DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 12/12/25. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 .
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 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; or
(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 1-2, 4-11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 4,4696,148 to Jones.
Claim 1. A template (Jones, Fig. 4) configured to align a component (Jones, Fig. 4, #15, or alternatively Fig. 2, #21) on a top surface of a mattress (Jones, Fig. 4, #11), the mattress comprising the top surface, a bottom surface, and a side surface extending between the top surface and the bottom surface, the template comprising: configured to rest flush on the top surface of the mattress (Jones, Fig. 1), the alignment body defining at least one opening (Jones, Fig. 4, slots #14 and holes #16) and position the component within the at least one opening and relative to the side surface and the top surface of the mattress, the alignment body comprising a separator arm (Jones, Fig. 4, #13) configured to separate the at least one opening from another portion of the alignment body; and a body positioner (Jones, Fig. 4, #12) coupled to the alignment body, the body positioner configured to align the alignment body relative to the side surface of the mattress, wherein receiving the component in contact with the alignment body within the at least one opening aligns the component with respect to the top surface and the side surface of the mattress when the body positioner is aligned flush with the side surface of the mattress and the alignment body is flush with the top surface of the mattress and aligns a location on the component corresponding to a predetermined location on the top surface of the mattress at which to attach the component (Jones, Fig. 4, component #15 is aligned at a predetermined location wherein the location is at openings #14).
Claim 2. The template of claim 1, wherein the body positioner is a first vertical plate configured to align with a first portion of the side surface of the mattress, wherein the first portion of the mattress is a first edge of the mattress, wherein the alignment body is a horizontal plate configured to be positioned on [[a]] the top . (Jones, Fig. 4, #12 is a vertical plate)
Claim 4. The template of claim 1, wherein the at least one opening comprises a plurality of openings, each opening of the plurality of openings sized to or another component to be mounted to the mattress and align the component [[with]] at a predetermined [[first]] location [[at]]within one opening of the plurality of openings on the mattress.
Claim 5. The template of claim 4, wherein the plurality of openings comprises a first opening and a second opening, the second opening comprising a larger width than the first opening (Jones, Figs. 2, 4, slots #12 are a larger width than holes #16).
Claim 6. The template of claim 5, wherein the alignment body comprises a top surface and a bottom surface opposite the top surface, wherein the bottom surface is configured to rest flush on a top surface of the mattress when the template is placed on the mattress (Jones, Fig. 1 and 4).
Claim 7. The template of claim 6, wherein the alignment body further comprises at least one visual indicator positioned at a location on the top surface of the alignment body that corresponds to a position on the mattress at which to attach the component (holes #16 and slots #14 of Jones, Figs. 2 and 4 are considered to be visual indicators in that they correspond to a position at which to attach a fastener stud #21 or a connecting member #15, respectively).
Claim 8. The template of claim 6, wherein the
Claim 9. The template of claim 8, wherein the separator arm has a length that is less than a length of the component that is at least partially received at the plurality of openings (Jones, Figs. 1, the separator arm is seen to be less than the length of component #15)
Claim 10. See rejection of claim 1. Regarding additional limitations directed toward “multiple components”, Jones discloses component #15 being attached at multiple locations on two different sides of a bed; additionally or alternatively, multiple fastener studs #21 read on Applicant’s multiple components. Similarly, holes #16 and slots #14 of Jones, Figs. 2 and 4 are considered to be multiple visual indicators in that they correspond to a position at which to attach a fastener stud #21 or a connecting member #15, respectively. Additionally, bracket #23 of Jones Fig. 2 can be considered to be a visual indicator.
Claim 11. The template of claim 10, wherein the alignment body defines a plurality of openings, each configured to at least partially receive a plurality of components to be mounted to the mattress and align the plurality of components with predetermined corresponding locations on the mattress (holes #16 and slots #14 of Jones, Figs. 2 and 4 disclose multiple openings at predetermined locations for with to attach components #21 or #15).
Claims 17 and 18. See rejection of claim 1. Regarding additional limitations directed toward “multiple components”, Jones discloses component #15 being attached at multiple locations on two different sides of a bed; additionally or alternatively, multiple fastener studs #21 read on Applicant’s multiple components. Similarly, holes #16 and slots #14 of Jones, Figs. 2 and 4 are considered to be multiple visual indicators in that they correspond to a position at which to attach a fastener stud #21 or a connecting member #15, respectively. Additionally, bracket #23 of Jones Fig. 2 can be considered to be a visual indicator.
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 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 of this title, 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 3, 12-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,4696,148 to Jones in view of US Patent 2,666,931 to Clerc.
Claim 3. The template of claim 2, further comprising a second body positioner comprising a second vertical plate, the second vertical plate configured to align with a second portion of the side surface of the mattress, wherein the second portion of the mattress is ata second edge of the mattress (Jones does not disclose a second body positioner on a second side of a mattress, however, Clerc teaches a similar bracket apparatus, which is configured to be place on the corner of a mattress, touching two sides of a mattress; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Jones with a second vertical plate in order to allow the bracket of Jones to be fitted on a corner of bed, and since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results).
Claim 12. The template of claim 10, wherein the alignment body is configured as a plate and to be generally flushed with a surface of the mattress based on the first body positioner engaging the first side of the mattress, the template further comprising a second body positioner extending from the alignment body and configured to engage a second side of the mattress and position the alignment body with respect to the mattress (Jones does not disclose a second body positioner on a second side of a mattress, however, Clerc teaches a similar bracket apparatus, which is configured to be place on the corner of a mattress, touching two sides of a mattress; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Jones with a second vertical plate in order to allow the bracket of Jones to be fitted on a corner of bed, and since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results).
Claim 13. The template of claim 12, wherein the first body positioner is arranged to be perpendicular to the second body positioner (Clerk, Fig. 13).
Claim 14. The template of claim 12, wherein the alignment body is further positioned based on the second body positioner engaging the second side of the mattress (the apparatus of Clerk is intended to engage with two perpendicular sides of a mattress).
Claim 19. The method of claim 18, wherein placing, at the Clerc teaches a similar bracket apparatus, which is configured to be place on the corner of a mattress, touching two sides of a mattress; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Jones with a second vertical plate in order to allow the bracket of Jones to be fitted on a corner of bed, and since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,4696,148 to Jones and US Patent 2,666,931 to Clerc, in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0001405 to Murphy et al. (“Murphy”).
Claim 15. The template of claim 12, wherein the first markers and the second markers comprising stickers attached to a top surface of the alignment body (Jones does not disclose using stickers as a visual indicator, however, the use of a sticker as a visual indicator to mark a location in a manufacturing setting is well known in the prior art, as taught by Murphy in paragraph [0077]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a sticker to mark the point at which to align a template and a component, since doing so is known work in one field of endeavor and may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,4696,148 to Jones in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0001405 to Murphy et al. (“Murphy”).
Claim 16. The template of claim 10, wherein the first markers and the second markers comprising arrows defined in a top surface of the alignment body (the use of an arrow as a visual indicator to mark a location in a manufacturing setting is well known in the prior art, as taught by Murphy in paragraph [0077]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a sticker to mark the point at which to align a template and a component, since doing so is known work in one field of endeavor and may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,4696,148 to Jones, in view of US Patent 8,091,250 to Jinks.
Claim 20. The method of claim 18, further comprising removing the template from the mattress, thereby maintaining the one component at the predetermined first location on the mattress without the template (Applicant is claiming the fundamental and generic purpose of a template; this process is what is done by any craftsman who uses a tape measure; this process is explicitly described by Jinks in column 2, lines 40-51 in which a tape measure is used as an indicator on a board, which is then marked by a pencil, after which the tape measure is removed while the predetermined location is still maintained by a pencil mark; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a template, to mark a location on the apparatus of Jones, and that the location would still be known after removal of the template, since doing so would have been simply the use of a known technique with a known device to yield predictable and obvious, and would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art).
Response to Applicant's remarks and amendments
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues on pages 9-11 of Applicant’s remarks that the cited prior art does not teach the recited claim limitations, as amended. While the argument may be true with respect to the prior art of Aramli, prior rejections in view of Aramli have been withdrawn, and new rejections in view of Jones have been entered in this Office Action as necessitated by Applicant’s claim amendments.
Discussion of allowable subject matter
Applicant’s claimed invention appears to be directed toward the structures of Applicant’s Fig. 23B. However the claim language is very general and broad, and does not specifically describe that which is seen in Applicant’s Fig. 23B (and more importantly, does not only describe the structures in Applicant’s disclosure, and not the structures found in the prior art). Specifically, Applicant’s claim terms “component,” “opening,” “separator arm,” “body positioner,” and “predetermined location,” are very generic and do not define any structures that are not found in the prior art. Moreover, various structures disclosed by Jones can be considered to be each of these claim terms, as discussed in the above rejections. It does not appear that there are structures in the application which when claimed generally are unknown in the prior art. However, unexpected results (i.e. functionality not found in the prior art) can be indicative of non-obviousness. See MPEP 716.02. If there is criticality to Applicant’s specific shape and configuration of structures in Fig. 23B, in which that shape and configuration provides some unexpected result or functionality not found in the prior art, then that would be an argument in support of non-obviousness or a lack of anticipation. Inclusion of specific structural details (for example the shape, size, location, and configuration of each of the structures seen in the figures) could help to differentiate over the prior art. Additionally, those structural details combined with language ("configured to...[provide some functionality]"), with reasoning as to the criticality and functionality of those specific structures and structural configurations could help to indicate non-obviousness.
Conclusion
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 MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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.
/MYLES A THROOP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673