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 Amendment
Note that claim 1 filed on 3/12/2026 does not appear to include claim text with required markings with respect to the text of original previously presented claim 1. More specifically, the claims include text which appear to be an attempt to amend claim 1, however without the indications of deletion by crossing out the deleted text, such as punctuation at the end of original line 5. In the interests of efficiency, the claims have been examined below; however, please note that any future amendment included in a response to this Detailed Action must set forth the claims with correct annotations as explained in 37 C.F.R. 1.121(c).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, line 2, “the cantilever supports” should be changed to --the supports--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5, and 9 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 recites the limitation “the furniture crest is narrower than a full seating surface of the piece of cushioned furniture”. The specification does not disclose what the measurement of the full seating surface is, or how it is measured. The applicant appears to be adding new matter to the claim. Further, there is no notice that the drawings are to scale. The specification fails to provide written description that shows the inventor possessed the invention as recited in claim 1.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 9 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-3, 5, and 9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the furniture crest is narrower than a full seating surface of the piece of cushioned furniture”. It is unclear what a “full seating surface” is in relation to the furniture crest, and/or overall spacing of the cushioned furniture. Narrower in what direction? The phrase lacks clarity.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 9 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry et al. (US 7107635) in view of SmartyKat (https://www.chewy.com/smartykat-clever-claws-triple-panel/dp/235877, Sept 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Henry et al. discloses a bed (Figs. 1 and 9-10, as best understood with respect to the 112b rejection, an animal bed is intended use language and therefore, the prior art needs to be capable of the intended use. Here, an animal can use the apparatus as a bed), comprising: a spanning section (Fig. 10, (24), the portion of (12) that spans the top of the mattress (16)) configured to rest atop a furniture crest (top of mattress, Fig. 10) of a piece of cushioned furniture (mattress (16)), wherein the furniture crest is an elongate region of local maximum elevation on the piece of cushioned furniture (Fig. 10, elongate region along the full length of the mattress; two opposed supports ((14) surrounded by (20)) extending substantially parallel to one another along opposed first sides of the spanning section (first sides of (12) along the left and right sides where ((14) surrounded by (20)) are positioned along); the supports being hingedly coupled to the spanning section (through (22) by (49), Figs. 9-10 show the hinged motion of the supports), wherein, when the spanning section is placed atop the furniture crest with the supports extending substantially parallel to a longitudinal extent of the furniture crest (Fig. 10): the animal bed conforms to the furniture crest at least by hinged movement of the supports relative to the spanning section (Fig. 10), whereby the furniture crest is disposed between the supports (Fig. 10 shows that the top of mattress is disposed between the supports ((14) surrounded by (20))); and the supports are braced against respective sides of the furniture crest to form load-bearing platforms extending laterally outwardly beyond the spanning section (col. 4, lines 54-67, made of high density foam, and extend outwardly) and cooperate with the furniture crest to form a support platform having increased support width beyond that provided by the furniture crest alone (col. 4, lines 54-67, col. 7, lines 5-10).
Henry et al., however, does not explicitly disclose the cushioned furniture having a furniture crest that is narrower than a full seating surface of the piece of cushioned furniture.
SmartyKat, teaches an animal apparatus (mat) having a spanning section and two opposed supports (Figure) that rests atop a furniture crest of a piece of cushioned furniture (Figure shows the apparatus atop of an armrest), wherein the furniture crest is narrower than a full seating surface of the piece of cushioned furniture (Figure, the armrest is narrower than the section for seating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bed of Henry et al. to provide the cushioned furniture on which it rests have a furniture crest narrower than a full seating surface of the piece of cushioned furniture, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a higher perch for the animal to view from which animals seem to like, the supports of Henry et al. providing additional room along the furniture crest for additional support especially for larger animals to avoid the animal from falling off the furniture crest.
Regarding claim 2, Henry et al. as modified by SmartyKat teaches a combination, comprising: the animal bed of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above); and the piece of cushioned furniture (as taught by SmartyKat).
Regarding claim 3, Henry et al. as modified by SmartyKat teaches the bed of claim 1, and teaches (references to Henry et al.) wherein the supports are support bolsters ((14) are defined as bolsters).
Regarding claim 5, Henry et al. as modified by SmartyKat teaches the bed of claim 1, and teaches (references to Henry et al.) wherein the spanning section is conformable to an underlying surface (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 9, Henry et al. as modified by SmartyKat teaches the bed of claim 1, and teaches (references to Henry et al.) wherein bodies of the cantilever supports are substantially cylindrical (Fig. 10, col. 4, lines 54-57).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, applicant argued that Henry et al. does not teach the furniture crest is disposed between the supports and does not teach the supports are load-bearing. Therefore, the applicant states the prior art does not anticipate the instant set of claims.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the broadest terms the furniture crest is disposed between the supports, since the furniture crest is not disposed outside of the supports. In either position of Henry et al. the supports provide load bearing qualities. If an arm/paw would be placed on the support in the lower position of Henry et al., one cannot say that it cannot bear the load. There are no further limitations in the claims as to the load bear capability of the supports. Further, in the upper position of Henry et al., the support provides load bear along the side and above the support. Even within applicant’s own invention, for the supports to be brace against the sides and to be load bearing, it would require at least a portion of the supports to be atop of the furniture crest. Therefore, the prior art meets the limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Wilmore (US 2009/0199783), Dawson (US 2007/0006810), Carter (US 7404589) and Charnesky (US 6000365), Park (KR 20240003540), Kleinmann (DE 202016103878), Jarczewski (CA 2997299), and Freitas (FR 2896968) teach apparatuses that include a spanning section and two opposed supports providing load-bearing platforms.
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 CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights