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 § 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 18-20 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.
The term “reasonable amount of separation force” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reasonable amount” is not defined by the claim, and, while the specification provides an example of a reasonable amount of force (1-10 pounds, as discussed in paragraph 0098), the specification does not define the standard (e.g. the amount of force an adult human is capable of generating) by which a “reasonable amount of separation force” is determined. In paragraph 0098, Applicant provides an example of a range of forces, approximately 1-10 pounds of force, which may be considered reasonable. However, the specification does not explicitly limit the definition of “reasonable amount” to this range, nor does the specification explain how it was determined that this range is reasonable. As humans are generally capable of generating a wide range of pull force depending on factors such as age, weight, height, etc., what is considered a “reasonable” amount of force would likely differ greatly between individuals, and, is therefore considered indefinite. Claims 19-20 are additionally rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 18.
Claim 20, line 2 contains the limitation “the final portion of the press fit attachment”. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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 1-4, 7, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Polevoy (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0255415), hereinafter referred to as Polevoy ‘415.
Regarding claim 1, Polevoy ‘415 discloses a bed frame 150, comprising: a rectangular support structure 152, 154, and 156 configured to support a mattress (Figures 13-14 and paragraph 0005); a plurality of foot bases 168, each attached to the rectangular support structure 152, 154, and 156 and having a bottom surface 182 (Figures 16-17 and paragraph 0048), with all of said foot bases 168 collectively capable of supporting said rectangular support structure 152, 154, and 156 and said mattress above a floor surface when the bottom surfaces of said foot bases 68 are in contact with said floor surface (Figures 13-14 and paragraph 0005); and a plurality of foot extensions 164, each having a top surface that is configured to form a press-fit attachment with one of the foot bases 168 (Figure 17 and paragraphs 0046-0047), in order to further elevate the rectangular support structure 152, 154, and 156 above the floor surface (Figures 13-14).
Regarding claim 2, Polevoy ‘415 discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Polevoy ‘415 further discloses wherein at least one of said foot bases 168 tapers in width, being wider at a higher point, closer to the rectangular support structure 152, 154, and 156, and progressively narrower further down (see Polevoy ‘415, Figures 13-14 and 17).
Regarding claim 3, Polevoy ‘415 discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 2. Polevoy ‘415 further discloses wherein at least one of said foot extensions 164 tapers in width, being wider at a higher point, closer to where it press-fit attaches to said one of the foot bases 168, and progressively narrower further down (see Polevoy ‘415, Figures 13-14 and 17).
Regarding claim 4, Polevoy ‘415 discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Polevoy ‘415 further discloses wherein the bottom surface of each of said foot bases 168 includes an indentation 182 (see Polevoy ‘415, Figure 17), and the top surface of each of said plurality of foot extensions 164 includes a protrusion that can be press fit into said indentation 182 (see Polevoy ‘415, annotated Figure 17, below, and see Figure 18 and paragraph 0048-0049).
PNG
media_image1.png
484
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Polevoy ‘415 discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Polevoy ‘415 further discloses wherein the rectangular support structure 152, 154, and 156 comprises a left side-rail component 152 and a right side-rail component 154, see Polevoy ‘415, Figure 13), wherein a first one of said foot bases 168 is fixedly attached to said left side-rail component 152 (via wedge 170, see Polevoy ‘415, Figures 15-17 and paragraphs 0046-0048), and wherein a second one of said foot bases 168 is fixedly attached to said right side-rail component 154 (see Polevoy ‘415, Figures 14-17 and paragraphs 0046-0048).
Regarding claim 9, Polevoy ‘415 discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 7. Polevoy ‘415 further discloses wherein a top portion of said first one of said foot bases 168 has an inner side that is fixedly attached to said left side-rail component 152 (via wedge 170, see Polevoy ‘415, Figures 14-15) and an outer side that is disposed inwardly of said left side-rail component 152 (see Polevoy ‘415, Figure 15), and a top portion of said second one of said foot bases 168 has an inner side that is fixedly attached to said right side-rail component 154 (via wedge, 170, see Polevoy ‘415, Figures 14-15) and an outer side that is disposed inwardly of said right side-rail component (see Polevoy ‘415, Figure 15).
Regarding claim 10, Polevoy ‘415 discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 7. Polevoy ‘415 further discloses wherein the inner side of the top portion 170 and 176 of each of said first one and said second one of the foot bases 168 has a thinner distal part (defined by the part of 176 not connected to the wedge 170) and a thicker proximal part (defined by the part of 176 containing wedge 170, see Polevoy ‘415, Figures 17-18).
Regarding claim 11, Polevoy ‘415 discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 7. Polevoy ‘415 further discloses wherein the rectangular support structure 152, 154, and 156 further comprises a crossbar component 156 extending between said left side-rail component 152 and said right side-rail component 154 and having a first interface pod 176 at its left end and a second interface pod 176 at its right end (see Polevoy ‘415, Figures 13-15 and paragraphs 0046-0049), with said first interface pod 176 press-fit into a top surface of the first one of said foot bases 168, and with said second interface pod 176 press-fit into a top surface of the second one of said foot bases 168 (see Polevoy ‘415, Figures 13-15 and paragraphs 0046-0049).
Regarding claim 12, Polevoy ‘415 discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1, 7, and 11. Polevoy ‘415 further discloses wherein each of the first one and the second one of said foot bases 168 includes a lateral channel for accommodating a main structural component of said crossbar component 156 (see Polevoy ‘415, annotated Figure 17, above).
Regarding claim 14, Polevoy ‘415 discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1, 7, and 11. Polevoy ‘415 further discloses wherein the crossbar component 156 also has a third interface pod 174 disposed between the first interface pod 168 and the second interface pod 168 (see Polevoy ‘415, Figures 13-14 and 19 and paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 15, Polevoy ‘415 discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1, 7, 11, and 14. Polevoy ‘415 further discloses a free-floating foot base 162 having a top surface 184, and wherein the third interface pod 174 is press-fit into the top surface of said free-floating foot base 162 (see Polevoy ‘415, Figures 14 and 19 and paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 17, Polevoy ‘415 discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Polevoy ‘415 further discloses wherein said foot bases primarily are comprised of a resilient material (paragraph 0005, where the leg may comprise molded composite plastic).
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polevoy ‘415 in view of Manatt (U.S. Patent No. 2,933,850)
Regarding claim 5, Polevoy ‘415 discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Polevoy ‘415 does not disclose a plurality of second foot extensions, each having a top surface that is configured to form a press-fit attachment with a bottom surface of one of the foot extensions, in order to further elevate the rectangular support structure above the floor surface.
Manatt teaches a plurality of second foot extensions 15, each having a top surface 20 that is configured to form a press-fit attachment with a bottom surface of one of the foot extensions 15, in order to further elevate the rectangular support structure above the floor surface (Figures 1-4 and Col. 2, lines 15-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Polevoy ‘415 (directed to a bed comprising stackable leg extensions) with Manatt (directed to stackable height extenders for furniture) and arrived at a plurality of second foot extensions, each having a top surface that is configured to form a press-fit attachment with a bottom surface of one of the foot extensions to further elevate the rectangular support structure above the floor surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because providing additional extensions allow for the height of a bed to be further customized according to a user’s needs or desires (Col. 1, lines 40-53).
Regarding claim 6, Polevoy ‘415, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 5. Polevoy ‘415, as modified, further discloses wherein each of said foot extensions 15 has a bottom surface that includes a second indentation (defined by the cavity bounded by the lower skirt 19, see Manatt, Figure 2), and the top surface 20 of each of said second foot extensions includes a second protrusion 20 that can be press fit into said second indentation (see Manatt, Figures 1-2 and Col. 2, lines 15-49).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polevoy ‘415 in view of Polevoy (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0208811), hereinafter referred to as Polevoy ‘811.
Regarding claim 8, Polevoy ‘415 discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 7. Polevoy ‘415 does not explicitly disclose wherein said first one of said foot bases is attached to said left side-rail component using at least one of a first screw or a first rivet, and said second one of said foot bases is attached to said right side-rail component using at least one of a second screw or a second rivet.
Polevoy ‘811 teaches wherein said first one of said foot bases 58 is attached to said side-rail component 54 using at least one of a first screw or a first rivet (Figure 2 and paragraph 0036), and said second one of said foot bases 58 is attached to said opposite side-rail component 54 using at least one of a second screw or a second rivet (Figures 1-2 and paragraph 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Polevoy ‘415 with Polevoy ‘811 (both being directed to a bed comprising stackable leg extensions) such that said first and second ones of said foot bases are attached to said left and right side-rail components, respectively using at least one of a screw or a rivet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated do so because doing so would merely amount to a simple substitution of one element (the fasteners shown in Figure 3 of Polevoy ‘415) with another (the rivet of Polevoy ‘811) that would not produce unexpected results, as both fasteners perform the identical function of securing a components of a stackable leg extension to a side rail of a bed frame. In this regard, MPEP 2143(B) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) are relevant.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polevoy ‘415 Woods (U.S. Patent No. 6,012,185).
Regarding claim 13, Polevoy ‘415 discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1, 7, and 11. Polevoy ‘415 does not explicitly disclose wherein the press-fit attachment between the first interface pod and the top surface of the first one of said foot bases extends to a depth of not more than 3 inches, and wherein the press-fit attachment between the second interface pod and the top surface of the second one of said foot bases also extends to a depth of not more than 3 inches.
Woods teaches wherein the attachment between the first leg attachment 24 and the top surface of the first one of said second leg attachment 22 extends to a depth of not more than 3 inches (Figure 15 and Col. 5, line 60-Col. 6, line 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Polevoy ‘415 (directed to a bed comprising stackable leg extensions) with Woods (directed to stackable height extenders for bed leg) such that the press-fit attachment between the first interface pod and the top surface of the first one of said foot bases extends to a depth of not more than 3 inches, and wherein the press-fit attachment between the second interface pod and the top surface of the second one of said foot bases also extends to a depth of not more than 3 inches. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the overlap between the components of Woods provides a sufficiently strong connection between the components of a bed leg while providing the desired height to the bed leg (Col. 5, line 45-Col. 6, line 15).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polevoy ‘415 in view of Polevoy (Patent Publication No. WO 2005/112705 A2), hereinafter referred to as Polevoy ‘705
Regarding claim 16, Polevoy ‘415 discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1, 7, 11, and 14. Polevoy ‘415 further discloses wherein at least one of said first interface pod, second interface pod, and third interface pod is comprised of two halves that are attached together so as to clamp to a structural component of said crossbar component.
Polevoy ‘705 (Patent Publication No. WO 2005/112705 A2) teaches wherein interface pod 28 is comprised of two halves 60 and 62 that are attached together so as to clamp to a structural component 36 of said crossbar component 20 (Figures 2-3 and paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Polevoy ‘415 with Polevoy ‘705 (both being directed to a bed comprising stackable leg extensions) such that at least one of said first, second, or third interface pods, second interface pod is comprised of two halves that are attached together so as to clamp to a structural component of said crossbar component. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would merely amount to a simple substitution of one known element (the central interface pod of Polevoy ‘415) for another (the central interface pod comprising two halves of Polevoy ‘705) that would not provide unexpected results as both pods are provided for the identical purpose of attaching a central leg underneath a crossbar component of a bed frame (see Polevoy ‘705, Figure 1). In this regard, MPEP 2143(B) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) are relevant.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polevoy ‘415 in view of Iwasaki (U.S. Patent No. 7,344,333)
Regarding claim 18, Polevoy ‘415 discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Polevoy ‘415 does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the foot bases or the foot extensions includes a plurality of raised ribs for strengthening the press-fit attachment while simultaneously permitting detachment with the application of a reasonable amount of separation force.
Iwasaki teaches a plurality of raised ribs 10 for strengthening the press-fit attachment while simultaneously permitting detachment with the application of a reasonable amount of separation force (Figures 1a-2 and Col. 5, line 53-Col. 6, line 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Polevoy ‘415 (directed to a bed comprising stackable press-fit leg extensions) with Iwasaki such that at least one of the foot bases or the foot extensions includes a plurality of raised ribs for strengthening the press-fit attachment while simultaneously permitting detachment with the application of a reasonable amount of separation force. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the inclined ribs of Iwasaki strengthen the press-fit engagement as the ribs press tightly on the engaging surface of the attachment (Col. 5, line 53-Col. 6, line 23).
Regarding claim 19, Polevoy ‘415, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 18. Polevoy ‘415, as modified, further discloses wherein edges of the raised ribs 10 that first engage the press-fit attachment are sloped from a thinner portion upon initial engagement to a thicker portion upon fuller engagement (see Iwasaki, Figures 1a-2 and Col. 5, line 53-Col. 6, line 23).
Regarding claim 20, Polevoy ‘415, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 18. Polevoy ‘415, as modified, further discloses wherein said raised ribs 10 are disposed so as to engage only in the final portion of the press-fit attachment (see Iwasaki, Figure 1c, where the ribs 10 are provided on an upper portion of the holder).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bartelsmeyer (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0013968) which discloses a bed frame comprising tapered, stackable legs.
Polevoy (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0242171) which discloses a bed frame comprising tapered, stackable legs.
Ermalovich (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0061540) which discloses stacked, height adjustable, bed legs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISON N LABARGE whose telephone number is (571)272-6098. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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.
/ALISON N LABARGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679