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 Arguments
35 USC 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 7-11, filed 22 April 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 USC 102 and 103 over Rogers not teaching the claimed “wherein each of the leg members is a composite with the grooved front board member and the grooved rear board member being comprised of separate materials from the plate-shaped grooved foam plate” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20160174700 A1 to Brandenberg.
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 7-8 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 7 recites the limitation "the additional shape portion". Examiner believes that this claim dependency on claim 5 is a typo and instead claim 7 should be dependent on claim 6, which mentions “an additional shape portion”. As claim 7 currently stands, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear and indefinite what additional shape portion of claims 5 and 1 “the additional shape portion” is referring to. Claim 8 is rejected for similar reasons due to its dependency.
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) 1, 5, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110203050 A1 to Rogers in view of US 20160174700 A1 to Brandenberg.
Re Claim 1, Rogers teaches:
An easy-assembly bed (at least [Abstract] “bed form (10) […] can be quickly assembled”) comprising: a top plate (at least Figs. 12-15 and [0043] “Deck sections (54a-54c)”.) and a leg portion (at least Fig. 7 and [0038] “a plurality of long sections (12a-12c) which engage with another plurality of shorter transverse sections (14a-14d)”), the leg portion having a plurality of leg members that are linked using notched joints (at least Figs. 1-4 and [0040] “three slots (38a-38d) which mate with the slots (26a-26c)”), wherein:
the top plate is constituted of a bonded material, which includes a plate-shaped foam plate formed with a foam body (at least [0054] “Other light weight materials could be used too, such as structural foam, other plastics, etc. Similarly the materials that comprise the base sections (12a-12c and 14a-14d), while described as being made preferably of structural foam, could be made of other recycled material such as wood, cardboard, plastic and the like”.), and a front board member and a rear board member that have an identical shape to the foam plate and that are bonded to a rear surface and a front surface of the foam plate, respectively (at least Fig. 8 element 80, the upper and lower surfaces),
and the leg members are each constituted of a grooved bonded material, which includes a plate-shaped grooved foam plate having locking grooves and formed with a foam body, and a grooved front board member and a grooved rear board member on a front surface and a rear surface of the grooved foam plate, respectively, the grooved front and rear members having an identical shape to the grooved foam plate, and a leg member molded resin portion covering cut ends of the grooved bonded material with a molded resin (at least Fig. 7 and [0040] “The long and short base support sections or boards (12a-12c and 14a-14d) are preferably molded using a structural foam process and can be made from either polypropylene or high-density polyethylene thermoplastic material or other thermoplastic material. As such, it is possible to use commercially available recycled material while at the same time maintaining product strength and integrity” and [0054] “Other light weight materials could be used too, such as structural foam, other plastics, etc. Similarly the materials that comprise the base sections (12a-12c and 14a-14d), while described as being made preferably of structural foam, could be made of other recycled material such as wood, cardboard, plastic and the like”.).
Rogers does not explicitly teach:
and a top plate molded resin portion covering cut ends of the bonded material with a molded resin;
wherein each of the leg members is a composite with the grooved front board member and the grooved rear board member being comprised of separate materials from the plate-shaped grooved foam plate.
However, Brandenberg teaches:
and a top plate molded resin portion covering cut ends of the bonded material with a molded resin (at least [0006] “bonded composition of MDF board […] produced from thermosetting plastic resins”);
wherein each of the leg members is a composite with the grooved front board member and the grooved rear board member being comprised of separate materials from the plate-shaped grooved foam plate (at least [0040] “the exterior and interior panels used in the assembly of the preferred and alternate embodiments of present invention may be composed of similar or dissimilar planar materials. For example, play table 10 may consist of natural or composite wood sheets such as: solid hardwood or softwood; plywood; particle board; or MDF board. Moreover, acrylic, plastic, glass or metal sheets may also be utilized in the production of the panels”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the easy-assembly bed taught by Rogers with the different composite materials taught by Brandenberg with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “that material is efficiently used to manufacture the components of the present invention. This feature has the following advantages: (1) no post-machining assembly is performed, so the amount of material handling and number of required machining operations is minimized” (Brandenberg [0043]).
Re Claim 5, the combination of Rogers and Brandenberg teaches:
The easy-assembly bed according to claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Rogers further teaches:
wherein the top plate is constituted of a plurality of the top plates adjacent to one another (at least Figs. 12-15 and [0043] “Deck sections (54a-54c)”.).
Re Claim 7, the combination of Rogers and Brandenberg teaches:
The easy-assembly bed according to claim 5 (detailed with respect to claim 5).
Rogers further teaches:
wherein the additional shape portion has a regulation shape configured to regulate both the top plate and the leg portion (at least Figs. 11-12 and [0045] “three (3) apertures each (56a-56c) as well as a side-wall section (62a-62c)”.).
Re Claim 8, the combination of Rogers and Brandenberg teaches:
The easy-assembly bed according to claim 7 (detailed with respect to claim 7).
Rogers further teaches:
wherein the additional shape portion has a link shape configured to further link the top plates adjacent to each other (at least Fig. 24A).
Re Claim 9, Rogers teaches:
A multipurpose table (at least [Abstract] “bed form (10) […] can be quickly assembled”) comprising: a top plate (at least Figs. 12-15 and [0043] “Deck sections (54a-54c)”.), and a leg portion (at least Fig. 7 and [0038] “a plurality of long sections (12a-12c) which engage with another plurality of shorter transverse sections (14a-14d)”) having a plurality of leg members that are linked using notched joints (at least Figs. 1-4 and [0040] “three slots (38a-38d) which mate with the slots (26a-26c)”), wherein:
the top plate is constituted of a bonded material, which includes a plate-shaped foam plate formed with a foam body (at least [0054] “Other light weight materials could be used too, such as structural foam, other plastics, etc. Similarly the materials that comprise the base sections (12a-12c and 14a-14d), while described as being made preferably of structural foam, could be made of other recycled material such as wood, cardboard, plastic and the like”.), and a front board member and a rear board member that have an identical shape to the foam plate and that are bonded to a rear surface and a front surface of the foam plate, respectively (at least Fig. 8 element 80, the upper and lower surfaces),
and the leg members are each constituted of a grooved bonded material, which includes a plate-shaped grooved foam plate having locking grooves and formed with a foam body, and a grooved front board member and a grooved rear board member on a front surface and a rear surface of the grooved foam plate, respectively, the grooved front and rear members having an identical shape to the grooved foam plate, and a leg member molded resin portion covering cut ends of the grooved bonded material with a molded resin (at least Fig. 7 and [0040] “The long and short base support sections or boards (12a-12c and 14a-14d) are preferably molded using a structural foam process and can be made from either polypropylene or high-density polyethylene thermoplastic material or other thermoplastic material. As such, it is possible to use commercially available recycled material while at the same time maintaining product strength and integrity” and [0054] “Other light weight materials could be used too, such as structural foam, other plastics, etc. Similarly the materials that comprise the base sections (12a-12c and 14a-14d), while described as being made preferably of structural foam, could be made of other recycled material such as wood, cardboard, plastic and the like”.).
and a top plate molded resin portion covering cut ends of the bonded material with a molded resin;
wherein each of the leg members is a composite with the grooved front board member and the grooved rear board member being comprised of separate materials from the plate-shaped grooved foam plate.
However, Brandenberg teaches:
and a top plate molded resin portion covering cut ends of the bonded material with a molded resin (at least [0006] “bonded composition of MDF board […] produced from thermosetting plastic resins”);
wherein each of the leg members is a composite with the grooved front board member and the grooved rear board member being comprised of separate materials from the plate-shaped grooved foam plate (at least [0040] “the exterior and interior panels used in the assembly of the preferred and alternate embodiments of present invention may be composed of similar or dissimilar planar materials. For example, play table 10 may consist of natural or composite wood sheets such as: solid hardwood or softwood; plywood; particle board; or MDF board. Moreover, acrylic, plastic, glass or metal sheets may also be utilized in the production of the panels”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the easy-assembly bed taught by Rogers with the different composite materials taught by Brandenberg with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “that material is efficiently used to manufacture the components of the present invention. This feature has the following advantages: (1) no post-machining assembly is performed, so the amount of material handling and number of required machining operations is minimized” (Brandenberg [0043]).
Re Claim 10, Rogers teaches:
A medical transportation lightweight board (at least [Abstract] “bed form (10) […] can be quickly assembled”) comprising: a bonded material (at least [0054] “Other light weight materials could be used too, such as structural foam, other plastics, etc. Similarly the materials that comprise the base sections (12a-12c and 14a-14d), while described as being made preferably of structural foam, could be made of other recycled material such as wood, cardboard, plastic and the like”.), which includes a plate-shaped foam body (at least Figs. 12-15 and [0043] “Deck sections (54a-54c)”.), and a front board member and a rear board member that have an identical shape to the foam body and that are bonded to a rear surface and a front surface of the foam body, respectively (at least Fig. 8 element 80, the upper and lower surfaces).
Rogers does not explicitly teach:
and a molded resin portion covering cut ends of the bonded material with a molded resin;
wherein the front board member and the rear board member are comprised of separate materials from the plate-shaped foam body.
However, Brandenberg teaches:
and a molded resin portion covering cut ends of the bonded material with a molded resin (at least [0006] “bonded composition of MDF board […] produced from thermosetting plastic resins”);
wherein the front board member and the rear board member are comprised of separate materials from the plate-shaped foam body (at least [0040] “the exterior and interior panels used in the assembly of the preferred and alternate embodiments of present invention may be composed of similar or dissimilar planar materials. For example, play table 10 may consist of natural or composite wood sheets such as: solid hardwood or softwood; plywood; particle board; or MDF board. Moreover, acrylic, plastic, glass or metal sheets may also be utilized in the production of the panels”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the easy-assembly bed taught by Rogers with the different composite materials taught by Brandenberg with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “that material is efficiently used to manufacture the components of the present invention. This feature has the following advantages: (1) no post-machining assembly is performed, so the amount of material handling and number of required machining operations is minimized” (Brandenberg [0043]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers in view of Brandenberg and further in view of US 4047254 to Hamasu.
Re Claim 2, the combination of Rogers and Brandenberg teaches:
The easy-assembly bed according to claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Rogers further teaches:
wherein a total specific gravity of the top plate and the leg portion (detailed with respect to claim 1).
The combination of Rogers and Brandenberg does not explicitly teach:
is 0.6 g/cm3 or less.
However, Hamasu teaches:
is 0.6 g/cm3 or less (at least [Col. 2 lines 40-45] “foam of 0.016 in specific gravity”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bed taught by the combination of Rogers and Brandenberg with the low specific gravity foam taught by Hamasu with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it “has restoring force against compression” (Hamasu [Col. 2 lines 40-45]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6, and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Examiner notes that US 20110203050 A1 to Rogers, US 20160174700 A1 to Brandenberg, and US 4047254 to Hamasu are particularly relevant.
Regarding claims 3, 6, and 11, the primary reference Rogers and in combination with the secondary reference Brandenberg teaches an easy-assembly bed comprising composite and separate materials. However, the combination of Rogers and Brandenberg does not explicitly teach Applicant’s claimed “wherein the top plate molded resin portion includes an additional shape portion formed continuously on the top plate molded resin portion”. This is because Rogers teaches an initial material (e.g., foam), and Brandenberg teaches an additional composite material comprising resin (e.g., MDF wood comprising resin bonding). However, Applicant’s claimed structure is directed towards an additional shape that is formed from the top plate molded resin portion. Thus, it would not be obvious to result in Applicant’s claimed structure because a combination of foam and MDF wood cannot be further molded with resin. Hamasu [Col. 3 lines 35-40] teaches foamed synthetic resin, but Hamasu is directed towards a particular composition and thus would not be able to be applied to the combination of Rogers and Brandenberg.
There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art to result in Applicant’s claimed structure. The dependent claims are objected to and contain allowable subject matter for similar reasons due to their dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
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.
/GEORGE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights