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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 16-31 have been examined in this application. Claims 1-15 were previously canceled. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to Applicant’s “Amendments/Remarks” filed 01/12/2026.
Claim Objections
The claim objections made in the Non-Final Rejection on 11/05/2025 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims filed on 01/12/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 112(b) claim rejections made in the Non-Final Rejection on 11/05/2025 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims filed on 01/12/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 16-19, 24-25, and 27-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al., hereinafter 'Ma' (CN 106037347 A).
In regards to Claim 16, Ma teaches: A supporting device ([4, 5] - Fig. 1) for a foldable bed frame ([1, 2] - Fig. 1), comprising: an upper support member ([41a, 51a] - Fig. 1); a hinge at an upper end of the upper support member (3 - Fig. 1, shown in Fig. 1 to be at an upper end of the upper support member 41a and 51a, further noting Examiner’s annotated Fig. 1.1 from Ma and expanded view of annotated Fig. 4.2 from Ma); a movable support member vertically movable on the upper support member ([41b, 51b] - Fig. 1, see transition from Fig. 3 to Fig. 4 showing movement); a bracket on the movable support member (10 - Fig. 1, indirectly on the movable support member); and first and second diagonal pull rods (6 and 7 - Figs. 3 and 4, notable Fig. 3 showing pulling direction via arrow), a first end of each pull rod pivotally attached to the bracket (see annotated Fig. 4.1 from Ma).
PNG
media_image1.png
583
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4.1 from Ma
PNG
media_image2.png
631
913
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.1 from Ma
PNG
media_image3.png
390
569
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Expanded View of Fig. 4.2 from Ma
In regards to Claim 17, Ma teaches: The supporting device of claim 16 wherein the hinge is configured to pivotally attach first and second upper bed frames to the upper support member (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Ma).
In regards to Claim 18, Ma teaches: The supporting device of claim 17 wherein a second end of the first diagonal pull rod and of the second diagonal pull rod is pivotally attached to the first upper bed frame and to the second bed upper bed frame (as shown in annotated Fig. 1.1 from Ma, the first diagonal pull rod and the second diagonal pull rod are each pivotally attached to the first upper bed frame and second upper bed frame independent and indirectly connected to each other), respectively.
In regards to Claim 19, Ma teaches: The supporting device of claim 18 wherein a bottom end of the movable support member is configured to extend and contact a ground surface as the supporting device is moved into a folded position (see annotated Fig. 6.1 from Ma).
PNG
media_image4.png
366
575
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6.1 from Ma
In regards to Claim 24, Ma teaches: The supporting device of claim 16 wherein the movable support member is telescopically attached to the upper support member ("wherein post 41 comprises a left support rod 41a, which can rotate relative to the left upper support rod 41a left sliding telescopic support rod 41b" and "wherein the right supporting rod 51 comprises a right support rod 51a, which can rotate relative to the right upper supporting rod and right 51a sliding telescopic lower supporting rod 51b")
In regards to Claim 25, Ma teaches: The supporting device of claim 16 wherein each diagonal pull rod has an adjustable length (Fig. 3 shows the expanded configuration with longest length, whereas, Fig. 4 shows the folded configuration with a condensed length).
In regards to Claim 27, Ma teaches: A folding bed frame ([1, 2] - Fig. 1), comprising: an upper support member ([41a, 51a] - Fig. 1); a hinge at an upper end of the upper support member (3 - Fig. 1, shown in Fig. 1 to be at an upper end of the upper support member 41a and 51a, further noting Examiner’s annotated Fig. 1.1 from Ma and expanded view of annotated Fig. 4.2 from Ma); first and second upper bed frames pivotally attached to the upper support member via the hinge (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Ma); a movable support member vertically movable on the upper support member ([41b, 51b] - Fig. 1, see transition from Fig. 3 to Fig. 4 showing movement); a bracket on the movable support member (10 - Fig. 1, indirectly on the movable support member); and first and second diagonal pull rods (6 and 7 - Figs. 3 and 4, notable Fig. 3 showing pulling direction via arrow), a first end of each pull rod pivotally attached to the bracket (see annotated Fig. 4.1 from Ma).
In regards to Claim 28, Ma teaches: The folding bed frame of claim 27 further including connectors on side edges of the first and second upper bed frames ([8, 9] - Fig. 1), the connectors configured to attach a plurality of the folding bed frames together (8 and 9 shown to be integral connections / connectors configurated to attach a plurality of bed frame elements together).
In regards to Claim 29, Ma teaches: The bed frame of claim 28 wherein one or more of the connectors has an extended position (Fig. 1 shows extended position) where the connector protrudes from a side edge of the first and/or second upper bed frame (the connectors 8 and 9 are shown to extend from a bottom side edge of the first and second upper bed frame), and a retracted position where the connector does not protrude from the side edge (Fig. 4 shows a retracted position where the connectors 8 and 9 are tucked into closely located to the bottom side edge and are unable to protrude).
In regards to Claim 30, Ma teaches: The bed frame of claim 28 wherein the connector comprises a first structure (8) and a second structure (9) that are different (i.e. on opposite ends and partially angled in different directions best shown in Fig. 4 during folded configuration) and are configured to cooperate with each other (are configured to indirectly cooperate with each other due to element '3'), wherein the first structure and the second structure are respectively located on side edges of two opposite sides of the first upper bed frame and the second upper bed frame (first structure '8' is located on a bottom side edge of the left side shown in Fig. 3 | second structure '9' is located on a bottom side edge of the right side shown in Fig. 3).
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) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Ma' (CN 106037347 A) in view of Zhang, Biao-feng (CN 203987064 U).
In regards to Claim 21, Ma teaches: The supporting device of claim 16, wherein an edge side rod of each of the first and second upper bed frames ([8, 9] - Fig. 1), but Ma does not explicitly teach, is attached to the hinge by an engagement post or slot.
Zhang, Biao-feng teaches: is attached to the hinge by an engagement post or slot (7 - Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ma (CN 106037347 A), which is directed to a supporting device for an upper bed frame structure, by attaching the edge side rod of each of the first and second upper bed frames to the hinge via an engagement post or slot, as taught in Zhang, Biao-feng (CN 203987064 U), which is directed to a foldable bed hinge structure. Since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the modification or addition would have yielded the predictable result of securely connecting the bed frame rods to the hinge structure to improve stability and folding functionality.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Ma' (CN 106037347 A) in view of Zhang, Xing-rong (CN 203693019 U).
In regards to Claim 22, Ma teaches: The supporting device of claim 16, but Ma does not explicitly teach, wherein the hinge includes a first portion and a second portion shaped by bending a plate to form a hinge plate portion, an engagement plate post or an engagement plate slot.
Zhang, Xing-rong teaches: wherein the hinge includes a first portion (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Zhang, Xing-rong) and a second portion (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Zhang, Xing-rong) shaped by bending a plate to form a hinge plate portion (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Zhang, Xing-rong), an engagement plate post (17) or an engagement plate slot (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Zhang, Xing-rong).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ma (CN 106037347 A), which is directed to a supporting device for a folding bed frame, by providing the hinge with a first portion and a second portion shaped by bending a plate to form a hinge plate portion having an engagement plate post or slot, as taught in Zhang, Xing-rong (CN 203693019 U), which is directed to a hinge assembly formed by bent plates for connecting folding structures. Since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the modification or addition would have yielded the predictable result of forming a durable and manufacturable hinge structure capable of smooth pivoting and reliable engagement between components.
PNG
media_image5.png
487
553
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.1 from Zhang, Xing-rong
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Ma' (CN 106037347 A) in view of Liu (CN 206534385 U).
In regards to Claim 23, Ma teaches: The supporting device of claim 16, but Ma does not explicitly teach, wherein the hinge comprises a mounting plate having opposite ends providing first and second hinge portions.
Liu teaches: comprises a mounting plate ('A' - Fig. 4) having opposite ends providing first and second hinge portions (13 and 23 - Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ma (CN 106037347 A), which is directed to a supporting device for a bed frame, by configuring the hinge to comprise a mounting plate having opposite ends providing first and second hinge portions, as taught in Liu (CN 206534385 U), which is directed to a hinge mechanism incorporating a mounting plate for connecting movable components. Since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the modification or addition would have yielded the predictable result of enhancing the hinge’s structural support and enabling reliable connection between the two hinge portions for improved folding performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 20, 26 and 31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to Claim 20, the prior art of Ma (CN 106037347 A) teaches: The supporting device of claim 19 further including a rod hinge on the upper support member, however due to the configuration and disclosure of Ma it is not disclose, taught or suggested that both a first lower rod pivotally attached to the rod hinge and to a first ground support brace, and a second lower rod pivotally attached to the rod hinge and to a second ground support brace. This feature produces an enhanced alignment and load-bearing effect not achieved in the known designs. The combination of elements in Claim 20 results in a structurally distinct supporting device that provides improved stability, ease of folding, and simplified assembly. The cited art lacks any motivation or teaching that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the existing structures in Ma to achieve the same mechanical relationship or functional outcome. Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole is considered non-obvious, as it yields a new and useful configuration not rendered predictable by the prior art.
In regards to Claim 31, the prior art of Ma (CN 106037347 A) teaches: The bed frame of claim 30, however, does not further teach, suggest or indicate through the prior arts disclosure the following: wherein the first structure comprises a hitching post having a stop head, and the second structure comprises a hitching sheet that comprises a raised sheet portion forming a receiving space and having an entrance port, wherein the hitching post is configured to enter the entrance port such that the stop head is located in the receiving space and stopped on an inner surface of the raised sheet portion. While Ma and related references generally teach hinged frame supports, they do not describe a configuration in which the mounting plate and hinge portions operate together to maintain alignment and distribute mechanical loads in the manner claimed. The claimed structure provides functional and structural advantages, including enhanced hinge stability, consistent planar movement, and improved resistance to wear during repeated operation. The prior art of record lacks any teaching or rationale that would make such a combination obvious to one skilled in the art. Accordingly, Claim 31 defines a non-obvious improvement over the known hinge devices and is therefore considered allowable under 35 USC 102 and 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
Argument #1 (Page 8/10 of Applicant’s Response): The Applicant states the following – “The rejection of claim 16 over D1 Ma equates the locking member 10 in D1 Ma to the bracket in claim 16: equates the left lower surrounding frame 6 and the right lower surrounding frame 7 in D1 to the first and second diagonal pull rods in claim 16; and considers that the locking member 10 to be indirectly provided on the left lower supporting sections 41 b and the right lower supporting sections 51 b, and one end of the left lower surrounding frame 6 and the right lower surrounding frame 7 connected to the locking member 10.”
Argument #2 (Page 8/10 of Applicant’s Response): The Applicant states the following – “Referring to the partial enlarged view of Fig. 1 shown above, paragraph [0025] of D1 Ma explicitly discloses that the left lower surrounding rod 61 is pivotally connected to the lower portion of the left upper supporting sections 41 a, e.g. through a connecting member shown by blue, and similarly, the right lower surrounding rod 71 is pivotally connected to the lower portion of the right upper support section 51 a. That is to say, the left lower surrounding frame 6 and the right lower surrounding frame 7 are only connected to the left upper supporting section 41 a and the right upper supporting section 51 a, but are not connected to the right lower supporting section 51 band the right lower supporting section 51 b. Thus, the locking member 10 is not provided on the right lower supporting section 51 band the right lower supporting section 51 b.”
Argument #3 (Page 9/10 of Applicant’s Response): The Applicant states the following - Independent claim 27 includes "a movable support member vertically movable on the upper support member; a bracket on the movable support member; and first and second diagonal pull rods, a first end of each pull rod pivotally attached to the bracket". Claim 27 is patentable for the reasons discussed above for claim 16.
Argument #4 (Page 9/10 of Applicant’s Response): The Applicant states the following – “Responsive to the rejection of claim 21 over the combination of D1 Ma and D2 Biao-feng CN203987064U; the rejection of claim 22 over D1 Ma and D3 Xing-rong CN203693019U; and the rejection of claim 23 over D1 Ma and D4 Liu CN206534385; none of D2-D4 suggest a movable support member arranged with a bracket on it, and first ends of first and second diagonal pull rods pivotally attached to a bracket, with the movable support member to vertically movable on the upper support member. Hence, Applicant submits claims 21-23 are not obvious over the prior art.”
Examiner’s Response:
With regards to the Applicant’s Argument #1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The elements are properly mapped. Specifically, an upper support member ([41a, 51a]) has a hinge (3) at an upper end (see annotated Fig. 4.1 and 4.2 from Ma, notably annotated Fig. 4.2 from Ma was reproduced below) of the upper support member.
PNG
media_image3.png
390
569
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Within the prior art of Ma, there is a movable support member ([41b, 51b]) that is claimed to be vertically movable on the supper member, wherein the transition is best shown in Fig. 3 to Fig. 4). Furthermore, there is a bracket (10) on the movable support member. There are first and second diagonal pull rods (6 and 7) with the first end of each first and second diagonal pull rods being attached to the bracket.
Wherein ‘on’ with reference to the bracket and the movable support member is noted by the Examiner as of an indirect connection in the prior art of Ma (shown in the claim mapping). Specifically, Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the preposition of On as ‘used as a function word to indicate in close proximity with’. Therefore, the bracket (10) is in close proximity with the movable support member, and does not require or claim a direct integrated connection thereto, and provided function thereof.
With regards to the Applicant’s Argument #2, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 16 reads as the following:
limitation #1:“a movable support member vertically movable on the upper support member;”
limitation #2: “a bracket on the movable support member;”.
The Applicant uses the positional term ‘on’ to describe the respective connections. Firstly, the Examiner notes in their claim mapping to limitation #1 above, that as shown in Ma’s Figure 3 to Figure 4 that there is vertical movement requiring a movable support member ([41b, 51b]) to vertically move on the upper support member ([41a, 51a]). Notably the movable support member is always supported to the upper support member and is again ‘in close proximity with’ and in this case in connection with each other. Furthermore, the movable support member does show vertical movement as it transitions from an angle outward in Figure 3 to a vertical angle in Figure 4. As the leg of the frame moves along the floor toward its vertical position, the leg transitions and becomes vertically disposed, further increasing the overall height of the system – this occurs due to the geometry of the stand which behaves like a triangle where the end height and vertical disposition depends on the spread of the legs when in its open configuration. Secondly, the Examiner points to the Examiner’s Response in bullet point 1 above for limitation #2 (i.e. “a bracket on the movable support member;”), regarding the location/positional terminology used and the Merriam Webster definition provided.
With regards to the Applicant’s Argument #3, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner points to bullet point #1 and bullet point #2 from the Examiner’s Response to the Applicant’s Arguments. Noting that the vertical movement occurs due to the geometry of the stand moving between Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 of Ma. Additionally, the Merriam-Webster dictionary of ‘on’ defines the preposition of as ‘used as a function word to indicate in close proximity with’. Therefore, the bracket (10) of Ma is in close proximity with the movable support member, and does not require a direct integrated connection thereto. Lastly, the first end of each pull rod will lock into place in Figure 4, best shown in the Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4.1 from Ma.
With regards to the Applicant’s Argument #4, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that Claims 21-23 are allowable because the additional references (D2–D4) do not cure the alleged deficiencies of D1 Ma. However, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because they rely on the same alleged deficiencies of D1 Ma that have already been addressed above. As discussed, D1 Ma does teach or render obvious the disputed limitations. Therefore, the combination of D1 Ma with D2–D4 likewise teaches or renders obvious the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, no separate response to the §103 rejections is necessary.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MADISON MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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.
/MADISON MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673