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 .
Claims 1-16 and 18 21 are pending in the application. Claims 18-21 are newly added. Claim 17 has been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicants disclosure does not provide support for “an L-shaped arrangement such that the primary piece of furniture and the secondary piece of furniture are not movable relative to one another”. The primary piece of furniture is appears to be movable relative to the secondary piece of furniture as it moves between a first and second configuration.
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) 1-8, 14, 16, 18 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China Patent document CN209750447U hereinafter referred to as Wang. Wang discloses:
As per claim 1 a stand-alone furniture arrangement 1 fig.2 comprising a primary piece of furniture 1 and a secondary piece of furniture 8 fig.3 fixedly (movably fixed via grooves 801 fig.4) arranged in an L-shape (see fig.3), wherein the primary piece of furniture comprises a hinge 9 fig.3 allowing the primary piece of furniture to transform from a first configuration (see fig.1 & 2) to a second configuration (see fig.3), wherein the second configuration corresponds to a bed 10, 4 fig.3 having an essentially horizontal sleeping surface and with a longitudinal extension corresponding to the intended head-to-toe sleeping orientation of a user (see fig.3), and wherein the hinge extends in parallel with the longitudinal extension of the second configuration (see fig.3).
As per claim 2 wherein the primary piece of furniture is transformable between the first and second configurations by pivoting a transforming portion 4 of the primary piece of furniture about the hinge.
As per claim 3 wherein the primary piece of furniture comprises a rectangular frame 1, and wherein at least a part of the transforming portion is arranged within said frame when the primary piece of furniture is configured in the first configuration (see fig.1 & 2).
As per claim 4 wherein the first configuration corresponds to a shelf, a sofa, or a wall panel (see fig.1 & 2), preferably said wall panel being partly or wholly covered by a drawing board, such as a whiteboard or chalk board, or comprise one or more cabinets (see fig.1 & 2).
As per claim 5 wherein the secondary piece of furniture has a height being less than a height of the primary piece of furniture (see fig.3).
As per claim 6 wherein the height of the secondary piece of furniture is less than 50% of the height of the primary piece of furniture (see fig. 2 & 3).
As per claim 7 wherein the secondary piece of furniture (120) is a shelf, a cabinet, or a sofa (see fig.2 & 3 The desk 8 reads on a shelf and cabinet. Additionally it can be used as a sofa for sitting.)
As per claim 8 wherein the secondary piece of furniture is configured to transform from a first configuration to a second configuration (see fig. 1-3). (Examiner notes it appears applicant has support for such a limitation regarding species A fig.1-2B based on the amount the secondary piece of furniture is covered by the primary piece of furniture when transforming.)
As per claim 14 wherein a longitudinal extension of the second configuration of the primary piece of furniture is adjacent to a longitudinal extension of the secondary piece of furniture (see fig.2 & 3).
As per claim 18 wherein an angle of 45° to 135° is defined by and between a longitudinal extension of the primary piece of furniture and a longitudinal extension of the secondary piece of furniture (see fig.2).
As per claim 19 wherein a longitudinal extension of the primary piece of furniture extends perpendicular to a longitudinal extension of the secondary piece of furniture (see fig.2).
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) 16 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Wipo Document WO2013/156140A1 hereinafter referred to as Ugge.
Wang disclose the claimed apparatus however does not disclose wherein the bed of the second configuration is supported by only the hinge, the primary piece of furniture, a frame of the primary piece of furniture and/or the secondary piece of furniture.
Ugge teaches a stand-alone furniture 1 fig.1 comprising a primary piece of furniture 2 fig.1, wherein the primary piece transform from a first configuration (fig.2) to a second configuration (fig.1) corresponding to a bed, wherein the bed of the second configuration is supported by only the hinge 5, 6 fig.1, the primary piece of furniture, a frame of the primary piece of furniture and/or the secondary piece of furniture.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the wall bed of Wang and the hinge utilized in the wall bed of Ugge to support the bed on only the hinge and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a wall bed where only the hinge supports the bed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of having a system for the articulation that is structurally compact, reliable and contained in said primary piece of furniture resulting in an aesthetic appearance as taught in Ugge [page 1 lines 29-30 and page 2 lines 1-13].
Re-Claim 20
Wang discloses a stand-alone furniture arrangement 1, comprising: a primary piece of furniture 1 including a hinge 9 via which the primary piece of furniture is transformable to a first configuration and to a second configuration (see fig.2 & 3); and a secondary piece of furniture 8 connected to the primary piece of furniture; wherein the primary piece of furniture and the secondary piece of furniture are fixedly arranged in an L-shaped arrangement (see fig.2); wherein the second configuration corresponds to a bed (see fig.3) having an essentially horizontal sleeping surface and with a longitudinal extension corresponding to the intended head-to-toe sleeping orientation of a user (see fig.3); wherein the hinge extends parallel to the longitudinal extension of the second configuration of the primary piece of furniture.
However does not discloses wherein the bed of the second configuration is supported exclusively by the hinge, the primary piece of furniture, a frame of the primary piece of furniture, and/or the secondary piece of furniture (see fig.3).
Ugge teaches a stand-alone furniture 1 fig.1 comprising a primary piece of furniture 2 fig.1, wherein the primary piece transform from a first configuration (fig.2) to a second configuration (fig.1) corresponding to a bed, wherein the bed of the second configuration is supported by only the hinge 5, 6 fig.1, the primary piece of furniture, a frame of the primary piece of furniture and/or the secondary piece of furniture.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the wall bed of Wang and the hinge utilized in the wall bed of Ugge to support the bed on the hinge and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a wall bed where the hinge supports the bed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of having a system for the articulation that is structurally compact, reliable and contained in said primary piece of furniture resulting in an aesthetic appearance as taught in Ugge [page 1 lines 29-30 and page 2 lines 1-13].
Claim(s) 1-8, 14, 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China Patent document CN202086023U hereinafter referred to as CAI in view of Ugge.
Re-Claim 1
CAI discloses a stand-alone furniture arrangement 1 fig.1/ 4, 10, 5, 6 fig.2 comprising a primary piece of furniture 2, 4, 10 and a secondary piece of furniture 6 fig.2 fixedly arranged in an L-shape (see fig.2, wherein the primary piece of furniture comprises a hinge 12-14 fig.3 allowing the primary piece of furniture to transform from a first configuration (see fig.1) to a second configuration (see fig.2), wherein the second configuration corresponds to a bed 10, 4 fig.3 having an essentially horizontal sleeping surface and with a longitudinal extension corresponding to the intended head-to-toe sleeping orientation of a user (see fig.2).
However does not disclose wherein the hinge extends in parallel with the longitudinal extension of the second configuration.
Ugge teaches a stand-alone furniture 1 fig.1 comprising a primary piece of furniture 2 fig.1, wherein the primary piece transform from a first configuration (fig.2) to a second configuration (fig.1) corresponding to a bed, wherein a hinge 5, 9, 6, 10 fig.2 & 8 extends in parallel with the longitudinal extension of the second configuration (see fig.8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the wall bed of CAI and the hinge utilized in the wall bed of Ugge to support the bed on the hinge and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a wall bed where the hinge supports the bed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of having a system for the articulation that is structurally compact, reliable and contained in said primary piece of furniture resulting in an aesthetic appearance as taught in Ugge [page 1 lines 29-30 and page 2 lines 1-13].
Re-Claim 2
CAI as modified by Ugge above discloses,
CAI discloses wherein the primary piece of furniture is transformable between the first and second configurations by pivoting a transforming portion 10 of the primary piece of furniture about the hinge.
Re-Claim 3
CAI as modified by Ugge above discloses,
CAI discloses wherein the primary piece of furniture comprises a rectangular frame 4, and wherein at least a part of the transforming portion is arranged within said frame when the primary piece of furniture is configured in the first configuration (see fig.1 & 2).
Re-Claim 4
CAI as modified by Ugge above discloses,
CAI discloses wherein the first configuration corresponds to a shelf, a sofa, or a wall panel (see fig.1 & 2), preferably said wall panel being partly or wholly covered by a drawing board, such as a whiteboard or chalk board, or comprise one or more cabinets (see fig.1 & 2).
Re-Claim 5
CAI as modified by Ugge above discloses,
wherein the secondary piece of furniture has a height being less than a height of the primary piece of furniture (see fig.2 CAI).
Re-Claim 6
CAI as modified by Ugge above discloses,
wherein the height of the secondary piece of furniture is less than 50% of the height of the primary piece of furniture (see fig. 2 CAI).
Re-Claim 7
CAI as modified by Ugge above discloses,
CAI discloses wherein the secondary piece of furniture (120) is a shelf, a cabinet, or a sofa (see fig.2 The desk 6 had at least one shelf also the desk can reads on a shelf, cabinet and can be used as a sofa for sitting.)
Re-Claim 8
CAI as modified by Ugge above discloses,
wherein the secondary piece of furniture is configured to transform from a first configuration to a second configuration (see fig. 1-2).
Re-Claim 14
CAI as modified by Ugge above discloses,
wherein a longitudinal extension of the second configuration of the primary piece of furniture is adjacent to a longitudinal extension of the secondary piece of furniture (see fig.1, 2 & 5 CAI).
Re-Claim 16
CAI as modified by Ugge above discloses,
Ugge teaches wherein the bed of the second configuration is supported by only the hinge 5, 6 fig.1, the primary piece of furniture, a frame of the primary piece of furniture and/or the secondary piece of furniture.
Re-Claim 18
CAI as modified by Ugge above discloses,
wherein an angle of 45° to 135° is defined by and between a longitudinal extension of the primary piece of furniture and a longitudinal extension of the secondary piece of furniture (see fig.1, 2 & 5 CAI).
Re-Claim 19
CAI as modified by Ugge above discloses,
wherein a longitudinal extension of the primary piece of furniture extends perpendicular to a longitudinal extension of the secondary piece of furniture (see fig.1, 2 & 5 CAI).
Re-Claim 20
CAI discloses a stand-alone furniture arrangement 1, comprising: a primary piece of furniture 4, 10 including a hinge 12, 13 via which the primary piece of furniture is transformable to a first configuration and to a second configuration (see fig.1 & 2); and a secondary piece of furniture 6 connected to the primary piece of furniture; wherein the primary piece of furniture and the secondary piece of furniture are fixedly arranged in an L-shaped arrangement (see fig.2); wherein the second configuration corresponds to a bed (see fig.2) having an essentially horizontal sleeping surface and with a longitudinal extension corresponding to the intended head-to-toe sleeping orientation of a user (see fig.2); wherein the hinge extends parallel to the longitudinal extension of the second configuration of the primary piece of furniture.
However does not discloses wherein the bed of the second configuration is supported exclusively by the hinge, the primary piece of furniture, a frame of the primary piece of furniture, and/or the secondary piece of furniture (see fig.3).
Ugge teaches a stand-alone furniture 1 fig.1 comprising a primary piece of furniture 2 fig.1, wherein the primary piece transform from a first configuration (fig.2) to a second configuration (fig.1) corresponding to a bed, wherein the bed of the second configuration is supported by only the hinge 5, 6 fig.1, the primary piece of furniture, a frame of the primary piece of furniture and/or the secondary piece of furniture.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the wall bed of CAI and the hinge utilized in the wall bed of Ugge to support the bed on the hinge and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a wall bed where the hinge supports the bed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of having a system for the articulation that is structurally compact, reliable and contained in said primary piece of furniture resulting in an aesthetic appearance as taught in Ugge [page 1 lines 29-30 and page 2 lines 1-13].
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAI in view of Ugge further in view of Korean Patent document KR200217585Y1 hereinafter referred to as KR.
Re-Claim 21
CAI discloses a stand-alone furniture arrangement 1, comprising: a primary piece of furniture 4, 10 including a hinge 12, 13 via which the primary piece of furniture is transformable to a first configuration and to a second configuration (see fig.1 & 2); and a secondary piece of furniture 6 connected to the primary piece of furniture; wherein the primary piece of furniture and the secondary piece of furniture are fixedly arranged in an L-shaped arrangement such that the primary piece of furniture and the secondary piece of furniture are not movable relative to one another; wherein the second configuration corresponds to a bed having an essentially horizontal sleeping surface and with a longitudinal extension corresponding to the intended head-to-toe sleeping orientation of a user (see fig.2 & 5).
However does not discloses wherein the hinge extends parallel to the longitudinal extension of the second configuration of the primary piece of furniture; wherein a longitudinal extension of the primary piece of furniture and a longitudinal extension of the secondary piece of furniture extend transversely to one another; and wherein a longitudinal dimension of the secondary piece of furniture is greater than a depth dimension of the primary piece of furniture.
Ugge teaches a stand-alone furniture 1 fig.1 comprising a primary piece of furniture 2 fig.1, wherein the primary piece transform from a first configuration (fig.2) to a second configuration (fig.1) corresponding to a bed, wherein a hinge 5, 6 extends parallel to the longitudinal extension of the second configuration of the primary piece of furniture (see fig.8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined the wall bed of CAI and the hinge utilized in the wall bed of Ugge to support the bed on the hinge and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a wall bed where the hinge supports the bed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purpose of having a system for the articulation that is structurally compact, reliable and contained in said primary piece of furniture resulting in an aesthetic appearance as taught in Ugge [page 1 lines 29-30 and page 2 lines 1-13].
KR teaches a stand-alone furniture arrangement (see fig.4), comprising: a primary piece of furniture 33, 21 fig.4 and a secondary piece of furniture 32 fig.4, wherein a longitudinal extension of the primary piece of furniture and a longitudinal extension of the secondary piece of furniture extend transversely to one another (see fig.4); and wherein a longitudinal dimension of the secondary piece of furniture is greater than a depth dimension of the primary piece of furniture (see fig.4).
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to dimension or orientate the secondary piece of furniture to have a longitudinal dimension of the secondary piece of furniture be greater than a depth dimension of the primary piece of furniture, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the relative dimensions of a component. A change is relative dimension is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. KR discloses such an arrangement is known and can be achieved by changing the orientation of the secondary piece of furniture.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the term “fixedly” means the secondary piece of furniture is attached to the primary piece of furniture in an unmovable arrangement. Examiner respectfully disagrees with such an interpretation. The limitation fixedly require the secondary piece of furniture to be attached or secured together. For example a draw that is fixedly arranged in a dresser is still capable of movement as it slide in and out during use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see notice of references cited).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFEOLU A ADEBOYEJO whose telephone number is (571)270-3072. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10AM-5PM 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.
/IFEOLU A ADEBOYEJO/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights