Grey in view of Butler discloses (FIGS. 1-25) the bed system of claim 1, wherein in the predetermined position, the adjustable foundation is maintained along an inclined and substantially straight plane (as set forth in FIG. 25, where Examiner notes the head is configured to be raised in response, and wherein the adjustable foundation remains inclined by disposition and tendency along a substantially flat plane (e.g. the floor)).
Regarding claim 21, Grey in view of Butler discloses (Butler: FIGS. 3, 5, and 7-8) the bed system of claim 1, tilting the adjustable foundation about the midpoint axis of the mattress (correspondent 70; FIGS. 3 and 5) to the predetermined position such that the head portion of the adjustable foundation is higher than the foot portion of the adjustable foundation without changing or translating the midpoint axis of the mattress (as Butler demonstrates in FIGS. 3 and 5 and alternatively 7-8).
Regarding claim 22, Grey in view of Butler discloses (Grey: FIGS. 19 and 21; Butler: FIGS. 3/5 and 7-8) the bed system of claim 1, wherein: the mattress comprises a first sleep area for a first sleeper (correspondent 1902a; FIGS. 19 and 21) and a second sleep area for a second sleeper (correspondent 1902b; FIGS. 19 and 21); the adjustable foundation comprises a first foundation section for supporting the first sleep area and a second foundation section for supporting the second sleep area (As illustrated in FIGS. 19 and 21), the first and second foundation sections independently articulatable (per [0208]); and the at least one processor is further configured to generate, in response to sensing snoring from the snoring sleeper on one of the first or second sleep areas, instructions for tilting the sleep area associated with the snoring sleeper about a midpoint axis (Butler: FIGS. 3/5 and 7-8) of the sleep area associated to the snoring sleeper to the predetermined position such that the head portion of the adjustable foundation is higher than the foot portion of the adjustable foundation (as eminently illustrated in FIG. 25). while maintaining a midpoint axis of the sleep area not associated with the snoring sleeper aligned with the midpoint axis of the sleep area associated with the snoring sleeper (As set forth in claim 1 previously with correspondence to Butler’s midpoint and platform actuation scheme of FIGS. 3/5 and 7-8), the midpoint axis of the sleep area associated with the snoring sleeper and the midpoint axis of the sleep area not associated with the snoring sleeper maintained in alignment with the midpoint axis extending through the midpoint of the mattress (as set forth by the side by side arrangement previously set forth in the combination of Grey in view of Butler.
Regarding claim 23, Grey in view of Butler discloses (Butler: FIGS. 3/5 and 7-8) the bed system of claim 1, wherein the adjustable foundation having a foot end and a head end (as set forth in claim 23 previously, and as illustrated in FIGS. 3/5 and 7-8), the adjustable foundation comprising: a first pair of adjustable legs at the head end supporting the head end on a ground surface (as illustrated FIGS. 3/5 and 7-8 correspondent the raised end); and a second pair of adjustable legs at the foot end supporting the foot end on the ground surface (as illustrated in FIGS. 3/5 and 7-8 correspondent the lowered end).
Regarding claim 24, Grey in view of Butler discloses(Butler: as illustrated in FIGS. 3/5 and 7-8) the bed system of claim 23, wherein the first pair of adjustable legs and the second pair of adjustable legs are configured to extend and retract vertically relative to the ground to raise or lower the associated head end or foot end of the adjustable foundation (as illustrated in both FIGS. 3/5 and 7-8 with the telescopic and vertical members thereof).
Regarding claim 29, Grey in view of Butler discloses (FIGS. 1-25, Butler: FIGS. 2, 3, and 8) the bed system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor with a memory (“a memory 137” [0044]) configured to store instructions (“The computer program product can also contain instructions that, when executed, perform one or more methods,” [0180], and further elucidated by [0196] in correspondence with FIGS. 25 illustrating such method), and that is further configured to facilitate: sensing snoring from the user of the bed system (as eminently demonstrated in FIG. 25, element 2702), tilting the mattress from the horizontal position about the midpoint axis of the mattress to the predetermined position (As illustrated in FIG. 25, with particular consideration to element block 2708) such that the head portion of the mattress and the adjustable foundation is higher than the foot portion of the mattress and the adjustable foundation (as set forth in the combination with Butler, and as eminently demonstrated in FIG. 2, 3, and 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 6th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Particularly, applicant alleges that applicant’s amendments to claim 1 (And dependents thereof) overcome the prior art of record. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees with this characterization, although necessitated considerable interpretation and construing due to amendments rendered causing considerable and new issues of 112b/indefiniteness, necessitating a consideration of reversion of the language more aligned to the language received August 26th, 2026, particularly due to the removal of the original configured to language, and the introduction of considerable language that appears to be aligned to a method/process. Such consideration would invoke a restriction by original presentation but pose issues as applicant’s other independent claims do appear to be in allowable condition at present and are indicated as such in the section hereafter. The arguments are in part moot because of the construing necessary to proceed with examination, and claims 1 and dependents thereof remain rejected under 103 with Grey in view of Butler for analogous reasons are previously set forth where grey in view of butler in exacting the sensing, and the articulation, would seem to have a memory (“a memory 137” [0044]: Grey) that stores and execute instructions (“The computer program product can also contain instructions that, when executed, perform one or more methods” [0180] of Grey), where such instructions were previously cited in the Final-Office action mailed December 10th, 2025.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 5, 9-18, and 21-24 remain rejected under 103 Rejections for reasons and rationales as previously set forth.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (page 10), filed March 6th, 2026, with respect to claims 19 and 20 (and dependents thereof) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 Rejections of December 10th, 2025 has been withdrawn. Claims 19 and 20 (And dependents thereof) are further in condition for allowance/present allowable subject matter as set forth hereafter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20, and 26-28 would be allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims necessitate among other features either that (per claim 19) in addition to snore sensing and articulation of the bedding system, further necessitates that the axis of operation (midpoint axis) that rotation of the mattress is established is about an axis that is both at a horizontal midpoint of the mattress simultaneously alongside a vertical centerpoint of the mattress, to which Grey in view of Butler does not achieve, and would likely necessitate impermissible hindsight bias to modify Butler further when Butler is already a modifying reference that locates the midpoint axis at most at a horizontal midpoint but not a vertical one due to the construction of the frames and actuators. Additionally (per claim 20) the claims necessitate among other features that the actuating ‘legs’ of the invention must be in contact with the ground as they are being employed/configured, and such would again necessitate some modification of Butler when Butler is already a modifying reference and there would be a similar degree of impermissible hindsight bias invoked otherwise.
Conclusion
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/LUKE HALL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/MADISON MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
04/02/2026