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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I: Figs. 1-10, 17, and 21, encompassing claims 1-3, 5, and 9 in the reply filed on 7/9/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 4, 6-8, and 10-18 as indicated in applicant’s claims filed 7/9/2025 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s information disclosure statements filed 8/21/2023, 2/29/2024, and 7/12/2024 have been considered and are included in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The terms “cantilever” and “cantilevered” in claim 1 are used by the claim to mean “supported on opposite ends of a spanning section,” while the accepted meaning is “fixed or supported at only one end.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Examiner suggests removing the terms from the claims.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 9 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Henry et al. (US 7107635).
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)); two opposed cantilever 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 cantilever supports being hingedly coupled to the spanning section (through (22) by (49), Figs. 9-10 show the hinged motion of the supports); the cantilever supports being adapted to form load-bearing platforms extending beyond the spanning section (col. 4, lines 54-67, made of high density foam).
Regarding claim 2, Henry et al. discloses a combination, comprising: the cantilevered animal bed of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above); and a piece of cushioned furniture (mattress (16)) having at least one furniture crest (top of mattress, Fig. 10), wherein each such 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); wherein when the spanning section is placed atop one of the at least one furniture crest with the cantilever supports extending substantially parallel to a longitudinal extent of the one of the at least one furniture crest (Fig. 10): the cantilevered animal bed conforms to the one of the at least one furniture crest at least by hinged movement of the cantilever supports relative to the spanning section (Fig. 10), whereby the one of the at least one furniture crest is disposed between the cantilever supports (Fig. 10); and the cantilever supports rest against the one of the at least one furniture crest (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 3, Henry et al. discloses the bed of claim 1, and discloses wherein the cantilever supports are support bolsters ((14) are defined as bolsters).
Regarding claim 5, Henry et al. discloses the bed of claim 1, and discloses wherein the spanning section is conformable to an underlying surface (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 9, Henry et al. discloses the bed of claim 1, and discloses wherein bodies of the cantilever supports are substantially cylindrical (Fig. 10, col. 4, lines 54-57).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
North et al. (US 2009/0313761), Spiegel et al. (US 2011/0080015), Ruff (US 2952856), Kifferstein (US 4274673), Syers (US 5147110), Rains et al. (US 5359739), Tan et al. (US 5499418), Rains et al. (US 5530974), Draves (US 6640366), Welch et al. (US 7086101), Illingworth (US D523679), Majors (US D636452), Gilroy (US D728970) teach apparatuses that include a spanning section and two opposed “cantilever supports providing load-bearing platforms.
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