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 Response filed December 17th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nava et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20180338625); hereafter "Nava".
Regarding claim 1, Nava discloses (FIGS. 1-8A) a foldable electric bed, comprising: a front frame (correspondent to 28b/28a/50; FIGS. 8A and articulatable front frame assembly portrayed in FIG. 7) comprising two guide rails (28a/28b; FIG. 8A) extending in a direction parallel to a front and rear direction (as illustrated in FIG. 8A); a rear frame (correspondent frame members of 36/37/3; FIGS. 2 and 4) pivotally connected with the front frame (As illustrated in FIG. 6), such that the rear frame is swingable between an extended position (flat and flush position illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2) and a folded position (folded articulated position as illustrated in FIGS. 4-6); a first buttock supporting unit (correspondent 35/33 and support frames thereof; FIGS. 5-8A) comprising two slide portions (correspondent axles of 51; FIG. 8A, clarified in connection to FIG. 8A in [0066]: “seat frame 50 is configured to move linearly along the inner channels 28a, 28b of the internal side frame members 24a, 24b”) slidably disposed with the two guide rails, respectively (as illustrated in FIGS. 8A); a back supporting unit (31/32 and correspondent support frames/racks thereof as illustrated in FIGS. 2, and 5-7/8A) pivotally connected with the first buttock supporting unit (as illustrated between FIGS. 4 and 5-7); a front link (pivot bracket between 52 and 41; FIG. 6) pivotally connected with the front frame and the back supporting unit (As illustrated in FIGS. 4-7); and a first actuator (70; FIGS. 5 and 8A) disposed with the first buttock supporting unit and the back supporting unit (as illustrated between FIGS. 4-8A) in a way that the first buttock supporting unit is drivenable by the back supporting unit to slide forwards and the back supporting unit is drivenable by the first actuator to swing upwardly (as illustrated and conveyed eminently through FIGS. 1-8A, the back has distinctly slid backward to accommodate and remain near to the rear surface 140a in FIG. 1, and is further confirmed to do so through the elucidation of [0066]: “seat frame 50 is configured to move linearly along the inner channels 28a, 28b of the internal side frame members 24a, 24b”).
Regarding claim 3, Nava discloses (FIGS. 1-8A) the foldable electric bed as claimed in claim 1, wherein the front frame comprises a front transverse rod (laterally oriented cross brace spanning between 51 and located near reference numeral 50’s indication line in FIG. 8A), and each of the two guide rails comprises a front section (correspondent a front half thereof present in the channel eminently portrayed in FIG. 8A); the front transverse rod is connected between the front sections of the two guide rails (As illustrated eminently in FIG. 8A, as both between the front sections of the two guide rails by connection to the enclosed wheels 51)
Regarding claim 4, Nava discloses (FIGS. 1-8A) the foldable electric bed as claimed in claim 1, wherein the rear frame comprises two longitudinal rods (Correspondent 61; FIG. 6) pivotally and respectively connected with the two guide rails (indirectly through the adjoint 26 connected to the rails through overall frame 10/12a/12b; FIG. 6/8A), and a rear transverse rod (transverse rod between rear ends of longitudinal rods 61 and transverse bar 26; FIG. 6); each of the two longitudinal rods has a rear section (correspondent connection with 26 and intermediary transverse rod thereof; FIG. 6), and the rear transverse rod is connected between the rear sections of the two longitudinal rod (under at least one interpretation of between as “amongst”; Merriam Webster: “between”; alongside between the rear ends and the longitudinal rods and the adjoint 26; FIGS. 5-6).
Regarding claim 5, Nava discloses (FIGS. 1-8A) the foldable electric bed as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first buttock supporting unit comprises a transversely extending portion (correspondent 44; FIG. 7) connected with the two slide portions (indirectly as illustrated in the linkages of FIGS. 6-8A), and a downwardly extending portion (104/105; FIGS. 6-8A), which downwardly extends from the transversely extending portion and is pivotally connected with the first actuator (As illustrated between FIGS. 2, and 5-8A).
Regarding claim 6, Nava discloses (FIGS. 1-8A) the foldable electric bed as claimed in claim 1, wherein the two slide portions are installed with a plurality of rollers (51; FIG. 8A) rotatably engaged with the two guide rails, respectively (As illustrated in FIGS. 8A).
Regarding claim 7, Nava discloses (FIGS. 1-8A) the foldable electric bed as claimed in claim 1, wherein the front link (pivot bracket between 52 and 41; FIG. 6) comprise a front end pivotally connected with the front frame (through 52; FIGS. 6-8A), and a rear end pivotally connected with the back supporting unit (connected to 41; FIGS. 6-7).
Regarding claim 8, Nava discloses (FIGS. 1-8A) the foldable electric bed as claimed in claim 1, wherein the back supporting unit comprises a back supporting rack (correspondent 42/43; FIGS. 7) pivotally connected with the first buttock supporting unit and the first actuator (as illustrated and portrayed through FIGS. 1-2 and 4-7).
Regarding claim 9, Nava discloses (FIGS. 1-8A) the foldable electric bed as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a second buttock supporting unit (36; FIG. 5), which is disposed with a front section of the rear frame and adjacent to the first buttock supporting unit (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-2 and 5).
Regarding claim 10 , Nava discloses (FIGS. 1-8A) the foldable electric bed as claimed in claim 9, further comprising a thigh supporting unit (37; FIG. 5), a lower leg supporting unit (38), a second actuator (110; FIG. 6) and a rear link (111; FIG. 6); the thigh supporting unit is pivotally connected with the second buttock supporting unit (indirectly as demonstrated between FIGS. 1-2 and 4-7); the lower leg supporting unit is pivotally connected with the thigh supporting unit (as demonstrated between FIGS. 1-2 and 4-7); the second actuator is disposed with the thigh supporting unit and the rear frame (as demonstrated between FIGS. 1-2 and 4-7); the rear link is pivotally connected with the rear frame and the lower leg supporting unit (as demonstrated between FIGS. 1-2 and 4-7), such that the thigh supporting unit and the lower leg supporting unit are drivenable by the second actuator to change their positions (as demonstrated between FIGS. 1-2 and 4-7).
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) 2, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nava in view of Bellingroth (U.S. Pub. No. 20210022517).
Regarding claim 2, Nava discloses (FIGS. 1-8A) the foldable electric bed as claimed in claim 1,
However, Nava does not explicitly disclose wherein when the rear frame stays at the folded position, the rear frame is located in an inside of the front frame.
Regardless, Bellingroth teaches (FIGS. 1-6) a bed frame with a front half and a rear half (As illustrated and portrayed in FIGS. 1-6) with actuating front and rear frames (as illustrated between FIGS. 1 and 2) and wherein when the rear frame stays at the folded position, the rear frame is located in an inside of the front frame (as illustrated eminently in FIGS. 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the foldable collapsable and accommodation grooves of Bellingroth (as portrayed in FIGS. 1-6) into the basal frame of Nava (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-8A). Where the results would have been predictable as both Nava and Bellingroth are concerned with articulated bedding assemblies. Where Bellingroth advantageously acknowledges “By offset-arranging the first support bracket and the second support bracket in the lateral direction, the first support bracket and the second support bracket do not interference with each other when the first and second bed units are folded or laid into each other. Therefore, the bed thickness after the first and second bed units are folded or laid into each other can be greatly reduced, thus reducing the packaging size of the bed and hence reducing the cost in transportation of the bed.” [0080], and similar benefit may be afforded to the frame(s) of Nava for similar benefits outlined by Bellingroth.
Regarding claim 11, Nava discloses (FIGS. 1-8A) the foldable electric bed as claimed in claim 10.
Regardless, Bellingroth teaches (FIGS. 1-6) a bed frame with a front half and a rear half (As illustrated and portrayed in FIGS. 1-6) with actuating front and rear frames (as illustrated between FIGS. 1 and 2) and wherein when the rear frame stays at the extended position, the foldable electric bed has a first thickness; when the rear frame stays at the folded position, the foldable electric bed has a second thickness, which is greater than the first thickness and smaller than twice the first thickness (as illustrated eminently in FIGS. 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the foldable collapsable and accommodation grooves of Bellingroth (as portrayed in FIGS. 1-6) into the basal frame of Nava (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-8A). Where the results would have been predictable as both Nava and Bellingroth are concerned with articulated bedding assemblies. Where Bellingroth advantageously acknowledges “By offset-arranging the first support bracket and the second support bracket in the lateral direction, the first support bracket and the second support bracket do not interference with each other when the first and second bed units are folded or laid into each other. Therefore, the bed thickness after the first and second bed units are folded or laid into each other can be greatly reduced, thus reducing the packaging size of the bed and hence reducing the cost in transportation of the bed.” [0080], and similar benefit may be afforded to the frame(s) of Nava for similar benefits outlined by Bellingroth.
Regarding claim 12, Nava in view of Bellingroth discloses (Bellingroth: FIGS. 1-6) the foldable electric bed as claimed in claim 11, wherein when the rear frame stays at the extended position (deferring to Bellingroth: FIGS. 1, 3/4), top sides of the back supporting unit, the first buttock supporting unit, the second buttock supporting unit, the thigh supporting unit and the lower leg supporting unit are flush with each other and located at a first imaginary plane (As illustrated in FIGS. 1, 3, and 4), and bottom sides of the front frame and the rear frame are flush with each other and located at a second imaginary plane parallel to the first imaginary plane in a way that a distance between the first and second imaginary planes is defined as the first thickness (deferring to Bellingroth: FIGS. 1, 3, and 4); wherein when the rear frame stays at the folded position (as illustrated in FIGS. 5 and 6), the top sides of the back supporting unit and the first buttock supporting unit are still located at the first imaginary plane (as illustrated in FIGS. 6), and the top sides of the second buttock supporting unit, the thigh supporting unit and the lower leg supporting unit are flush with each other and located at a third imaginary plane parallel to the first imaginary plane in a way that a distance between the first and third imaginary planes is defined as the second thickness (As portrayed through FIGS. 5 and particularly FIG. 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 17th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Particularly, applicant alleges (Remarks: pages 6-10), that 28a/28b/50 cannot be equivalent to the front frame, and components 36/37/38 cannot be equivalent to the rear frame of the present invention, and 33/35 cannot be equivalent to the buttock supporting portion, that 52/41 cannot be equivalent to the front link of the present invention, and the connection relationship of 70 is different in relationship from the actuator of the present invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this characterization, as examiner did not state solely the components 28a/28b/50 were the front frame, but that it was the structures correspondent to the structures about 28a/28b/50, and further including the ‘articulatable front frame assembly portrayed in FIG. 7’, where such indeed appears to be both a frame, defines one end of the prior art (the front end opposite the rear frame that is located correspondent the frame components of 36/37/38 (platforms), indeed providing a frame, that is actuatable and is furthermore is indeed pivotably connected with the front frame (indirectly or otherwise) as eminently demonstrated between FIGS. 1 and 3. A back supporting unit is eminently provided through the members 31/32 and correspondent support frame racks thereunder, but that is only claimed to be “pivotally connected with the first buttock supporting unit”, without any further specificity to connection, and indeed the members correspondent 33/35 are pivotably connected with the back supporting unit corresponding to 33/35 as eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 1, 3, and 5. Notably and respectfully, applicant’s claims do not specify any connection is directly connected or contacting or otherwise, but merely that they are connected, and in the instant prior art of Nava as illustrated in FIGS. 1-8A, the frames, the units, the actuators, are all connected directly or indirectly correspondent their proximity, but such is not respectfully claimed by applicant at the present time. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With regard to applicant’s remarks concerning that the element 33/35 is a lumbar panel and therefore not a buttocks panel, it is considered that the lumbar is a feature directly adjacent to the buttocks, and would thereby be directly supporting the buttocks region of a person. However, it’s respectfully crucial to consider that applicants have not claimed that the invention “supports the buttocks of a person”, and does not claim the scope of what “support” entails (vertically, horizontally, etc), and therefore, the claim would respectfully not necessitate that it’s touching the buttock region of a human as applicant alleges, because such limitation has been claimed by applicant. However, the fact that the upward pivoting lumbar support is eminently spanning the gap between 32 and 36 in FIGS. 4 and 3), and furthermore demonstrating the components 33/35 are capable of being directly adjacent the horizontal surface, the lumbar support would support the buttocks from behind as the defining ‘corner’ of the bed in a raised condition, and would therefore facilitate “buttocks supporting” regardless.
With regards that the rollers 51 cannot be the slide portions, applicant admits they are rollers (And possess rods thereof as eminently demonstrated in FIG. 8A), and that such are engaging the guide rails (28a/28b) that is of the front frame (previously established), thereby satisfying that the guide rails are of the front frame, the slide portions are slidably disposed with the two guide rails, and such are disposed with the first buttock supporting region as the first buttock supporting region is capable of sliding back and forth as illustrated and conveyed eminently through FIGS. 1-8A, the back has distinctly slid backward to accommodate and remain near to the rear surface 140a in FIG. 1, and is further confirmed to do so through the elucidation of [0066]: “seat frame 50 is configured to move linearly along the inner channels 28a, 28b of the internal side frame members 24a, 24b”.
With regard to applicant’s arguments concerning that the components 52 and 41 cannot be the front link, examiner respectfully clarifies to applicant that examiner has previously noted the front link was the “pivot bracket between 52 and 41; FIG. 6”, not the elements 52 and 41, but the unnamed pivot bracket between 52 and 41, which indeed being a hinged bracket is a form of link, is associated to the ‘front frame’ in the current interpretation of the invention, and is pivotally connected between the front frame (correspondent elements and adjacent structure of 28a/28b/50) and the back supporting unit (correspondent 31/32 and underlying frames thereof) directly by enabling the hinging therebetween. Where notably, the pivot bracket indeed has two ends, with two bracket halves provided where one is directly attached to the front frame, and the second bracket half is directly attached to structures of the back supporting unit to facilitate the hinging therebetween.
With regard to applicant’s remarks concerning the actuator 70 not being disposed with the first buttock supporting unit and the back supporting unit (in a way the first buttock supporting unit is drivenable by the back supporting unit to slide forwards and the back supporting unit is drivenable to swing upwardly), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Where the claims only necessitate that the actuator is disposed with the back supporting unit, not directly contacting or otherwise, but merely that it is able to facilitate the combinate motion, where the actuator indeed is disclosed to cause the unit to slide linearly, and is further elucidated in [0069] “Such a movement of the upper body frame 40 and the seat frame 50 upon activation of the actuator 70 allows the upper body frame 40 to remain adjacent to the upper section 21 of the fixed frame 11 after being articulated, and further allows a wider space or gap 29 to be created between the upper body frame 40 and the leg frame 60. That movement of the upper body frame 40 and the seat frame 50, in turn, not only allows a user resting on the adjustable base assembly 10 to remain close to his or her nightstand upon articulating the upper body frame 40, but further improves the contour of a mattress, such as the mattress 170 shown in FIG. 1, resting on the articulated adjustable base assembly 10 and thereby prevents the crunched feeling commonly experienced by users who make use of adjustable bases for mattresses.” .
Notably, applicant’s claim necessitates the first buttock supporting unit is drivenable by the back supporting unit (with the back supporting unit being the connective structure between the first buttock support unit, movement of the back supporting unit would drive the first buttock supporting unit to slide forward and back. Furthermore, the claim necessitate that the back supporting unit is drivable by the first actuator unit, wherein 70 indeed causes the back supporting unit to swing upwardly in a combinate swinging motion as demonstrated eminently between FIGS. 1-8A and elucidated in [0069]. The claims do not necessitate the actuator drives the buttock supporting unit to swing, but that the buttock supporting unit is dependent on the motion of the back supporting unit. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, examiner is respectfully not persuaded at the present time that Nava fails to anticipate the claimed features of applicant’s invention.
Therefore claims 1-12 are respectfully rejected at the present time.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673