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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-3 and 6-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/24/25.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (claims 4-5) and Species III as represented by Figure 8 in the reply filed on 11/24/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) as addressed below, none of which are found persuasive as described below. Applicant alleges that similar subject matter and potential classifications of Groups II and IV result in a lack of a serious search and/or examination burden. This is not persuasive because the correct classifications were listed in the original requirement. Further, even if applicant were correct in that the classifications could be the same, that alone is not determinative as to whether a serious search burden exists. A serious search burden exists for all of the other reasons set forth in the original requirement. For example, different search queries would be required and the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to the other. Applicant next asserts that Group II and Group IV relate to the same embodiment in the description, identifying figures 8 and 8A. The figures are plainly not directed toward a single embodiment, but rather two embodiments. The figures have different reference numerals and the description in the associated portions of the specification (e.g. paragraphs 0082 – 0095) make it clear that there are patentably distinct variations in the structure and/or arrangement of the elements of the apparatus in each of the figures. Additionally, the groups as claimed are properly separated as set forth in the restriction requirement. Even if they were directed toward the same single embodiment (which is not the case; note that applicants arguments appear to admit as much when they describe the figures later as “[encompassing] similar subject matter” – not the same subject matter), they would still be properly separable via restriction because of the claim language as set forth and described in the original restriction requirement. Regarding the species, applicant’s traversal is on the grounds that there is no serious search burden because the species encompass similar subject matter and that the search for species IV would necessarily include species III. This is not found persuasive for the reasons set forth above (which would apply equally here) and for the reasons set forth in the original requirement. There is no basis for the assertion that a search for species IV would necessarily include species III. See figures 8 and 8A and note that each species has mutually exclusive features in the arrangement and elements of the apparatus in each respective species. Each species would require different search queries in order to capture the features present in the species and the prior art of one would not likely be applicable to the other. If applicant believes that the species are obvious variants, applicant is free to say so on the record. None of applicants arguments were found to be persuasive for the reasons set forth above.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: all instances of “pully” should be corrected to –pulley--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. In line 1, “the firmness” should be –a firmness--.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. The recitations of “pully” should be replaced with –pulley--. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: actuator 800B is described as being in Figure 8, but does not appear in the figure - see paragraph 0086; reference numeral 520; and reference numeral 870b. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 4-5 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 4 recites the limitation "the rotation." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “semi-stiff” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the specification includes some examples of a semi-stiff plate, that is not a definition, nor is it a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of what comprises “semi-stiff” and what does not.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the rotation." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "at least one layers of the body support device.” It is unclear whether this requires a minimum of one layer or a minimum of two layers due to the plural recitation.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the other side.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the limitation improperly implies that there are only two sides present.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien (US Patent No. 4644593) in view of Tang (US PG Pub No. 20210275373) or Official Notice.
Re Claim 4
O’Brien discloses:
An adjusting device (see all figures) for adjusting the firmness or height or sag of a body support device (see all figures; see abstract), comprising:
a motor (16) configured to adjust the firmness or height or sag of the body support device (abstract, fig. 4, “Motive means in the form of motors 16 are operatively associated with relief pads 14 for periodically drawing the relief pads toward the bottom surface of the mattress, compressing portions of the mattress, to thereby provide pressure relief at the selected locations.”)
O’Brien does not explicitly disclose:
a reduction gear that adjusts the rotation by the motor.
O’Brien utilizes an arrangement with sprockets and motor rotation, but does not appear to explicitly disclose reduction gearing. Tang teaches the use of reduction gears with pulleys for adjusting rotation by a motor (0010; claim 5; figures 4-6) for the purpose of adjusting motor rotation, reducing motor speed, adjusting torque, improving the lifespan of the motor, preventing excessive heat generation, and/or improving motor efficiency. It would therefore have been obvious to modify O’Brien to incorporate a reduction gear as claimed that adjusts the rotation by the motor as taught by Tang for the purpose(s) articulated above.
Alternatively, or in addition to the above, examiner hereby takes official notice that it is old and well known in the beds art and/or in the general gear arrangement arts to utilize reduction gearing for the purpose of adjusting motor rotation, reducing motor speed, adjusting torque, improving the lifespan of the motor, preventing excessive heat generation, and/or improving motor efficiency. It would therefore have been obvious to modify O’Brien to incorporate a reduction gear as claimed that adjusts the rotation by the motor as taught by Tang for the purpose(s) articulated above.
Re Claim 5
O’Brien as modified above discloses:
further comprising:
a pully that is driven by the motor (claim 18; figs. 1-2, 4-5), and
a movable piece (14) that is semi-stiff and is driven by the motor via a string (see all figs and see below),
wherein the reduction gear is configured to adjust the rotation of the pully by the motor (see above modification which would result in this), and
wherein the motor, the pully, and the reduction gear are arranged at one side of at least one layers of the body support device (see modification above; see figs. 1-2, 4-5), while the movable piece is arranged on the other side of the at least one layers (see fig. 4, e.g. upper side), and
wherein the string passes through the at least one layers (fig. 4), and is attached to the movable piece (fig. 4) and is configured to be released from or wound on the pully in order to adjust the firmness or height or sag of the body support device (figs. 1-2, 4-5; see abstract; see claim 18).
Regarding the semi-stiff recitation, to the extent necessary it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have the moveable piece be semi-stiff, 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. Such a modification would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date for selection of a material which is not so stiff so as to impact comfort, but also not so soft as to impact performance (alternatively, this would be mere design choice or common sense to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date). Additionally, plastic was a commonly known and used material at the time.
Regarding the “string,” the reference uses a flexible chain which is analogous to the string and regardless comports with the generally understood definition of a string, e.g. a series of things arranged in or as if in a line or something which resembles a string.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional mechanisms in the beds art which include pulleys for adjusting height, sag, and/or thickness are provided as well as for generally adjusting location of various elements. Additional gearing mechanism references are provided.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SOSNOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7944. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM and 9 PM through 11:59 PM Monday through Friday, generally.
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.
/DAVID E. SOSNOWSKI/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673