DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a first end of each length adjustable strap may be threaded through the adjustment slot of a corresponding retaining bracket and folded back upon a second end of the length adjustable strap” (of claim 4) and "telescoping extenders" (of claim 11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. It has been considered that the spacers (152/154) do not appear to constitute a ‘telescoping’ extender, as a telescopic engagement slides or otherwise compresses and collapses as by some collision, however the spacers only appear to be leadscrews without any ‘collapsibility’ to them (sliding inside, translating two tubes together, etc.). Additionally, it is considered that the ‘first end’ of the adjustable strap has been shown attached to the adjustment slot, but there appears to be no ‘second end’ of the strap (which would appear to most likely be located at the adjustable head assembly.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because implying phrases (e.g. "disclosed"). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “second end” in claim 4 appears to be used by the claim to mean “surface,” while the accepted meaning is “terminal end, a distinguishing terminal segment that marks the end of a piece of material.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Particularly, the term “second end” is confusing as the term is attributed to “a strap” which is a length of material, an end is known to the art to be the terminal end signifying some termination of the material; a single strap can to examiner’s understanding only have two ends effectively unless further expounded upon, where the strap has already been claimed to provide “at least one length adjustable strap configured to facilitate a connection between the adjustable incline base and the mattress” (claim 2) and “the at least one length adjustable strap is configured to connect the fixed base to the foot assembly”, thereby establishing that the strap is connected between the head and the foot of the mattress, with respectively two ends determined thereat. It’s unclear given applicant’s disclosure and particularly the depictions how a strap (conceiving of two ends) has “a first end” connected to the foot assembly and “a second end” connected to the first end (effectively connected to itself somehow?) and how then a ‘first end’ is threaded through the adjustment slot (effectively stating the first end is most certainly disposed at the foot end, and is folded back what must effectively be itself as the depictions appear to show (FIGS. 1-2, 4-5, and 8).
The claim respectfully almost appears to be an amalgamation of embodiments not shown together; notably that the claim appears (by first and second end being engaged to each other) directed to a looped securing embodiment, but there is no depiction that illustrates the retaining bracket (further necessitating a horizontal and a vertical component, therefore not just a mere buckle but at a minimum an L-shaped bracket) used therewith; and further wherein the first end is both threaded and folded and secured to such end, with 15-19 not demonstrating such as the first end is connected to the bottom of the adjustable head assembly, and the second end is connected to the top/articulated part of the adjustable head assembly, not to each end nor a bracket; while FIGS. 1-2, 4-5, and 8 only show a strap(s) extending along the longitudinal direction but terminating a first end at the foot assembly and a second end at the head assembly. Furthermore the ‘ends’ are not labelled or identified in the disclosure as to their location making ascertaining where the ends are located on the strap difficult and examiner must respectfully default to a standard two-ended strap absent a showing of what is claimed subject matter; but under such understanding, connecting the first end to the foot assemblies adjustment bracket, threading therethrough, and somehow folding back upon a second end seems impossible to achieve in the disclosed and demonstrated configurations and the disclosure does not explain or clarify how such connection is achieved but only recites the claimed subject matter verbatim with no further expounding.
It is respectfully considered that indeed a first end is demonstrated/disclosed threading through the retaining bracket, but the term “second end” is likely “a second surface” or similar as the first end appears to be folded back upon itself in FIGS. 1-2, 4-5, and 8. For the purposes of examination, and to the best of examiner’s understanding in light of the disclosure (or lack thereof), the term “a second end” is construed as “a second surface” which is within the reasonable consideration of folding upon itself and securing to/about the first end.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 9, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grundler (U.S. Pat. No. 4104749).
Regarding claim 1, Grundler discloses (FIG. 1-5) an adjustable incline base for a mattress (58; FIG. 1) having a head end (About assembly 7; FIG. 1) and a foot end (about/near 47; FIG. 1), comprising: an adjustable head assembly (correspondent 7 and 16 and 2/3; FIG. 1) comprising a fixed base (2/3; FIG. 1) and an incline platform (correspondent 8/13/14) pivotably connected with the fixed base (As illustrated in FIGS. 1 and conveyed with connections of FIG. 3) and wherein the adjustable head assembly may be positioned under the head end of the mattress (as demonstrated in FIG. 1); an incline adjustment mechanism (correspondent the drives16 of FIG. 1 and better demonstrated of in FIGS. 2-5) connected with the fixed base and incline platform (As illustrated in FIG. 1) and configured to support the incline platform at a desired angle relative to the fixed base (as illustrated in FIG. 1); and at least one length adjustable strap (52/53; FIG. 1) configured to facilitate a connection between the adjustable incline base and the mattress (as illustrated in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Grundler discloses (FIG. 1) the adjustable incline base as set forth in claim 1, further comprising: a foot assembly (correspondent 47/48/49; FIG. 1) comprising at least one retaining bracket (as illustrated in FIG. 1) with a horizontal component (correspondent elements of 48/49 as illustrated in FIG. 1) and a vertical component (correspondent either 47 or vertical portions of 48/49 as illustrated in FIG. 1) and wherein the horizontal component may be positioned under the foot end of the mattress (as illustrated in FIG. 1) while the vertical component engages a vertical wall of the foot end of the mattress (at least 47 directly engages a vertical wall of the mattress as illustrated in FIG. 1); and wherein the at least one length adjustable strap is configured to connect the fixed base to the foot assembly (as illustrated in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Grundler discloses (FIG. 1) the adjustable incline base as set forth in claim 1, wherein the incline platform further comprises a frame (10-12, as illustrated in FIG. 1) and at least one lateral extension laterally movable relative to the frame (at least 4/5 and 17-20).
Regarding claim 6, Grundler discloses (FIG. 1) the adjustable incline base as set forth in claim 1, wherein the at least one length adjustable strap comprises length indicators ( with buckle slot lengths as illustrated in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Grundler discloses (FIG. 1) the adjustable incline base as set forth in claim 2, further comprising at least a second retainer bracket (concerning the second of 48/49; FIG. 1) and a retainer bar (at least horizontal member of 47; FIG. 1) connected with each of the retaining brackets (as illustrated in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Grundler discloses (FIG. 1) the adjustable incline base as set forth in claim 1, further comprising at least one adjustable spacer (buckle 54; as illustrated in FIG. 1) connected with the fixed base (indirectly through the connections of 14/16 to 2/3; as illustrated in FIG. 1) and adjustable in length (as illustrated in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Grundler discloses (FIG. 1) the adjustable incline base as set forth in claim 2, wherein the at least one length adjustable strap comprises at least one telescoping extender (the straps indirectly comprising telescoping extenders 17-20 through the framework the assembly is integral therewith as illustrated in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Grundler discloses (FIG. 1) the adjustable incline base as set forth in claim 1, wherein the fixed base further comprises at least one adjustable strap configured to wrap around an adjacent portion of a support base (46; FIG. 1) underlying the mattress to secure to the fixed base to the support base (with the straps 52/53 comprising the brackets 48-51 eminently wrapping around the box spring 46 as illustrated in FIG. 1).
Claim(s) 1, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fletcher (British Pat. No. GB2287401A).
Regarding claim 1, Fletcher discloses (FIG. 1-8) an adjustable incline base for a mattress (at least 43; As illustrated in FIGS. 1-8) having a head end (correspondent the adjustable head assembly illustrated in FIG. 2 and conveyed in FIGS. 1 and 4) and a foot end (correspondent the opposite end of 11), comprising: an adjustable head assembly (as eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 2 and 5) comprising a fixed base (23; FIG. 2) and an incline platform (22) pivotably connected with the fixed base (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-2) and wherein the adjustable head assembly may be positioned under the head end of the mattress (as conveyed through FIGS. 3); an incline adjustment mechanism (24/40; FIG. 3) connected with the fixed base (indirectly through connections 41; FIG. 3) and incline platform (also connected but directly through 41; FIG. 3) and configured to support the incline platform at a desired angle relative to the fixed base (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-5); and at least one length adjustable strap (27; FIGS. 2 and 3) configured to facilitate a connection between the adjustable incline base and the mattress (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-5).
Regarding claim 15, Fletcher discloses (FIG. 1-8) the adjustable incline base as set forth in claim 1, wherein the fixed base further comprises at least one mounting hole (55/56; FIG. 5) therein configured to accept a fastener for connection with an adjacent portion of a support base underlying the mattress (as eminently illustrated in FIGS. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Fletcher discloses (FIG. 1-8) the adjustable incline base as set forth in claim 1, wherein overall dimensions of the adjustable incline base fit within a shipping box having a combined length and girth no more than 165 inches. Where consideration is taken that a reasonable degree of scale is provided as Fletcher discloses “The overlay may be washable and much lighter and thinner, e.g. about 5cm thick, than a usual bed mattress (commonly 15 to 20cm thick)” [5:14-18], with the overlay referring to 43 of FIG. 2, and mirrors the length and width dimensions of the mattress underneath, and expresses the mattress is 15-20 cm (about 6-8 inches in height) and the overlay is about 5cm (about 2 inches). It has been previously held that the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2125 is relevant). The assembly when fully decompressed is eminently smaller in height than the overlay (43). It can reasonably be considered by the information disclosed and illustrated, the adjustable head support is effectively dimensionally enveloped by the overlay, and is eminently smaller than in all dimensions. It is further considered that the adjustable head support is of a “backrest” (abstract) and would concern half of the user’s body length in horizontal repose as a bedding device, therefore halving the length dimension of the known bedding type (at most 40 inches for a king bed, and 42 inches for a Californian king bed, the largest usual beds). Therefore the remaining dimensions that concern “a usual bed mattress” consists of those dimensions to known common bedding, up to and including the king/Californian king bed; possessing a dimension of 80 x 76 inches and 84 x 72 inches respectively. It should be understood the ‘work envelope’ that defines and that can surround the entirety of the head assembly is demonstrably within the dimensional constraints of the defined overlay (43) With consideration that the height of the packaging can be within 2 inches in light of the disclosed scale of the overlay (43) with the portrayed adjustable head assembly being less than and able to fold into itself in light of its concentric form (as conveyed in FIGS. 2-3), the estimation of the girth with applicant’s own formula given ([0056]: 2(a+b)+c; where a and b are the two shortest dimensions, and c is the longest dimension), the largest ‘girth+length’ including up to king/Californian king would be 160 inches; (e.g. 2(40+2)+76 and 2(42+2)+72). Therefore, given the reasonable specificity of the disclosure and the figures eminently portraying a head adjustment assembly able to collapse to a height smaller than the overlay, even while fully assembled, can respectfully be fit within a 2x40x76 or a 2x42x72 inch box, for the largest usual bedding available on the market. It is therefore considered Fletcher reasonably provides and anticipates by its disclosure and that of all usual beddings (even up to the largest usual/common bed of a king/Californian king) is still within the claimed girth constraints of applicant’s invention.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grundler in view of itself and Stern (U.S. Pat. No. 11576498), with Stern used as a teaching reference.
Regarding claim 4, Grundler discloses (FIG. 1) the adjustable incline base as set forth in claim 2, wherein the at least one length adjustable strap is connected with the adjustable head assembly and wherein a first end of each length adjustable strap may be threaded through the adjustment slot of a corresponding retaining bracket and folded back upon a second end of the length adjustable strap to adjust the length adjustable strap to a desired length and set the foot assembly at a desired distance from the adjustable head assembly.
However, while Grundler does demonstrate it’s buckle near the brackets (at least 50/51; FIG. 1) and such buckle provides for at least one adjustment slot that a strap is appearing to be threading and folded back over to adjust the length, Grundler does not explicitly disclose wherein the horizontal component of the retaining bracket comprises at least one adjustment slot and wherein a first end of each length adjustable strap may be threaded through the adjustment slot of a corresponding retaining bracket and folded back upon a second end of the length adjustable strap to adjust the length adjustable strap to a desired length and set the foot assembly at a desired distance from the adjustable head assembly.
Regardless, Grundler discloses the claimed invention except for the bracket comprising the at least one adjustment slot that engages with the strap (and engaging by threading and folded back upon a second surface of the length adjustable strap). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have rearranged the buckle and the adjustment slots thereof to the retaining bracket, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Where there is a lack of criticality as to the particular location of the adjustment point as applicant only states plainly “at least one extendable connection device connected at a first end with the adjustable head assembly and at a second end with the foot assembly” [007] and “a second end of each length adjustment strap may be threaded through the adjustment slot of a corresponding retaining bracket and folded back upon the length adjustment strap to adjust the length adjustment strap to a desired length and set the foot assembly at a desired distance from the adjustable head assembly” [009] that does not respectfully specify any criticality as to the location of the adjustment slots. Where the results would have been predictable as Stern demonstrates both a buckle (24) And a bracketed assembly (12/12A; FIGS. 4-5). Where it is considered it would be advantageous to rearrange the adjustment slots correspondent the buckle to the retaining brackets directly as doing so would reduce the amount of material needed to be cast/used, reduce the number of parts making shipping and assembly more simple and less prone to loss or misplacement of parts, and reduce a weight of the total assembly.
Regarding claim 8, Grundler in view of itself and Stern discloses (FIG. 1) the adjustable incline base as set forth in claim 4, wherein each retaining bracket comprises a plurality of adjustment slots (as illustrated in FIG. 1 of Grundler and correspondent to FIGS. 4-5 of Stern).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grundler in view of Stern (U.S. Pat. No. 11576498).
Regarding claim 5, Grundler discloses (FIG. 1) the adjustable incline base as set forth in claim 1.
However, Grundler does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one length adjustable strap comprises a hook and loop fabric on at least one side.
Regardless, Stern teaches a bed retention assembly (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-5) that uses both a buckle bracket end securing assembly (FIG. 4-5) and furthermore wherein the at least one length adjustable strap comprises a hook and loop fabric on at least one side (As illustrated between FIGS. 4-5 and clarifying in [8:55-58] that hook and loop fasteners are known equivalents to securement of the bracket).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the hook and loop fasteners of Stern (as explained in [8:55-58] into the fasteners of Grundler (as illustrated in FIG. 1). Where the results would have been predictable as both Stern and Grundler are concerned with bedding securing arrangements (eminently demonstrated in FIG. 1 of Grundler and clarified in the Abstract of Stern: e.g. “movement of the mattress is prevented”). And where Stern considers the use of brackets and hook and loop fasteners equivalent and usable therewith with buckles (Stern: FIGS. 4 and 5; clarified explicitly in [8:55-58]: “Alternative bracket attachment means include nails, hook and loop fasteners… and the other functionally comparable or equivalent structure”); whereby Stern is providing hook and loop fastener connection as a direct equivalent to a buckle (FIG. 4-5).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grundler in view of Jeffries et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6877175); hereafter “Jeffries”.
Regarding claim 10, Grundler discloses (FIG. 1) the adjustable incline base as set forth in claim 1.
However, Grundler does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one length adjustable strap comprises an elastic material.
Regardless, Jeffries teaches (FIG. 7) a securing strap for securing bedding to a bedframe (as illustrated in 7) wherein the at least one length adjustable strap comprises an elastic material (32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the elastic material of Jeffries (32; FIG. 7) into the straps of Grundler (52/53; FIG. 1). Where the results would have been predictable as both Jeffries and Grundler are concerned with securing bedding assemblies. Where Jeffries advantageously acknowledges “an elastic portion 32. This embodiment is useful in allowing one length elongated member serve different length beds. While elongated member 22 will stretch, it still serves to hold the bed” [5:51-59], and would therefore improve the variety of beds the invention of Grundler could be used upon further.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grundler in view of Nack (U.S. Pat. No. 3242506).
Regarding claim 12, Grundler discloses (FIG. 1) the adjustable incline base as set forth in claim 1.
However, Grundler does not explicitly disclose wherein the length adjustable strap is configured to wrap around a width of the mattress.
Regardless, Nack teaches (FIG. 1-4) a mattress (as illustrated in FIG. 1-4), with a length adjustable strap (as illustrated in FIG. 4) wherein the length adjustable strap is configured to wrap around a width of the mattress (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the width straps of Nack into the upper frame of Grundler (FIG. 1). Where the results would have been predictable as both Nack and Grundler are concerned with bedding/mattress accessory assemblies. And where advantageously, it is considered by examiner that in operation, the use of laterally oriented straps around the mattress would mitigate lateral sliding of the mattress thereon, improving the handling and security of the mattress on Grundler and reducing the amount/frequency of efforts to realign the otherwise free mattress atop Grundler.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grundler in view of Coil (U.S. Pat. No. 1384600).
Regarding claim 13, Grundler discloses (FIG. 1) the adjustable incline base as set forth in claim 1.
However, Grundler does not explicitly disclose wherein the length adjustable strap is configured to wrap around a length of the mattress
Regardless, Coil teaches (FIG. 1-2) a mattress (3; FIG. 1-2) with a length adjustable strap (4/5; FIGS. 1-2), wherein the length adjustable strap is configured to wrap around a length of the mattress (As illustrated in FIG. 1-2 and clarified in [1:40-50] and [1: 58-63]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the longitudinal straps of Coil into the upper frame of Grundler (FIG. 1). Where the results would have been predictable as both Coil and Grundler are concerned with head articulating bedding/mattress accessory assemblies. And where advantageously, Coil expresses “it will be seen that the straps at the head of the bed underlie the mattress and that their hooks engage the cross rail 6 of the head and back rest, so that when the latter is raised it will be impossible for the mattress to slip down the incline thus formed.” [1: 58-63] and “a series of straps 4, which are preferably so stitched that… the greater portion of their length are stitched to the mattress cover so as to relieve the mattress of strain by distributing the same over a large portion of the mattress cover” [1: 40-50]. Whereby the incorporation thereof would improve both the securement of the mattress head to prevent slippage and provide strain distribution to reduce bunching up the mattress surface/cover and reduce forces throughout that would reduce fatigue and extend the fatigue life of the mattress covers in Grundler.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 17, Fletcher discloses (FIG. 1) the adjustable incline base as set forth in claim16, wherein a combined weight of the adjustable incline base and the shipping box is {an arbitrary weight}.
However, Fletcher does not explicitly disclose wherein the weight of the incline base and the shipping box is no more than 150 lbs.
Regardless, Official Notice is taken of the fact Fletchers kit of parts comprises a body that is firstly within an envelope of approximately 8 inches by 75 by 42 inches (taking the largest possible size pertinent commercial bedding), and where it is considered the parts and constructed body of Fletcher are of a size at least half that of the bed frame. Official Notice is taken of the fact a full metallic bed assembly can be within 40-80, while even a metallic frame of half that relative size (taking consideration to Fletcher’s FIG. 2 would be of a backrest; considered to comprise approximately half the human body and therefore half of a bedframe when in a state of horizontal repose) would be half of that marginally small weight by a considerable margin. Although Fletcher does not state the material the frames are made of it is further considered even a construction made of cesium (the heaviest stable element with known commercial uses that can by shaped to a form analogous to Fletcher) made comparably of 4 rods of 4 feet at 1 inch diameter, 4 rods of 7 feet at 1 inch diameter each, and a cardboard box of 7 feet by 4 ft by 0.33 feet would (with such dimensions considered the largest to accommodate half a California King mattress) arrive at a rough estimated weight of 33.22 pounds only. The lifting mechanism 40 is an air bladder and of marginal weight, and the glass fibre reinforced plastics (37), the sheet of 34, and the tubing (42) are all of considerably less and marginal weight. It is therefore considered that under eminently known materials that can be formed into the constructions of Fletcher the weight must reasonably be less than 150 pounds, both because of physical limitations of known materials, and consideration that if a fully metallic California king bedframe can ship with weight below 40-50 pounds (demonstrably less than 150 pounds), a metallic construction expectably half that with a structure at most half the size of the frame as Fletcher demonstrates (FIGS. 1-5) would be half the weight and well below 150 pounds.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references cited on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) were considered pertinent because they address the state of the art concerning articulated bedding, additive/retrofit bedding assemblies, lateral extension devices therefor, and securement devices of bedding assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673