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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0329035 to Johnson et al. in view of U.S. Pat. No. 4,064,996 to Shillum.
Claim 1, Johnson et al. discloses a bed system comprising a plurality of bed platforms (640,641) capable of supporting a mattress; a vertically-oriented track system 102 secured to one or more walls in the recreational vehicle, the track system comprising a plurality of vertical tracks (630a-d) having a plurality of aligned openings; a plurality of brackets (1940,1941) having upper and lower extensions 1943 for hooking into any of the openings in the vertical tracks [0063]-[0065]; and a plurality of bed support channels 1962, each of the plurality of bed support channels being secured to a respective bracket from the plurality of brackets to support the plurality of bed platforms [0077][0078], wherein the plurality of bed platforms are capable of being repositioned or removed as desired [0010]-[0014]. Johnson is silent to the brackets having upper extensions and lower extensions. Shillum discloses a bracket having upper extensions defined by an upward projection 82 and lower extensions by downward projections 80 (fig. 3-4)(col. 3-4 line 43-68 & 1-31). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the upward and downward projections as disclosed in Shillum with the bracket of Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have resulted in a firmer engagement between the bracket and vertical tracks.
Claim 2, Johnson discloses the bed system wherein the bed platforms are vertically adjustable along the track system to accommodate different user requirements [0041].
Claim 3, Johnson discloses the bed system wherein the brackets are capable of being secured to the bed platforms to the track system at any of the aligned openings, allowing for easy repositioning or removal of the bed platforms [0065].
Claim 4, Johnson discloses the bed system wherein the bed platforms are configured to support a double bed configuration, offering further adaptability to the user's sleeping arrangement preferences (fig. 6).
Claim 5, With regards to the Applicant's recitation "when the mattress is removed, can function as a work surface, providing a more efficient use of space within the recreational vehicle", a recitation of the manipulations of recited steps in claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the recited steps, then it meets the claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on the manipulations of the recited steps. If the structural limitations in the present claim is the same as or obvious from structural limitations of Johnson, the claim is unpatentable even though Johnson recites a different process. Therefore, the claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
Claim 6, Johnson discloses the bed system wherein the track system, the brackets, the bed support channels, and the bed platforms are all securely fastened in place to provide stability to the bed platforms.
Claim 7, Johnson discloses the bed system wherein the bed support channels are capable of being pivotable with respect to the brackets, and the bed platforms are configured to be able to angle downwardly (fig. 4 &18-20).
Claim(s) 8-15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0329035 to Johnson et al. in view of U.S. Pat. No. 1,284,821 to Travis, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 3,337,879 to Humphrey.
Claim 8, Johnson discloses a bed system comprising a bed platform (640,641) secured using a track system, the track system comprising a plurality of vertical tracks (630a-d) having a plurality of aligned openings; a plurality of columns to which the bed platform is secured, a bracket (1940,1941) secured into vertically-aligned openings on each of the columns [0063]-[0065]; a bed support channel 1962 being secured to each of the brackets [0077][0078]; and wherein the bed platform is supported by the bed support channels and capable of being a work surface [0077][0078]. Johnson is silent to the columns having a lower end secured into a socket. Travis discloses a bed having a lower end secured into a socket 16 (col. 1 lines 41-49). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the socket disclosed in Travis with the columns of Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an alternative and equivalent means to secure the bed of Johnson. With regards to the columns being half-height selecting a height for a column is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a half-height for the columns of Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative height for the columns of Johnson. Johnson is silent to the platform having a flat upper surface. Humphrey discloses a platform 18 having a flat upper surface (fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the flat upper surface as disclosed in Humphrey with the platform of Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a convertible desk.
Claim 9, Johnson discloses the bed system wherein the bed platform is adjustable along the track system to accommodate different user requirements [0010]-[0014]. Claim 10, Johnson discloses the bed system wherein the columns are made from metal [0089].
Claim 11, Johnson discloses the bed system, further including a horizontal beam defined by mounting members (1940,1941) extending between the columns to provide additional support and stability (fig. 2).
Claim 12, Johnson discloses the bed system wherein the mounting members extending between the columns is removable to allow for reconfiguration of the system (fig. 2-6). Claim 13, Johnson discloses the bed system wherein the brackets are capable of being secured fasten to the bed platform to the track system at any of the aligned openings, allowing for easy repositioning or removal of the bed platform.
Claim 14, Johnson discloses the bed system wherein the bed platform is configured to support a double bed configuration, offering further adaptability to the user's sleeping arrangement preferences (fig. 6).
Claim 15, Johnson discloses a bed system for use in recreational vehicles, comprising: a bed platform (640,641) secured using a track system, the track system comprising a plurality of vertical tracks (630a-b) having a plurality of aligned openings; a vertically-oriented column (630c-d) having a plurality of aligned openings, the at least one column providing support to the bed system [0063]-[0065], a bracket (1940,1941) secured into vertically-aligned openings on each of the at least one column; a bed support channel 1962 being secured to each of the brackets; and wherein the bed platform and is supported by the bed support channels and capable of being a work surface. Johnson is silent to the column being supported at the ceiling and the floor of the vehicle; Travis discloses a bed having a column being supported at a ceiling and a floor of a vehicle (col. 1 lines 41-49). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the ceiling and floor support disclosed in Travis with the columns of Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an alternative and equivalent means to secure the bed of Johnson to the ceiling and floor or a vehicle.
Claim 19, Johnson discloses the bed system including at least one horizontal beam defined by mounting members (1940,1941) extending between the columns.
Claim 20, Johnson discloses the bed system wherein the columns, the brackets, the bed support channels, and the bed platform are all securely fastened in place to provide stability to the bed platform. Johnson is silent to the platform having a flat upper surface. Humphrey discloses a platform 18 having a flat upper surface (fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the flat upper surface as disclosed in Humphrey with the platform of Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a convertible desk.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0329035 to Johnson et al. in view of U.S. Pat. No. 1,284,821 to Travis, U.S. Pat. No. 3,337,879 to Humphrey, and further in view of WO 2004/026081 to Kordelin discloses adjustable columns.
Claim 16, Johnson discloses the bed system, but is silent to the columns being adjustable in height. Kordelin discloses a bed system with adjustable columns defined by load bearing ends (12,14)[Abstract]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the adjustable means disclosed in Kordelin with the columns of Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a means to vertically move either an upper or lower bed in relation to the columns of Johnson.
Claim 17, Johnson discloses the bed system wherein the columns of Kordelin include a separate upper section and a lower section (30a,30d), the upper section and the lower section being held together by a collar defined by a telescoping member (32b,c).
Claim 18, Johnson discloses the bed system wherein the lower section of the column is capable of utilizing the height of just the lower section.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 10,111,529 to Rockwell discloses a platform having a flat surface supporting a mattress.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,952,342 to Hart discloses multipurpose furniture having a platform having a flat surface.
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 FREDRICK C CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached on (571) 270-3654. 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.
/FREDRICK C CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights