DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 4/28/25. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1-10 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 § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
CONCLUSION.--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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “a right-side element having stamped holes and left-side element having stamped holes,” and also recites “stamped holes within the right-side element and left-side element.” It is unclear if these are additional, different stamped holes which are being positively recited, or if this claim term refers back to the originally recited “stamped holes within the right-side element and left-side element.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention. The claim recites “a strong connection,” however the scope of the term “strong” is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(b). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim recites the limitation "said flange side." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no prior recitation of “a flange side” either in this claim, or in prior claims from which this claim depends. Examiner notes that claim 1 recites “a side flange.” For purposes of examination, this has been interpreted as referring back to the previously recited “a side flange”. Appropriate correction is required.
In view of the above rejections the respective claims are rejected as best understood on prior art as follows:
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 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US Patent Application Publication 2024/0003371 to Lo in view of US Patent 3,869,738 to Lawrence.
Claim 1. A shippable mattress foundation, said shippable mattress comprising: a frame (Lo, Fig. 3) having a head element, a foot element, a center support (Lo, Fig. 3 discloses a head element a foot element and a center support), a right-side element having stamped holes, a rear horizontal support and a mounting plate (Lo does not provide details of a headboard mounting bracket, however Lawrence teaches such a bracket at #30 in Fig. 1; 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 bed of Lo with the bracket of Lawrence for the predictable purpose of being able to mount a headboard); said mounting plate is attached to said rear horizontal support via an outer third-edge slot (see slots #82, 84, and 86 in Lawrence Fig. 6) overlying threaded sockets, wherein bolts are screwed into said threaded sockets (Lawrence teaches holes 26 in the upper ends of the headboard panel 12 which receive fasteners 28; one of ordinary skill would realize that this implies the use of bolts or threaded fasteners; or alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use bolts on the bed frame of Lawrence since Lawrence teaches the use of bolts in column 1, line 9); cross slats couplable to the frame (Lo, Fig. 3, #47); wherein said cross slats are configured to be broken down into shippable parts (the bed of Lo is intended to be capable of assembly and disassembly); stamped holes within the right-side element and left-side element for receipt of the cross slats; an interlocking side flange (Applicant’s side flange is seen in Applicant’s Fig. 44 at #4311; Lo teaches an equivalent flange in Fig. 3 at #44); and an attachment clip (Lo, Fig 4) on the center support for adjoining the cross slats, wherein said attachment clip is removable- (attachment clip of Lo is removable, see Lo, Fig. 1 and paragraph [0031]).
Claim 2. The attachment clip of claim 1 wherein said attachment clip is configured to have a first receptacle and a second receptacle, wherein said first and second receptacle are configured to be on opposing sides, wherein said first and second receptacle are configured to receive said cross slats vertically (Lo Fig. 4 teaches an attachment clip that is substantially the same as Applicant’s claimed attachment clip).
Claim 3. The receptacles of claim 2 wherein said receptacles utilize at least two side walls (Lo, Fig. 4).
Claim 4. The receptacles of claim 2 wherein said receptacles utilize a floor (Lo, Fig. 4).
Claim 5. The receptacles of claim 4 wherein said receptacles hold said cross slat into position (Lo, Fig. 4).
Claim 9. The shippable mattress foundation of claim 1 wherein said attachment clip contains a bottom protrusion that fits within a top hole on said center support (Lo, Fig. 6, #50).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US Patent Application Publication 2024/0003371 to Lo and US Patent 3,869,738 to Lawrence, in view of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0099020 to Stewart.
Claim 6. The shippable mattress foundation of claim 1 wherein said frame is attached to vertical support legs providing at least 10 inches of clearance from ground level (Lo does not disclose the height of his bed legs, however, adjustable height bed legs are well known in the art as seen in Stewart Figs. 5A, 5B, and 5C, and discussed in paragraphs, [0037]-[0038]; 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 bed frame of Lo with the adjustable legs of Stewart for the predictable benefit of being able to set the bed at a user’s desired height to accommodate users of different sizes, or mattresses of different thicknesses, or to allow for varying amounts of storage space beneath the bed frame).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US Patent Application Publication 2024/0003371 to Lo and US Patent 3,869,738 to Lawrence, in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0238715 to Choi.
Claim 7. The shippable mattress foundation of claim 1 wherein said frame can support at least 2,500 lbs of a distributed load (Lo does not disclose preferred materials for his attachment clip, however Choi teaches the in paragraph [0026] that bed frames “can be made of various materials including, but not limited to, metals such as steel”; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use steel for the bed frame of Lo since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice; In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416; regarding Applicant’s claim of supporting “at least 2,500 lbs”, it is noted that Applicant’s disclosure also cites the use of metal, but does not describe any further detail; to the degree that Applicant’s bed frame, which is made of metal, can support 2,500 lbs, so too can the bed frame of Lo and/or Choi as it is also constructed of metal).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US Patent Application Publication 2024/0003371 to Lo and US Patent 3,869,738 to Lawrence, in view of US Patent 3,657,748 to Weinhart).
Claim 8. The shippable mattress foundation of claim 1 wherein said attachment clip is made of plastic (Lo does not disclose preferred materials for his attachment clip, however Weinhart teaches the use of plastic bed brackets in column 2, lines 10-15; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the attachment clip from plastic since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice; In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US Patent Application Publication 2024/0003371 to Lo and US Patent 3,869,738 to Lawrence, in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0208954 to Lee.
Claim 10. The side flange of claim 1 wherein said flange side is configured to interlock with a second element portion, wherein interlocking with said second element portion enables for a strong connection between bed frame elements (Lo, Fig. 3 discloses a side flange at #41, but does not provide additional details; Lee teaches a side flange in Fig. 5, which comprises a flange #42 and an interlocking wedge insert #50, which reads on Applicant’s “second element portion”; 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 the connection method of Lee Fig. 5 since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results).
Response to Applicant's remarks and amendments
Regarding prior objections to the drawings, Applicant has amended the drawings and/or the specification, and the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the prior objection to the title, Applicant has amended the title and the objection is withdrawn.
Regarding rejection under 35 USC §103, Applicant has amended claim 1 to include additional structures, and these amendments necessitated new rejections in view of Lo and Lawrence, as discussed above. It would have been obvious to combine the structures of Lo and Lawrence to yield the claimed invention since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results.
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