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 .
Remarks
This communication is in response to the reply received 10/20/2025
Claims 1-2 and 4-19 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 20-26 are non-elected and withdrawn.
The drawing objection is maintained.
Drawings
As a threshold matter, it is noted that claim 12 is not supported by the elected Species, represented by figures 1-2, 6 and 11 and is considered withdrawn.
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:
“12. (original) The bed frame assembly of claim 7, wherein the bed frame assembly further comprises a mattress defining a top surface above the headboard joint” 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.
Claim Interpretation Under 35 USC § 112
No claim elements in this application are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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) 1-2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 12,245,698 B2, hereinafter D1.
PNG
media_image1.png
991
1522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1.
D1 discloses a bed frame assembly (fig. 1) comprising:
a headboard assembly (collectively the headboard 310 and the headrail 314 in fig. 1) comprising an upper headboard (310) and a lower headboard (314), wherein the lower headboard (headrail 314) forms a first mortise (314N in fig. 5; note that the ordinary definition of mortise is used, i.e. a mortise is a hole, slot, or recess cut into a material (usually wood, stone, or metal) designed to receive a corresponding projection, known as a tenon, to form a strong, secure, and flush joint);
a pair of substantially parallel sideboards (a side rail 316 (first) and a side rail 320 (second), fig. 1);
a footboard (a foot rail 318), forming a second mortise (318 includes a notch 318N);
a support runner (intermediate rail 330) extending between a first end and a second end (opposing ends of 330); and
a plurality of legs (322); and
wherein the support runner first end is received by the first mortise (fig. 5 & 6), and wherein the support runner second end is received by the second mortise (fig. 5 & 6).
As to claim 2.
D1 discloses wherein the lower headboard (314), the pair of substantially parallel sideboards (316, 320), and the footboard (318) are configured to join together (fig. 6) and define a frame defining a front end (generally one of the end of 310 or 318) and a rear end (generally the other one of the end of 310 or 318).
As to claim 7.
D1 discloses wherein the lower headboard (314) and upper headboard (310) are configured to be detachably secured at a headboard joint (figs. 5-6).
As to claim 8.
D1 discloses the headboard joint defines a half lap joint (fig. 5-6 show 310 and 314 overlapping).
As to claim 9.
D1 discloses the headboard assembly further comprises a fastener (334) configured to retain the upper headboard to the lower headboard at the headboard joint (as in fig. 6).
As to claim 10.
D1 discloses the fastener comprises a threaded fastener ( fastener 334 (e.g., a hand screw), col. 12, ln. 19-20) and the headboard assembly further comprises a series of boreholes (312) configured to receive the threaded fastener (shown in fig. 6).
As to claim 11.
D1 discloses the headboard joint extends in a horizontal direction relative to the headboard assembly (see figure 6).
As to claim 13.
D1 discloses the lower headboard comprises a blind hole configured to receive a fastener ( fastener 334 (e.g., a hand screw), col. 12, ln. 19-20).
As to claim 17
D1 discloses the headboard assembly comprises at least one of an upholstered material, a woven material, and a cushion material (headboard is upholstered, col. 16, ln. 5+; the headboard 310 may be enclosed by the upholstered cover 500).
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 as applied to claim 1 in view of RU 2325098 C2, hereinafter D3.
As to claim 4.
D1 does not explicitly disclose wherein frame is joined via a castle joint.
However, D3 is in a closely related field, i.e. bed frames, and teaches using a castle joint to join bed frame components. (In the proposed bed, the ends of the longitudinal beams are placed in grooves made on the side surfaces of the backs, and the ends of the transverse beams are in the cutouts made at the ends of the longitudinal beams and have sections protruding beyond the outer sides of the longitudinal beams, on which holes are made for installing additionally inserted wedge-shaped inserts. This design solution provides rigidity and structural strength, since the connection of all parts of the bed is carried out using a single castle connection, description).
An invention is obvious where some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. The prior art of D3 teaches the use of a castle connection in bed frames which provide the benefits of rigidity and structural strength. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D3 modify D1 for the purpose of providing the known benefits of the castle connection. An invention created through a substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
As to claim 5.
See explanation for claim 4.
As to claim 19.
D1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the bed frame assembly is formed of wood.
However, D3 is in a closely related field, i.e. bed frames, and teaches forming bed frames primarily of wood. (the invention relates to furniture, namely to beds made primarily of wood, description).
An invention is obvious where some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. The prior art of D3 is directed to wooden bed frames. The use of wood for furniture is ubiquitous and well established in the art as wood is common and easily formed and provides the benefits of rigidity and structural strength. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D3 modify D1 for the purpose of using wood for bed frame assembly.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 as applied to claim 1, in view of D3 and further in view of US 2002/0136591 A1, hereinafter D4.
As to claim 6.
As to the limitation wherein the plurality of legs further comprises a castle leg configured to form a castle joint, see explanation for claim 4.
D1 in view of D3 does not teach a support leg configured to form a rabbet joint.
However, D4 is in a closely related field, i.e. furniture construction, title, and teaches using a rabbet joint ([0099], [0111]).
An invention is obvious where some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. The prior art of D4 teaches the use of a rabbet joint in furniture construction which provide the benefits of an improved connection appearance. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D4 to modify D1 for the purpose of providing the known benefits of the rabbet joint connection. An invention created through a substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 10,362,880 A1, hereinafter D6.
As to claim 14.
D1 does not explicitly disclose comprising a series of flexibly coupled parallel slats.
D6 is in a closely related field and teaches an assemble-able bed which uses slats (11 in fig. 1) to provide mattress support. The slats are joined by a ribbon (26 in fig. 4). The ribbons permit the slats to be stored as a unit (fig. 4) and permit even spacing when installed (col. 4, ln. 29+).
An invention is obvious where some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. The prior art of D6 teaches the use of flexibly coupled slats which provide the benefits, supra. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D6 modify D1 for the purpose of providing the known benefits of the rabbet joint connection. An invention created through a substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
As to claim 18.
D1 does not explicitly disclose the headboard assembly further comprises a fabric slipcover.
D6 is in a closely related field and teaches an bed which includes a fabric covered headboard (headboard 12 is covered by leather, artificial leather or fabric, col. 3, ln. 63+).
An invention is obvious where some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. The prior art of D6 teaches the use of a cover for a headboard. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D6 modify D1 for the purpose of providing an aesthetically pleasing finish for the headboard.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D6 as applied to claim 14, and further in view of US 2003/0024045, hereinafter D2.
As to claim 15.
D1 as modified does not explicitly disclose the substantially parallel siderails each comprise at least one rabbet configured to receive the series of flexibly coupled parallel slats defining a mattress support.
As a threshold matter it is noted that ‘rabbet’ is interpreted using the ordinary meaning as the specification does not define it. The ordinary definition used is that a rabbet is a rectangular groove or recess cut into the edge of a piece of material, most often wood, to create a joint with another piece. This joint, called a rabbet joint, makes a stronger connection than a butt joint because it provides more surface area for glue and fits the pieces together more securely. The term can be a noun, referring to the groove itself, or a verb, meaning to cut such a groove or join pieces using one
D2 is in a closely related field, i.e. bed frames, and teaches using a well (aka groove) formed in the side rails 20,22, to receive bracing slats 24. See fig. 2A.
PNG
media_image2.png
885
1129
media_image2.png
Greyscale
An invention is obvious where some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. The prior art of D2 teaches the use of a well (58), i.e. a rabbet, in bed frames which provide the benefit of securing the slats ([0030]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D2 modify D5 for the purpose of providing convenient, fastener less connections. An invention created through a substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 3,761,970, hD7.
As to claim 16.
D1 does not explicitly leveling disclose at least one leg of the plurality of legs (shown but not numbered in fig. 3) comprises a screw.
D7 is in a closely related field and teaches an bed frame which includes a threaded levelling arrangement (fig. 13).
PNG
media_image3.png
566
913
media_image3.png
Greyscale
An invention is obvious where some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. The prior art of D7 teaches the use of levelling screws (174) on a leg (166). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D7 modify D1 for the purpose of providing ability to level the bed so as to provide a comfortable sleep position.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record on the attached PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as each further discloses a state of the art.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or pointed out by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. T. Newton, Esq. whose telephone number is (313)446-4899. The examiner can normally be reached 0700-1500 M-F.
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, SPE 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.
/J. T. Newton/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Mon 11-May-26
*****
Prosecution Insights