DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “such a way that a distance between the longitudinal elements is adjustable” (claim 18) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "110" and "300" have both been used to designate the module seemingly between FIGS. 3 and 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “110” has been used to designate both the frame in FIG. 1 and the adjustment mechanism in FIGS. 3 and 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: "210" is lacking in the Figures, page 11, lines 12-18 indicate 210 should be shown therein. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because implying statements (e.g. “the present application”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hara (JP Pub. No. 2004016587A).
Regarding claim 1, Hara discloses (FIGS. 1-8, and 10-11) a frame element (correspondent 20/2/1,11; FIGS. 1, and 3-8) for an adjustable bed (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-8), the frame element being arranged as a longitudinal element for a longitudinal side of the adjustable bed (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-8) and comprising the following: a frame carrier (correspondent the frame carrier/carrying element 20; FIG. 5-6); an adjustment mechanism (12/12a and constituent/adjoint components thereof; FIGS. 6) for adjusting the bed with at least one actuator for actuating the adjustment mechanism (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-8); and a profile (as illustrated between FIGS. 1- 8 and 10-11, forming an L shaped profile); wherein the adjustment mechanism and the profile form a module (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-8), wherein the displaceable module is displaceable guided on the frame carrier (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-8) by means of at least two guiding devices (11c/11d; FIG. 5), and wherein each guiding device comprises at least one support roller (11c; FIG. 5) and at least one guiding element (11d; FIG. 5), wherein an axis of rotation of the at least one support roller is arranged perpendicularly or substantially perpendicularly to a fastening axis of the at least one guiding element (as illustrated in FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Hara discloses (FIGS. 1-8) the frame element according to claim 1, wherein the at least one guiding element is a sliding block. Where the cylindrical block of the wheel is considered and is acknowledged “rollers 11 c slidably in contact with the upper surface of the frame…A guide roller set including a roller 11d slidingly contacting the inner surface of the structural body 20 is provided” [0046]
Regarding claim 3, Hara discloses (FIGS. 1-8) the frame element according to claim 1, wherein the at least one guiding element is a guide roller (As illustrated in FIG. 5; [0046]) “roller”), and a fastening axis of the guide roller corresponds to an axis of rotation of the guide roller (as illustrated in FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Hara discloses (FIGS. 1-8) the frame element according to claim 1, wherein the at least one guiding element is arranged inside the profile (as illustrated in FIGS. 5-8).
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) 1, 5-6, 9, 11-12, 14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara in view of Kollreider et al. (German App. No. 102015122605A1); hereafter “Kollreider”.
Regarding claim 1, Hara discloses (Hara: FIGS. 1-8) a frame element (correspondent 20/2/1,11; FIGS. 1, and 3-8) for an adjustable bed (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-8), the frame element being arranged as a longitudinal element for a longitudinal side of the adjustable bed (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-8) and comprising the following: a frame (correspondent the frame carrying element 20; FIG. 5-6); an adjustment mechanism (12/12a and constituent/adjoint components thereof; FIGS. 6) for adjusting the bed with at least one actuator for actuating the adjustment mechanism (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-8); and a profile (as illustrated between FIGS. 1- 8 and 10-11, forming an L shaped profile); wherein the adjustment mechanism and the profile form a module (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-8), wherein the displaceable module is displaceable guided on the frame carrier (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-8) by means of at least two guiding devices (11c/11d; FIG. 5), and wherein each guiding device comprises at least one support roller (11c; FIG. 5) and at least one guiding element (11d; FIG. 5), wherein an axis of rotation of the at least one support roller is arranged perpendicularly or substantially perpendicularly to a fastening axis of the at least one guiding element (as illustrated in FIG. 5).
However, Hara in the alternate as being considered not to provide a frame carrier that is in fact ‘carrying’ the frame rather than being treated under BRI previously does not explicitly disclose a frame carrier that is actually supportively carrying/housing the module that is displaceably guided on the frame carrier.
Regardless, Kollreider teaches (FIGS. 1-5) a frame element (As illustrated in FIG. 1-5) with a module (“VE” FIG. 1) that comprises an adjustment mechanism (motors 11; FIG. 1), and a profile (as illustrated accommodating the movable components therethrough in FIG. 1-5) that form a module (as eminently illustrated in FIG. 1) and further provides a carrier frame (3: FIG. 1) that the module is displaceably guided upon (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to have incorporated the frame carrier construction and separate/delineated frame elements and attachments thereof of Kollreider (FIGS. 1-5 into Hara (FIGS. 1-8). Where the results would have been predictable as both Kollreider and Hara are concerned with sliding bedding with space conserving wall hugging features therein. Where it is advantageously considered by Examiner upon observation that using Kollreider’s separated frame elements and frame carrier’s construction and attachments thereof would provide Hara with a simpler design and manufacture that would better isolate wear and strain to different components compared to Hara’s cross beam affecting affecting both, and thereby would improve maintenance expediency by being able to service a single side instead of multiple and furthering the longevity of the apparatus.
It is respectfully considered for the purposes of compact and concise prosecution that claims 2-4 would synonymously be rejected under 103 with deference to Hara’s citations previously provided in the 102 section previously.
Regarding claim 5, Hara in view of Kollreider discloses (Hara: FIGS. 1-8/Kollreider: FIGS. 1-5) the frame element according to claim 1, wherein the profile is a hollow tube and has at least one slotted hole (As eminently illustrated in FIG. 1-5 of Kollreider as providing a slotted hole for the assembly to operatively work through).
Regarding claim 6, Hara in view of Kollreider discloses (Hara: FIGS. 1-8/Kollreider: FIGS. 1-5) the frame element according to claim 5, wherein the frame carrier comprises at least two rod-shaped machine parts (Hara: roller pins illustrated in FIGS. 5-6) for mounting a respective guiding element (Hara: FIG. 5-8), wherein the at least two rod-shaped machine parts are guided through the at least one slotted hole into the inside of the profile (as considered in the combination, the slotted of Kollreider would accommodate the components therein that previously was provided to Kollreider incorporated into Hara to simplify construction).
Regarding claim 9, Hara in view of Kollreider discloses (Hara: FIGS. 1-8/Kollreider: FIGS. 1-5) the frame element according to claim 1, wherein the frame element further comprises at least one fastening device (Kollreider: 4; FIG. 1-5) for a transverse element of the bed (Kollreider: 2/13, as illustrated and as incorporated from FIGS. 1-5 FIGS. 1-5).
Regarding claim 11, Hara in view of Kollreider discloses (Hara: FIGS. 1-8/Kollreider: FIGS. 1-5) the frame element according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises a lever arm (Kollreider: 10b; FIG. 1) which connects a segment (6a; FIG. 5) of the adjustment mechanism and the frame carrier and is pivotable (As conveyed through FIGS. 1-5 of Kollreider as incorporated into Hara).
Regarding claim 12, Hara in view of Kollreider discloses (Hara: FIGS. 1-8/Kollreider: FIGS. 1-5) the frame element according to one of the claim 9, wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises a lever arm (Kollreider: 10b; FIG. 1) which connects a segment (6a; FIG. 1) of the adjustment mechanism and one of the at least one fastening devices and is pivotable (as illustrated in FIG. 1-5.
Regarding claim 14, Hara in view of Kollreider discloses (Hara: FIGS. 1-8/Kollreider: FIGS. 1-5) the frame element according to claim 11, wherein the lever arm holds the profile of the displaceable module and the frame carrier together (Kollreider: as illustrated in FIG. 1-5) and is configured for a displacement (as illustrated in FIG. 1-5).
Regarding claim 17, Hara in view of Kollreider discloses (Hara: FIGS. 1-8/Kollreider: FIGS. 1-5) a modular frame for an adjustable bed, which is formed by two frame elements according to claim 1 (as previously established in claim 1 prior, with Kollreider: as illustrated in FIG. 1-5 and Hara as illustrated in FIGS. 1-8, wherein the combination thereof provides an adjustable bed with two frame elements as previously established in claim 1 previously), which are configured as longitudinal elements (Kollreider: as illustrated in FIG. 1-5), and by at least one transverse element for a transverse side of the bed (2/13 Kollreider: as illustrated in FIG. 1-5).
Regarding claim 18, Hara in view of Kollreider discloses (Hara: FIGS. 1-8/Kollreider: FIGS. 1-5) the modular frame according to claim 17, wherein the longitudinal elements are mountable on the transverse element (Kollreider: as illustrated in FIG. 1-5) in such a way that a distance between the longitudinal elements is adjustable (Kollreider: as illustrated in FIG. 1-5).
Regarding claim 19, Hara in view of Kollreider discloses (Hara: FIGS. 1-8/Kollreider: FIGS. 1-5) the modular frame according to 17, wherein opposite of the adjustment mechanisms of the respective longitudinal elements are connected via one or more support elements for supporting a mattress (Kollreider: as illustrated in FIG. 1-5; further clarified in claims 16-18).
Regarding claim 20, Hara in view of Kollreider discloses (Hara: FIGS. 1-8/Kollreider: FIGS. 1-5) an adjustable bed, comprising two frame elements according to claim 1 (as previously established in claim 1 prior, with Kollreider: as illustrated in FIG. 1-5 and Hara as illustrated in FIGS. 1-8, wherein the combination thereof provides an adjustable bed with two frame elements as previously established in claim 1 previously), which are configured as longitudinal elements (Kollreider: as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5), wherein opposite segments of the adjustment mechanisms of the longitudinal elements are connected via one or more support elements for supporting a mattress (Kollreider: As illustrated in FIGS. 1-5 and clarified in claims 16-18).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim7-8, 10, 13, and 15-16 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: The claims necessitate features that would likely necessitate impermissible hindsight bias to incorporate such as claim 7’s flanking structure for the particularly roller and that such structure may guide/roll/slide upon surfaces of both a first and second direction where the first and second direction are perpendicular, or claim 10’s magnet holder which could foreseeably be modified with Kollreider’s provided fastening devices as an art known equivalent, but would become impermissible/more unpredictable due to the incorporation of a screen in use therewith, or claim 13’s recess which would be considered to substantially modify Kollreider, a modifying reference and would likely necessitate impermissible hindsight bias to incorporate, and 16, where although the feature is to a range/results effective variable, case law would be inadequate to address the particular angles provided by applicant where applicant has provided an explicit rationale to reduce wear and stresses thereon.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references cited on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) were considered pertinent because they address the state of the art concerning bedding assemblies, sliding assemblies, space compensating/rolling assemblies and wall hugger features and assemblies/configurations thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights