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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-13 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/01/2025. Examiner notes claim 15 has been withdrawn for being drawn to non-elected species. It appears claim 15 is down to the non-elected species of fig.4A-5C. Support for the claim 15 cannot be found regarding elected spices A fig.1-2B.
Applicant's election with traverse of species A fig.1-2B in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that species A-D does not lack a common special technical feature. This is not found persuasive because applicant as not pointed out a common special technical feature that links the species. Examiner believe the special technical feature present in each of the species is the structure and arrangement of the secondary piece of furniture. However each species features a different secondary piece of furniture (special technical feature) and for that reason lack a common special technical feature. The species do share the general inventive concept of a L shaped wall bed unit however this concept is well known and cannot be considered a special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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 a 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 the 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 an longitudinal extension of the secondary piece of furniture (see fig.2 & 3).
As per claim 16 wherein the bed of the second configuration is supported by only the hinge 9, the primary piece of furniture, a frame of the primary piece of furniture and/or the second piece of furniture (supported by 9 & 4 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) 17 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 the hinge only.
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 a hinge only 5, 6 fig.1.
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].
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
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673