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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-4 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to Applicant's “Amendments/Remarks” filed 03/23/2026.
Drawings/Specification
Regarding the Remarks/Arguments filed on 09/23/2025 and 03/23/2026: The Examiner respectfully maintains the objection to the drawing and specification under 37 CFR 1.83 and 37 CFR 1.74 for failure to include reference characters consistently between any of the figures and/or the written description. While the Applicant cites MPEP 608.02 for the proposition that drawings are only required ‘where necessary for understanding of the subject matter’ that section address whether drawings are required at all. Application has already elected in include figure drawings. Once drawings are submitted, they must comply with the formal requirements of 37 CFR 1.84(f), which explicitly requires that all elements in the figures be identified by reference characters. Notably, 37 CFR 1.74 states: “When there are drawings, there shall be a brief description of the several views of the drawings and the detailed description of the invention shall refer to the different views by specifying the numbers of the figures and to the different parts by use of reference letters or numerals (preferably the latter)”. Further, 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) requires that the specification refer to such elements by those same reference characters for proper correspondence. MPEP 608.02 as quoted, does not excuse noncompliance with the mandatory formatting and correspondence requirements once drawings are present. The issue is not whether one of ordinary skill would conceptually understand the invention - rather it is formal and a requirement to ensure clarity and enforceability between the claim and scope across the official record. Accordingly, the objection is maintained and the application should be amended to include reference characters identifying each element in the drawings and the written specification should include those same reference characters in describing the invention.
The drawings/specification are BOTH objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include reference character(s). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over H.O.D Design Consultancy (MECC Bunk Bed - April 25, 2020) in view of Andon (AU 2021103743 A4).
In regards to Claim 1, H.O.D Design Consultancy teaches (as best understood by the 112(b) and claim objections indicated above): A modular fitness single-user bed (see annotated Fig. 1 from H.O.D Design Consultancy, see two Examiner's notes below), comprising: a first post (see annotated Fig. 1 from H.O.D Design Consultancy), having a first end (see annotated Fig. 1 from H.O.D Design Consultancy) and a second end (see annotated Fig. 1 from H.O.D Design Consultancy) coupled to a second post (see annotated Fig. 1 from H.O.D Design Consultancy, indirectly coupled through the rails/supports), having a first end (see annotated Fig. 1 from H.O.D Design Consultancy) and a second end, a first top rail, the first end and second end of the second post (see annotated Fig. 1 from H.O.D Design Consultancy, notably it shows a first top rail connected to the first end and the second end indirectly connected as it is connected through the first top rail along its right end) through the first top rail (see annotated Fig. 1 from H.O.D Design Consultancy); the first end of the first post coupled to the first end of the second post through a first top rail (see annotated Fig. 1 from H.O.D Design Consultancy); a third post (see annotated Fig. 2 from H.O.D Design Consultancy), having a first end (see annotated Fig. 2 from H.O.D Design Consultancy) and a second end (see annotated Fig. 2 from H.O.D Design Consultancy) coupled to a fourth post (see annotated Fig. 2 from H.O.D Design Consultancy, indirectly coupled through the rails/supports), having a first end (see annotated Fig. 2 from H.O.D Design Consultancy) and a second end (see annotated Fig. 2 from H.O.D Design Consultancy); the first end of the third post coupled to the first end of the fourth post through a second top rail (see annotated Fig. 2 from H.O.D Design Consultancy, see 112(b) indicated above); the first post is coupled to the third post through a first support bar (see annotated Fig. 3 from H.O.D Design Consultancy); the second post is coupled to the fourth post through a second support bar (see annotated Fig. 3 from H.O.D Design Consultancy); a set of monkey bars (see annotated Fig. 3 from H.O.D Design Consultancy) extending along a length (see annotated Fig. 3 from H.O.D Design Consultancy) between the first top rail and the second top rail (see annotated Fig. 3 from H.O.D Design Consultancy, shown to extend between the first top rail and the second top rail and the second top rail); a second bottom rail extending from the second end of the third post to the second of the fourth post (see annotated Fig. 4 from H.O.D Design Consultancy); and a mattress support facility connected to the first, second, third, and fourth posts and below the set of monkey bars (see annotated Fig. 2 from H.O.D Design Consultancy, shown to connect to the posts and below a portion of the monkey bars).
Examiner's Note #1 - The H.O.D Design Consultancy describes their product as the following: MECC Bunk Bed consists of a single bed, a study desk, an extendable single seat sofa and an overhead cabinet. MECC is imbued with an element of fun with monkey bars, ubiquitous in children playground, incorporated and reinterpreted in the design. In its original mode, the bed is positioned at the upper tier, while the desk, sofa and cabinet are tucked neatly below it. The sofa bed can be extended to be a nanny's bed if the user is a child needing company, or become the child's playground with his siblings and friends. Hence, rest, study, babysitting and play can all happen within the bunk bed's footprint. The monkey bars at two sides of the bed provide climbing frames for the child to have some fun at his bed. When the child has grown up, the desk, sofa and cabinet can be moved away and rearranged to other part of the room and the bed can be lowered down, while the monkey bar frames remain and remind him of childhood memories. MECC is also suitable for use at student's hostels. Therefore, MECC is a versatile and multi-functional bunk bed that can morph according to needs
(https://www.facebook.com/HODesign.co/videos/mecc-bunk-bed/244360853582169)
Examiner’s Note #2: The preamble has been amended to recite a modular fitness “single user” bed. This limitation is not considered to be limiting, as the body of the claim does not rely on the preamble for antecedent basis or otherwise give life and meaning to the claimed structure. Accordingly, the preamble is treated as a statement of intended use.
Furthermore, even if considered limiting, the prior art of H.O.D Design Consultancy teaches the amended preamble. For example, the bunk bed arrangement with an upper sleeping surface and a lower configurable portion (e.g., desk, seating, or other functional configurations) is inherently capable of use by a single user. The claimed “single user” limitation does not impose any structural distinction over the prior art, as the disclosed system may be utilized by one individual in a single-user environment, with the lower portion being selectively configured for different uses by that same user. Notably, the entire system can be placed in one user’s room and that singular user could be using that modular fitness bed and it does not require a second user to be using the apparatus at the exact same time. In summary, the amendment to the preamble does not distinguish over the applied prior art.
Lastly, the amendment was notably only applied to Claim 1 and not amended within Claims 2-4, although not a rejection/objection it is suggestive to be consistent with the preamble among all claims under one independent claim.
H.O.D Design Consultancy does not explicitly teach: a first bottom rail extending from the second end of the first post to the second of the second post;
Andon teaches: a first bottom rail extending from the second end of the first post to the second of the second post (see annotated Fig. 9.1 from Andon);
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify H.O.D Design Consultancy directed to a bunk bed by incorporating a first bottom rail extending between the first and second post as taught in Andon directed to a bed having play equipment since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of providing additional mechanical support and strength to the bottom of the device to distribute forces among an increase in rails and support members.
PNG
media_image1.png
530
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 from H.O.D Design Consultancy
PNG
media_image2.png
394
582
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 from H.O.D Design Consultancy
PNG
media_image3.png
368
543
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 from H.O.D Design Consultancy
PNG
media_image4.png
395
520
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 from H.O.D Design Consultancy
PNG
media_image5.png
261
322
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9.1 from Andon
In regards to Claim 3, H.O.D Design Consultancy in view of Andon teach: The modular fitness bed of claim 1, H.O.D Design Consultancy further teaches, further comprising; a side support frame couple with the first post (see annotated Fig. 5 from H.O.D Design Consultancy), the side support frame comprising a vertical bar (see annotated Fig. 5 from H.O.D Design Consultancy) and a horizontal bar (see annotated Fig. 5 from H.O.D Design Consultancy).
PNG
media_image6.png
497
479
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 from H.O.D Design Consultancy
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Further noting the 112(b) rejections and claim objections indicated above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of H.O.D Design Consultancy teaches the modular fitness bed with respective rails, monkey bars, mattress support facility and four posts. Andon respectively teaches a first bottom rail. Yet neither H.O.D Design Consultancy nor Andon teach, show or render obvious either alone or in combination further comprising a pull up bar extending between the first post and the third post at a length below the first support bar. Rather as shown above in annotated Figs. 1-5 of H.O.D Design Consultancy there is no configuration that would further provide a pull up bar as it would interfere with the respective set of monkey bar(s).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of H.O.D Design Consultancy teaches the modular fitness bed with respective rails, monkey bars, mattress support facility and four posts. Andon respectively teaches a first bottom rail. Yet neither H.O.D Design Consultancy nor Andon teach, show or render obvious either alone or in combination further comprising an adjustable headboard coupled between the first bottom rail and the second bottom rail. Rather the disclosed design is meant to be modular and does not indicate a headboard as that would interfere with the monkey bar design as it would rise above and contact the respective bar(s) during reconfiguration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s new amendment rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation 'A modular fitness single-user bed' is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Applicant asserts that the claimed invention is directed to a “single user” bed rather than a bunk bed. However, this distinction is not supported by the claim language. The claims are directed to a tiered configuration allowing a mattress support facility to be below a set of monkey bars, and do not recite any structural limitations requiring a single mattress, a singular bed structure, or otherwise excluding configurations commonly associated with bunk beds.
Further, the applied prior art discloses a multi-modular bed system including a sleeping surface with a desk, seating, monkey bars and/or other functional arrangements within different configurations. Such a system is inherently capable of use by a single user, for example, in a compact living environment where one individual utilizes multiple configurations (sleeping, working, seating) within a single space. Accordingly, the “single user” argument is directed to intended use and does not impart a structural distinction over the prior art. Applicant’s distinction between a “single user” bed and a bunk bed is not persuasive, as the claimed limitation is directed to use rather than structure. A bunk bed configuration does not require simultaneous use by multiple users and is inherently capable of use by a single individual. For example, a bunk bed may be used by one person in a variety of circumstances, such as when only one occupant is present, or when a single user utilizes different portions of the structure at different times.
Accordingly, the number of users does not impose a structural limitation on the claimed device, and the recitation of a “single user” does not distinguish over the prior art, which discloses a structure fully capable of such use.
Therefore, the prior rejections are maintained.
Additionally, the objections to the specification remain for the reasons previously set forth, as no amendments have been made to overcome those objections.
In summary and as set forth in the Final Office Action presently filed, H.O.D Design Consultancy expressly discloses a modular fitness single-user bed including posts, rails, a mattress support structure, and overhead exercise/monkey bar elements – i.e. the full structural framework of the claimed device. Andon further teaches a first bottom rail extending between vertical posts, which is the precise component Applicant alleges is missing. The proposed combination is not a mere aggregation of parts; rather it predictably reinforces the same load-bearing structure already taught in HOD by distributing torsional and lateral forces at the base – a well understood objective in mechanically supported exercise equipment.
Applicant's arguments do not specifically point out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Rather they argue if a single user could use such a device when the combination of two devices that are modular beds are used with fitness components. The modification of Andon is not only explicitly compatible with the modular architecture of H.O.D., but is within the routine design of optimizations per MPEP 2143 and KSR (predictable variation / strengthening existing support structures). The Examiner explicitly articulated how the combined elements function as an operable system – by clarifying that the bottom rail enhances mechanical stability and load distribution among the existing posts and rails. Applicant’s past allegations of ‘unexpected results’ are conclusory and are not supported by any specific acknowledgement of the Examiner’s claim mapping or specific disclosure from the prior art. Further neither H.O.D nor Andon teach away from the designs – both expressly support modular expansion and reinforcement of the disclosed bedding structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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.
MADISON MATTHEWS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/MADISON MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
04/03/2026