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
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed March 5th, 2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 have been considered and are accepted. The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed March 5th, 2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 & 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments, the instant Office action has been made final.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendments and / or remarks filed on March 5th, 2026. Claims 1-19 remain pending and are currently being examined.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 7-19 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, lines 15-16, requires the limitation “a second sleeping surface configured to provide a user with the ability to customize a desired sleeping arrangement.” From the provided disclosure, it is unclear to the examiner how the user is supposed to customize a desired sleeping arrangement. Claims 8-13 are also indefinite by virtue of dependency on claim 7.
Claim 14, lines 11-12, requires the limitation “a second sleeping surface configured to provide a user with the ability to customize a desired sleeping arrangement.” From the provided disclosure, it is unclear to the examiner how the user is supposed to customize a desired sleeping arrangement. Claims 15-19 are also indefinite by virtue of dependency on claim 14.
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 7, 11-12, 14, and 16-19, so far as they are definite, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farhat (US 20130256072 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Farhat teaches a convertible suitcase bed system (100) comprising: a housing comprising (100): a first compartment (102); a second compartment (104); and a hinge (500) that allows the first compartment (102) to rotate relative to the second compartment (as seen in Figure 8); a plurality of sleeping surfaces (901 as divided by sections 900, 902) comprising: a first sleeping surface (901), wherein the first sleeping surface (901) includes a first section (900) that forms a wall (as seen in Figure 9) of the first compartment (102); wherein the first sleeping section (900) includes a second section (902 ) that forms a wall (as seen in Figure 9) of the second compartment (104); and a seam (3 in Annotated Figure 9 below) that allows the first section (102) to fold (as seen in Figure 8) relative to the second section (104) when the housing (100) is rotated about the hinge (500), and a second sleeping surface (Opposing side of 902) configured to provide a user with the ability to customize a desired sleeping arrangement (Wherein Farhat teaches “For example, a user may fill the first and second storage compartments with clothing, which can bear the weight of a user resting on the second mattress 902 or the first mattress 900”). (Figs. 1-11; [0041], [0051], [0054])
PNG
media_image1.png
28
24
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
782
378
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
25
163
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Farhat further teaches a mattress pad (901) having an inflated configuration (wherein Farhat teaches “The second mattress 902 and the first mattress 900 may be formed of foam, an inflatable mattress, a fabric stuffed mattress or any other material suitable for a bed”) and a deflated configuration (Figure 9); and when the mattress pad (901) is in the deflated configuration (Figure 9), the first compartment (102) can be rotated, about the hinge (500), at least 180° (wherein Farhat teaches “the second portion 104 is pivotal with respect to the first portion”) relative to the second compartment (104). (Figs. 1-11; [0049]-[0050])
Regarding Claim 12, Farhat teaches wherein the first compartment (102) and second compartment (104) are rotatable about the hinge (500) such that the first compartment (102) and the second compartment (104) may be positioned relative to each other to form a closed position (Figure 1) of the housing (100). (Fig. 1; [0039], [0044])
Regarding Claim 14, Farhat further teaches a convertible suitcase bed system (100) comprising: a first storage area (102); a second storage area (104); a hinge (500) that allows the first storage (102) area to rotate (Figure 8) relative to the second storage area (104); and a sleeping surface (901) comprising: a plurality of sleeping surfaces (901 as divided by sections 900, 902) comprising: a first sleeping surface (901), wherein the first sleeping surface (901) includes a first section (900) that forms a wall (as seen in Figure 9) of the first storage area (102); wherein the first sleeping section (900) includes a second section (902 ) that forms a second storage area (104); and a second sleeping surface (Opposing side of 902) configured to provide a user with the ability to customize a desired sleeping arrangement (Wherein Farhat teaches “For example, a user may fill the first and second storage areas with clothing, which can bear the weight of a user resting on the second mattress 902 or the first mattress 900”). (Figs. 1-11; [0041], [0051], [0054])
Regarding Claim 16, Farhat further teaches wherein the first storage area (102) is rotatable (Figure 8) about the hinge (500), relative to the second storage area (104), from an open configuration (Figure 9) to a closed configuration (Figure 1). (Figs. 1-11; [0039], [0044], [0051]
Regarding Claim 17, Farhat further teaches in the open configuration (Figure 9), a first thickness (wherein the sleeping pad 900 has a thickness) of the first section (900) of the sleeping surface (901) and a second thickness (wherein the sleeping pad 902 has a thickness) of the second section (104) of the sleeping surface (901) are positioned side-by-side (as seen in Figure 9); and in the closed configuration (Figure 1), a first area (902) of the first section (900) of the sleeping surface (901) is positioned touching a second area (902) of the second section (902) of the sleeping surface (901). (Wherein it can be seen in Figure 8 that the sleeping surfaces 900 and 902 are at the edge of the housing 100). (Fig. 8; [0050])
Regarding Claim 18, Farhat further teaches wherein, the first storage area (102) is accessible via a first closable opening (114) in the first outer wall (located at 114) and the second storage area (104) is accessible via a second closable opening (114) in the second outer wall (wherein Farhat teaches “The second storage compartment 600 may be used to store articles, for example, clothes, books, etc. The second storage compartment 600 is separated from the first storage compartment”). (Figs. 1-6; [0047])
Regarding Claim 19, Farhat further teaches a first zipper mechanism (wherein Farhat teaches “The top cover 114 is attached to the second portion 104 via, for example, a Zipper”) that is configured to open and close the first closable opening (114); and a second zipper mechanism (wherein Farhat teaches “The top cover 114 is attached to the second portion 104 via, for example, a Zipper”) that is configured to open and close the second closable opening (114). (Figs. 6; [0041])
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 5, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farhat (US 20130256072 A1), in view of Pain et al. (US 20100108451 A1), further in view of Walker (US 5611414 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Farhat teaches a convertible suitcase bed system (100) comprising: a housing (100); a first compartment (102) within the housing (100); a second compartment (104) within the housing (100); and a sleeping surface (901) that has an expanded configuration (Fig. 1) and a collapsed configuration (Fig. 9), wherein, in the collapsed configuration (Fig. 9), the sleeping surface (901) is storable in a compartment (100). (Figs. 1-11; [0041], [0054])
Farhat doesn’t teach stowing the sleeping surface in a second compartment, or wherein an expanded thickness of the sleeping surface is at least approximately 2 inches.
Regarding the stowing the sleeping surface, Pain et el. further teaches a suitcase bed system (10) and stowing a sleeping surface (20) in a second compartment (12). (Fig. 3; [0033])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the suitcase bed as taught by Farhat, modified above, and provide for a sleeping surface stowed in a second compartment as taught by Pain et al.. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a sleeping surface to be stowed in a second compartment, in order to reserve space in the first compartment for storage.
Regarding the thickness of the pad, Walker further teaches sleeping pads of 2 inches (wherein Walker teaches “each cushion being 2 inches in thickness”). (Fig. 4b; Col. 6, Lines 33-38)
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the suitcase bed as taught by Farhat, modified above, and provide for a sleeping pad thickness of 2 inches as taught by Walker. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a sleeping pad thickness of two inches in order to provide sufficient cushioning for a user sleeping on the pad.
Regarding Claim 5, Farhat teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above;
Farhat further teaches wherein the sleeping surface (901) comprises a frame (106). (Figs. 1-11; [0051])
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farhat (US 20130256072 A1), in view of Pain et al. (US 20100108451 A1), further in view of Walker (US 5611414 A), and further in view of design choice.
Regarding Claim 2, Farhat teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above except; wherein the housing has a total width of 27 inches and a total depth of 14 inches.
Wherein Farhat teaches a housing (100) with a width and depth (Wherein Farhat teaches “The second portion 102 and first portion 104 may be of any height, length, and thickness that enable the suitcase bed 100 to be deployed and to support a person lying thereon.”) (Figs. 1-11; [0039])
Farhat remains silent regarding width and depth dimensions of the housing.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the suitcase bed as taught by Farhat, and by virtue of design choice provide for a housing width of 27 inches and a total depth of 14 inches. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a suitcase bed with a width dimension of 27 inches, in order for the user to comfortably sleep upon the bed. Additionally, one would have been motivated to provide for a depth of 14 inches, in order for the housing to stow the bed and provide for additional storage. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 6, Farhat teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 5 above except; wherein the frame comprises collapsible legs, that in the expanded configuration, position the sleeping surface about 6 inches above a floor supporting the collapsible legs.
Pain et al. further teaches a frame comprising collapsible (as seen between Figures 3 and 6) legs (4 and 5 in Annotated Figure 6 below), that in an expanded configuration (Figure 6) position the sleeping surface (20) above the floor supporting the collapsible legs (4 and 5 in Annotated Figure 6 below). (Figs. 3, 6; [0033]-[0034])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the suitcase bed as taught by Farhat, and provide for a sleeping surface with a frame having collapsible legs as taught by Pain et al. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated a sleeping surface with a frame having collapsible legs, in order to elevate the user of the ground when using the bed.
Regarding the distance above the floor, It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the suitcase bed as taught by Farhat, modified above, and by virtue of design choice provide for the frame to elevate the legs 6 inches above the floor. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a sleeping surface positioned 6 inches above the floor, in order for the user to comfortably sleep above the floor with an insulation gap. See MPEP 2144.05.
PNG
media_image4.png
472
707
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
28
26
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image6.png
25
24
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image7.png
21
163
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farhat (US 20130256072 A1), in view of Pain et al. (US 20100108451 A1), further in view of Walker (US 5611414 A), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Blauer (US 10820673 B1).
Regarding Claim 3, Farhat teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above except; wherein the housing is constructed from molded foam.
Blauer further teaches a housing (10) constructed from molded foam (Wherein Blauer teaches “The bag is composed of molded emulsified (foam) ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA)”). (Figs. 1-9; Col. 1, Lines 50-54)
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the suitcase bed as taught by Farhat, and provide for a housing constructed of molded foam as taught by Blauer. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a housing constructed of molded foam, in order to provide the housing with the abrasion resistance and cleaning facilitation provided by molded foam.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farhat (US 20130256072 A1), in view of Pain et al. (US 20100108451 A1), further in view of Walker (US 5611414 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carlin et al. (US 20140130252 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Farhat teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above except; wherein the sleeping surface is a sleeping pad comprising a self-inflating valve, and is inflatable to a thickness of at least 2 inches.
Wherein Farhat teaches a sleeping pad (901) that have a thickness. (Fig. 9; [0052])
Carlin et al. further teaches a self-inflating valve (32) for a mattress (10). (Wherein Carlin et al. teaches “the valve 32 may be designed for self-inflation.”) (Figs. 1-4; [0029]-[0031])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the suitcase bed as taught by Farhat, and provide for a sleeping pad with a self-inflating valve as taught by Carlin et al. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a sleeping pad with a self-inflating valve in order for the user to conveniently inflate the mattress.
Regarding the thickness of the pad.
Walker further teaches sleeping pads of 2 inches (wherein Walker teaches “each cushion being 2 inches in thickness”). (Fig. 4b; Col. 6, Lines 33-38)
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the suitcase bed as taught by Farhat, modified above, and provide for a sleeping pad thickness of 2 inches as taught by Walker. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a sleeping pad thickness of two inches in order to provide sufficient cushioning for a user sleeping on the pad.
Claims 8-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farhat (US 20130256072 A1), in view of McNichols (US 8016089 B1).
Regarding Claim 8, Farhat teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 7 above except; the first section is releasably affixed to the housing; and the second section is releasably affixed to the housing.
McNichols further teaches a first section (34) being releasably affixed (36) to a housing (10); and a second section (35) being releasably affixed to a housing (10). (Fig. 2; Col. 3, Lines 23-24)
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the suitcase bed as taught by Farhat, and provide for releasably fixed first and second sections as taught by McNichols. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for releasable first and second sections in order for the user to access the storage compartment beneath.
Regarding Claim 9, Farhat teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 7 above except; wherein the first section is releasably affixed to the housing by a zipper that allows the first section to be released from the housing and provide access to an interior of the first compartment.
McNichols further teaches wherein the first section (34) is releasably affixed to the housing (10) by a zipper (36) that allows the first section (34) to be released from the housing (10) and provide access to an interior (38) of the first compartment (20). (Figs. 2, 5; Col. 3, Lines 18-31)
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the suitcase bed as taught by Farhat, and provide for first section releasable by a zipper as taught by McNichols. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a zipper for a releasable first section, in order for the user to conveniently access the storage compartment beneath it.
Regarding Claim 10, Farhat teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 7 above except; wherein the second section is releasably affixed to the housing by a zipper that allows the second section to be released from the housing and provide access to an interior of the second compartment.
McNichols further teaches wherein the second section (35) is releasably affixed to the housing (10) by a zipper (36) that allows the second section (35) to be released from the housing (10) and provide access to an interior (38) of the second compartment (20). (Figs. 2, 5; Col. 3, Lines 18-31)
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the suitcase bed as taught by Farhat, and provide for second section releasable by a zipper as taught by McNichols. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a zipper for a releasable second section, in order for the user to conveniently access the storage compartment beneath it.
Regarding Claim 15, Farhat teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 7 above except; the first section is detachable from the first storage area; and the second section is detachable from the second storage area.
McNichols further teaches the first section (34) is detachable from the first storage area (20); and the second section (35) is detachable from the second storage area (38). (Wherein McNichols teaches “The cushioned first mat 34 removably covers the first section 20 cavity 38 via the mat zipper 36”) (Fig. 2; Col. 3, Lines 23-24)
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the suitcase bed as taught by Farhat, and provide for releasably fixed first and second sections as taught by McNichols. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for releasable first and second sections in order for the user to access the storage compartment beneath.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farhat (US 20130256072 A1), in view of design choice.
Regarding Claim 13, Farhat teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 7 above;
Farhat further teaches the first compartment (102) and second compartment (104) are rotatable (as seen in Figure 8) about the hinge (500) such that the first compartment (102) and the second compartment (104) may be positioned relative to each other to form an open configuration (Figure 9) of the housing (100) and housing dimensions (Wherein Farhat teaches “The second portion 102 and first portion 104 may be of any height, length, and thickness that enable the suitcase bed 100 to be deployed and to support a person lying thereon.”) (Figs. 1-11; [0039], [0041], [0054])
Farhat does not teach that in the open configuration, the housing has dimensions of 38 inches x 6 inches x 27 inches.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the suitcase bed as taught by Farhat, and by virtue of design choice provide for a housing with dimensions of 38 inches x 6 inches x 27 inches. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a suitcase bed housing dimensions of 38 inches x 6 inches x 27 inches, in order for the suitcase housing to adequately support the user when in use. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Kan (WO 2008092863 A2), teaches a collapsible bed structure.
Lee (US 6035467 A), teaches a compact folding bed.
Lee (US 7861338 B2), teaches a portable folding bed.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR E 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R CAUDILL whose telephone number is (303)297-4349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30 MT.
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, NATHAN JENNESS can be reached on (571) 270-5055. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUSTIN CAUDILL/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 4 June 2026
Prosecution Insights