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 Objections
Claims 8 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, line 2, “a end face” should read “an end face”
In claim 20, lines 2-3, “wherein in relation to the top or underside of the main frame protrusions are provided” should read “wherein, in relation to the top or underside of the main frame, protrusions are provided”.
In claim 20, lines 3-4, “and in relation to the underside or top of the main frame recesses are provided” should read “and, in relation to the underside or top of the main frame, recesses are provided”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
The term “near to” and “near” in claims 1 and 4, respectively is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near to” 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 as what is may be defined as sufficiently “near” would likely differ between different observers. Claims 2-20 are additionally rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear if the “rotatable bracing element” introduced in lines 1-2 is the same as the “rotatable bracing element” introduced in claim 1, from which claim 6 depends from. For examination purposes, it is assumed the rotatable bracing element of claim 6 is the same as the rotatable bracing element of claim 1.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “wherein the rotatable bracing element in the unfolded position of use is at least partially…accommodated in an internal space”, and the claim also recites “and preferably completely accommodated in an internal space” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation “the ground support elements are at least partially accommodated in the internal space”, and the claim also recites “preferably a folded position in which the ground support elements are wholly accommodated in the internal space” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 14-18 are additionally rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 13.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase "such as, for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bereman (U.S. Patent no. 2,888,688) in view of Lejcher (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0248836).
Regarding claim 1, Bereman teaches a mattress support (Figure 1), comprising: longitudinal beams 12, which extend next to and at a distance from each other; transverse beams 13 that are rigidly connected to the longitudinal beams 12 at or near to the ends of the longitudinal beams 12 (Figure 1), and which together with the longitudinal beams 12 form a main frame (Figure 1); a flexible surface material 54 elastically stretched between the longitudinal beams 12 and located at a level distance above a level of an underside of the longitudinal beams 12 (Figure 1 and Col. 3, lines 9-18).
Bereman does not disclose a rotatable bracing element located below the flexible support material, which is configured to hold the longitudinal beams apart at a constant transverse width, and rotatable coupling means provided at both ends of the rotatable bracing element, which connect the rotatable bracing element to the longitudinal beams, around an axis of rotation that is orthogonal to the longitudinal beams and parallel to the flexible support material; wherein the rotatable bracing element is provided with a plastic deformation extending in a direction perpendicular to the axis of rotation, and wherein the rotatable bracing element is pivotally mounted around the axis of rotation between: a first extended operational position in which the plastic deformation of the rotatable bracing element extends away from the flexible support material downwards under the level of the underside of the main frame to allow for elastic deformation of the flexible support material, and a second folded rest position in which the rotatable bracing element is completely above the level of the underside of the main frame.
Lejcher teaches a rotatable bracing element 20 located below the flexible support material 8 (Figures 7 and 10-14 and paragraphs 0039-0040), which is configured to hold the longitudinal beams 36 apart at a constant transverse width (Figures 7 and 10-14 and paragraphs 0039-0040), and rotatable coupling means 32 provided at both ends of the rotatable bracing element 20 (Figures 10-13 and paragraph 0043), which connect the rotatable bracing element 20 to the longitudinal beams 36 (Figures 10-13 and paragraph 0043), around an axis of rotation a-a that is orthogonal to the longitudinal beams 36 and parallel to the flexible support material 8 (Figures 9-13 and paragraph 0039-0040); wherein the rotatable bracing element 20 is provided with a plastic deformation 26 (Figure 9) extending in a direction perpendicular to the axis of rotation (Figure 9), and wherein the rotatable bracing element 20 is pivotally mounted around the axis of rotation a-a between (Figures 9-13 and paragraphs 0039-0040: a first extended operational position (shown in Figure 12) in which the plastic deformation 26 of the rotatable bracing element 20 extends away from the flexible support material 8 downwards under the level of the underside of the main frame 108, 106, 104, 102 to allow for elastic deformation of the upper support surface (Figures 7 and 10-14 and paragraphs 0039-0040), and a second folded rest position (shown by the leftmost bracing element in Figure 10) in which the rotatable bracing element 20 is completely above the level of the underside of the main frame (Figures 10-13 and paragraph 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Bereman (directed to a folding bed) with Lejcher (directed to a sofa) and arrived at a rotatable bracing element with a plastic deformation located below the flexible support material configured to hold the longitudinal beams apart at a constant transverse width, and rotatable coupling means which connect the rotatable bracing element to the longitudinal beams, wherein the rotatable bracing element is pivotally mounted around an axis of rotation between: a first extended operational position and a second folded rest position. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the seat stretcher of Lejcher helps to maintain the structural integrity of the frame while being able to be rotated out of the way for storage purposes (paragraphs 0002 and 0007-0009).
Regarding claim 2, Bereman, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Bereman, as modified, further discloses wherein the rotatable bracing element 20 extends between the longitudinal beams 36 over the transverse width (see Lejcher, Figures 10-13) wherein a central part of the plastic deformation 26 of the rotatable bracing element 20 forms an area which, in the unfolded position of use, is situated below the level of the underside of the main frame 4 (see Lejcher, Figures 12-14) and which, in the direction of extension relative to the axis of rotation a-a, is situated at a central internal distance (see Lejcher, Figure 9),
Bereman, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein a ratio ΔR/ΔY between the central internal distance and the transverse width satisfies 1/20 ≤ ΔR/ΔY ≤ 1/10.
It nevertheless would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified Bereman, as modified so a ratio ΔR/ΔY between the central internal distance and the transverse width satisfies 1/20 ≤ ΔR/ΔY ≤ 1/10. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would merely amount to a change in the relative dimensions of the base that would not produce unexpected results, as doing so would merely alter the depth of the plastic deformation and the width of the frame. Moreover, applicant has not disclosed that having this ratio of the plastic deformation to transverse width itself solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well where the ratio is above 1/10 or less than 1/20. Overall, applicant has not established any criticality of the claimed ratio, and thus selecting the claimed shape would be an obvious matter of design choice. In this regard, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) and MPEP 2144.04(A) are relevant.
Regarding claim 3, Bereman, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 2. Bereman, as modified, further discloses wherein the plastic deformation 26 of the rotatable bracing element 20 has a curved or kinked concave shape (see Lejcher, Figures 9-12), which is preferably mirror symmetric with respect to a plane orientated orthogonally to the axis of rotation a-a and located at the center of the rotatable bracing element 20 (see Lejcher, Figure 9).
Regarding claim 4, Bereman, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Bereman, as modified, further discloses wherein the rotatable bracing element 20 is bent away from the axis of rotation a-a near the ends 24 by a component along the deformation direction, and further towards a central part is bent back by an opposite component 28 along the deformation direction, so that a central portion of the rotatable bracing element lies parallel to the axis of rotation a-a (see Lejcher, Figure 9).
Regarding claim 9, Bereman, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Bereman, as modified, further discloses whereby the rotatable bracing element 20 has a maximum width orthogonal to the direction of plastic deformation 26 and orthogonal to the axis of rotation a-a, and the rotatable coupling means 32 has a width orthogonal to the direction of plastic deformation 26 and orthogonal to the axis of rotation a-a, whereby both the rotatable bracing element width and the rotatable coupling means width are smaller than the distance between the underside of the flexible support material 8 and the underside of the main frame (see Lejcher, Figures 9-13).
Regarding claim 10, Bereman, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Bereman, as modified, further discloses wherein the rotatable bracing element in the unfolded position of use is at least partially and preferably completely accommodated in an internal space determined between the underside of the flexible support material 8, the underside of the main frame 4 and the inward facing side surfaces of the longitudinal beams 36 (see Lejcher, Figures 9-13).
Regarding claim 11, Bereman, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Bereman, as modified, further discloses wherein the rotatable bracing element viewed perpendicularly to the axis of rotation a-a has a rotatable bracing element height (defined by the total height of the bracing element 20, from the end portions 24 to the plastic deformation portion 26, see Lejcher, 9) defined in a radial direction away from the axis of rotation a-a and has a rotatable bracing element width (defined by the width of the tube which forms the bracing element (see Lejcher, Figures 9-13) defined in a direction orthogonal to both the height and the axis of rotation, and wherein the height is greater than the width (see Lejcher, Figures 9-13).
Regarding claim 12, Bereman, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Bereman, as modified, further discloses whereby the axis of rotation a-a of the rotatable bracing element 20 intersects the longitudinal beams 36 at a position essentially midway between the underside of the longitudinal beams 36 and the underside of the flexible support material 8 (see Lejcher, Figures 13-14).
Regarding claim 13, Bereman, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Bereman, as modified, further discloses ground support elements 29 connected to the longitudinal beams 12, and provided with one or more ground support bodies 29 and movable between an operative ground support position (shown in Bereman, Figure 1), projecting downwards in relation to the main frame (see Bereman, Figure 1), and a folded position in which the ground support elements 29 are at least partially accommodated in the internal space defined between the underside (17) of the flexible support material 54, the underside of the main frame 12 and 13 and the inward facing side surfaces of the longitudinal members 12 (shown in Bereman, Figure 2), preferably a folded position in which the ground support elements are wholly accommodated in the internal space defined between the underside of the flexible support material 54, the level of the underside of the main frame 12 and 13 and the inward facing side surfaces of the longitudinal members 12 (see Bereman, Figure 2 and Col. 3, lines 19-35).
Regarding claim 14, Bereman, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 13. Bereman, as modified, further discloses wherein the ground support element 29 also comprises a ground support bracing element 39 (see Bereman, Figure 1 and Col. 2, line 49-Col. 3, line 8).
Regarding claim 15, Bereman, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 13. Bereman, as modified, further discloses wherein at least one ground support bracing element 39 is provided between a ground support body 29 of the ground support element 29 and a longitudinal beam 12, in which the ground support bracing element 39 and the longitudinal beam together 12 have a stop 52 for determining the extended position of the ground support body 29 (see Bereman, Figure 1 and Col. 2, line 49-Col. 3, line 8).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bereman in view of Lejcher and further in view of Guyvoronskiy (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0230620).
Regarding claim 5, Bereman, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Bereman, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the rotatable coupling means comprises an axial bearing, a thrust bearing, or a pivot bearing.
Guyvoronskiy teaches wherein the rotatable coupling 202 means comprises an axial bearing, a thrust bearing, or a pivot bearing (paragraph 0049 and Figure 4B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Bereman, as modified (directed to a folding bed) with Guyvoronskiy (directed to a folding wall bed) such that the rotatable coupling means comprises an axial bearing, a thrust bearing, or a pivot bearing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the rotatable coupling means of Guyvoronskiy locks the rotatable components of the bed in place with respect to on another (paragraph 0045) while also helping to reduce friction during rotation (paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 6, Bereman, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 5. Bereman, as modified, further discloses wherein a rotatable bracing element 20 is in the form of a shaped tube or rod defined capped by mutually parallel end faces 24 (defined by the end faces of 24 which face the coupling means 36, wherein the end faces are orthogonal to the axis of rotation a-a (see Lejcher, Figures 9-13) and wherein the axial bearing, thrust bearing or pivot bearing (see Guyvoronskiy, paragraph 0049) is incorporated between each end face of the rotatable bracing element 202 and the adjacent longitudinal beam 104 (see Guyvoronskiy, Figure 4B and paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 7, Bereman, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Bereman, as modified, does not explicitly disclose whereby the rotatable bracing element is equipped with blocking devices for blocking the rotatable bracing element in the extended use position and/or in the folded rest position.
Guyvoronskiy teaches whereby the rotatable bracing element 302 and 104 is equipped with blocking devices 304 and 306 for blocking the rotatable bracing element 302 and 104 in the extended use position and/or in the folded rest position (Figures 2-3 and paragraphs 0044-0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Bereman, as modified (directed to a folding bed) with Guyvoronskiy (directed to a folding wall bed) such that the rotatable bracing element is equipped with blocking devices for blocking the rotatable bracing element in the extended use position and/or in the folded rest position. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the rotatable coupling means of Guyvoronskiy locks the rotatable components of the bed in place with respect to on another in desired positions (paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 8, Bereman, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 5. Bereman, as modified, further discloses wherein one end of the rotatable bracing element 104 has an end face 302 and the corresponding longitudinal beam carries a counter surface 206, in which end face 302 and counter surface 206 interact as a sliding pivot bearing (see Guyvoronskiy, paragraphs 0044-0046 and Figure 4B), and in which end face 302 and counter surface 206 have recesses 206 or protrusions 304, respectively, which engage in a blocking manner in the folded rest position and/or in the folded use position of the rotatable bracing element 104 and 302 (see Guyvoronskiy, paragraphs 0044-0046 and Figure 4B).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bereman in view of Lejcher and further in view of Scott (U.S. Patent No. 1,724,852).
Regarding claim 16, Bereman, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1, 13, and 15. Bereman, as modified, does not disclose wherein the ground support bracing element is rotatably connected to the ground support body and slidably cooperates with a sliding track provided on the longitudinal beam.
Scott teaches wherein the ground support bracing element 25 is rotatably connected to the ground support body 29 and slidably cooperates with a sliding track 15 provided on the longitudinal beam 1 (Figure 1 and Page 1, lines 64-93).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Bereman, as modified (directed to a folding bed) with Scott (directed to a folding bed) such that the ground support bracing element is rotatably connected to the ground support body and slidably cooperates with a sliding track provided on the longitudinal beam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the sliding track and notch of Scott locks the brace against collapse (Figure 1 and Page 1, lines 64-93).
Regarding claim 17, Bereman, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 13. Bereman, as modified, does not disclose whereby the ground support elements are equipped with blocking devices for blocking the ground support bodies in their folded position.
Scott teaches whereby the ground support elements 29 and 25 are equipped with blocking devices 17 for blocking the ground support bodies 29 in their folded position (Figure 1 and Page 1, lines 64-93).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Bereman, as modified (directed to a folding bed) with Scott (directed to a folding bed) such that the ground support elements are equipped with blocking devices for blocking the ground support bodies in their folded position. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the sliding track and notch of Scott locks the brace against collapse (Figure 1 and Page 1, lines 64-93).
Regarding claim 18, Bereman, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Bereman, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein a ground support element and two slide block rails provided at its ends form a substructure that is attached to the longitudinal beams.
Scott wherein a ground support element 25 and 29 and two slide block rails 13 provided at its ends form a substructure that is attached to the longitudinal beams 1 (Figure 1 and Page 1, lines 64-93).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Bereman, as modified (directed to a folding bed) with Scott (directed to a folding bed) and arrived at a ground support element and two slide block rails provided at its ends form a substructure that is attached to the longitudinal beams. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the sliding track and notch of Scott locks the brace against collapse (Figure 1 and Page 1, lines 64-93).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bereman in view of Lejcher and further in view of Baker (U.S. Patent No. 2,127,710).
Regarding claim 19, Bereman, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Bereman, as modified, does not disclose wherein the flexible support material comprises an elastic material, such as, for example, a network of elastic yarns or interwoven helical springs, or a perforated breathable sheet of rubber with an inlay.
Baker teaches wherein the flexible support material comprises an elastic material, such as, for example, a network of elastic yarns or interwoven helical springs, or a perforated breathable sheet of rubber with an inlay (Figures 2-3 and Col. 2, lines 11-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Bereman, as modified (directed to a folding bed) with Baker (directed to a folding bed) such that the flexible support material comprises an elastic material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the rubber sheet of Baker conforms to the shape of the user while providing perforations in the sheet for ventilation (Col. 4, lines 1-37).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bereman in view of Lejcher and further in view of Elliot (U.S. Publication No. 2001/0013145).
Regarding claim 20, Bereman, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Bereman, as modified, does not disclose wherein, in relation to the top or underside of the main frame, protrusions are provided, and, in relation to the underside or top of the main frame, recesses are provided, where in the recesses are so arranged as to interlock with the protrusions of a second, identical, mattress support, if the second mattress support is stacked on top in the correct orientation, for the purpose of stabilizing stacked mattress supports
Elliot teaches wherein in relation to the top or underside of the main frame protrusions 235 are provided, and in relation to the underside or top of the main frame recesses 240 are provided, where in the recesses are so arranged as to interlock with the protrusions 235 of a second, identical, mattress support, if the second mattress support is stacked on top in the correct orientation, for the purpose of stabilizing stacked mattress supports (paragraph 0013 and Figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Bereman, as modified (directed to a folding bed) with Elliot (directed to a stacking bed) such that, in relation to the top or underside of the main frame, protrusions and recesses are provided for the purpose of stabilizing stacked mattress supports. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the protrusions and recesses of Elliot allow for the bed to be stacked with identical beds to save space when the bed is not being utilized (paragraph 0012).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saval (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0102651) which discloses rotatable bracing elements.
Griggs, JR. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0146382) which discloses rotatable bracing elements.
Griggs, JR. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0217784) which discloses rotatable bracing elements.
Hawkins (U.S. Patent No. 10,512,338) which discloses rotatable bracing elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISON N LABARGE whose telephone number is (571)272-6098. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:00.
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 at (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.
/ALISON N LABARGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679