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 .
Application Status
Claims 1, 5, and 8-15 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 5, 9, 12 and 14-15 have been amended. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 12/8/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haakansson (WO 02076265 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Haakansson discloses a bunk system for an industrial vehicle (“bed arrangement to being used in cramped spaces”; [Page 2, Lines 3-4]), comprising a structural board (first bottom plate 1) to receive a mattress (first pad 6) and an occupant thereon, the structural board comprising: a main portion (central portion 1a) having a main front edge proximate a front of the vehicle (edge portion 1b); and at least one moveable secondary portion (Bottom plates 2 and 3) having a secondary rear edge (See Fig. 1, bottom plates 2 and 3 having a rear edge) proximate the front edge of the main portion (See Fig. 1, bottom plates 2 and 3 rear edge proximate edge portion 1b), and a secondary front edge opposite to the secondary rear edge (See Fig. 1, edge elements 4 and 5 opposite of secondary front edge); at least one coupling between the main portion and the at least one movable secondary portion (See Fig. 3 and 4, gas dampers 11a, 11b and piston rods 12a, 12b) the at least one coupling configured to bias the at least one movable secondary portion in a deployed position in which the main portion and the at least one movable secondary portion are coplanar (See Fig. 3, gas dampers and piston rods bias the bottom plates 2 and 3 in a deployed position); wherein the at least one movable secondary portion is movable via the at least one coupling from the deployed position to a collapsed position upon a rearward lateral force of a front seat of the vehicle on the main front edge of the at least one movable secondary portion to reduce resistance to the rearward later force (See Fig. 4, “edge portion 5 has a substantially maximum compression of the third pad 8…driving seat thereby pushes the edge element 4 rearwards”; [Pages 6-7]).
PNG
media_image1.png
634
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
530
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Haakansson discloses the bunk system of claim 1, wherein the at least one movable secondary portion performs at least one of a translational movement (See Fig. 1-4, plates 2 and 3 perform translational movement) and a rotation movement with respect to the main portion, thereby causing the bunk system to contract an elastic member between the main portion and the at least one movable secondary portion (See Fig. 3-4, gas dampers 11a, 11b contract).
Regarding Claim 10, Haakansson discloses a truck comprising a cabin having a rear wall, at least one seat, and a lower bunk system according to claim 1 between the at least one seat and the rear wall (“bed arrangement designed to be fitted in a driving cab of a vehicle behind a driving seat and a passenger seat”; Page 5, Lines 6-8]).
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.
Claims 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haakansson (WO 02076265 A1) in view of Wang (CN 110077297 A).
Regarding Claim 11, Haakansson discloses the truck (“bed arrangement designed to be fitted in a driving cab of a vehicle”; [Page 5, Lines 6-7]) of claim 10.
Haakansson fails to explicitly teach the main portion of the bunk system is hinged to the rear wall of the cabin.
However, Wang teaches a main portion of the bunk system (sleeper 5) is hinged (hinge 8) to the rear wall of the cabin (See Fig. 1, sleeper 5 is hinged to back wall by hinge 8).
PNG
media_image3.png
436
396
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Haakansson by adding the hinge connected to the rear wall taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “convenience of personnel’s rest sleeping berth generally at a horizontal position, so also limiting the activity space of seat” (Wang). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 13, Haakansson discloses the truck (“bed arrangement designed to be fitted in a driving cab of a vehicle”; [Page 5, Lines 6-7]) of claim 10.
Haakansson fails to explicitly disclose the truck comprises actuators configured to pull back each of the at least one seat towards the rear wall, upon occurrence of a crash.
However, Wang teaches the truck comprises actuators (actuator 1, 7) configured to pull back each of the at least one seat towards the rear wall (“seat quickly after moving by impact force, to the lower berth space moving upwards after release”; [Wang]), upon occurrence of a crash (“when suffering strike large truck front, truck front face of pressure sensor generates a signal and transmits the signal to computer board of truck”; [Wang]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Haakansson in view of Woller by adding the actuators taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “protecting the safety of the staff” (Wang). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haakansson (WO 02076265 A1) in view of Aldrich (US 20210353072 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Haakansson discloses the truck (“bed arrangement designed to be fitted in a driving cab of a vehicle”; [Page 5, Lines 6-7]) of claim 10, wherein the cabin comprises a lower storage space that is arranged below the bunk system (“bottom plate structure can be folded up to a storage position”; [Page 5, Lines 24-25]).
Haakansson fails to explicitly discloses the lower storage space being circumscribed by the rear wall, by a floor of the cabin, by the bunk system, and by a forward wall; and wherein the forward wall is below or behind the secondary front edge, when the at least one movable secondary portion is in a position.
However, Aldrich teaches lower storage space being circumscribed by the rear wall, by a floor of the cabin, by the bunk system, and by a forward wall (See Fig. 2, cabinet 55 is circumscribed by platform 40, floor 44, and walls 60); and wherein the forward wall is below or behind the secondary front edge, when the secondary portion is in the second position (See Fig. 2, platform 40 can slide left or right to secondary positions, forward wall is still below or behind platform 40 in any position).
PNG
media_image4.png
340
464
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Haakansson by adding the storage space taught by Aldrich. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “increase storage area and accessibility” (Aldrich, [0008]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
“Accordingly, none of the references, taken alone or in combination, teach or suggest "at least one coupling between the main portion and the at least one movable secondary portion, the at least one coupling configured to bias the at least one movable secondary portion in a deployed position in which the main portion and the at least one movable secondary portion are coplanar," and "wherein the at least one movable secondary portion is movable via the at least one coupling from the deployed position to a collapsed position upon a rearward lateral force of a front seat of the vehicle on the main front edge of the movable at least one secondary portion to reduce resistance to the rearward lateral force," as recited in amended independent claim 1.”
Examiner’s Response:
In response to the applicant’s argument that none of the references teach the amended limitations of independent claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion. After further consideration of the prior art of Haakansson in comparison to the amended language of claim 1, it has been determined that Haakansson does, in fact, anticipate claim 1. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, the gas dampers and piston rod combination represent a biasing coupling between the main and secondary portion that assists in going from the deployed position to the collapsed position of the apparatus. Thus, the subject matter of claim 1 is anticipated in view of Haakansson.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8, 14, and 15 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:
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art of Haakansson discloses the bunk system of claim 1, wherein the at least one movable secondary portion is movable in translational relative to the main portion. However, the prior art of Haakansson and other references of record fail to explicitly teach wherein the at least one movable secondary portion is movable in rotation relative to the main portion, the at least one movable secondary portion being hinged to the main front edge of the main portion.
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art of Haakansson discloses the bunk system of claim 1, wherein the bunk system further comprises guiding means for guiding the secondary front edge in translation. However, the prior art of Haakansson and other references of record fail to explicitly teach wherein the main front edge and secondary rear edge are elastically hinged.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art of Haakansson discloses the bunk system of claim 10. Further, the prior art of Haakansson in view of Wang teaches wherein the main portion is hinged to the rear wall. However, the prior art of Haakansson in view of Wang fails to explicitly teach the gliding of the secondary front edge leading to rotation of the secondary portion further leading to rotation of the main portion.
Regarding Claim 15, the prior art of Haakansson discloses the bunk system of claim 1, and an elastic coupling between the two portions. However, the prior art of Haakansson and other references of record fail to explicitly teach wherein the main front edge and secondary rear edge are elastically hinged, and the secondary portion is pivoted upon occurrence of a crash.
Therefore, with the prior art failing to disclose the instant invention and an additional search, it is the Examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at and/or claimed this specific combination of features in the designed configuration based on the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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 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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673