DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction Requirement
Applicant's election in the reply filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged. However, upon further review, it appears that the restriction requirement dated 04/09/2026 improperly identified Groups II (claims 12-13) and Groups III (claims 14-17) as being separate from Group I (claims 1-11). Therefore, the groups are linked by dependency and are rejoined for full examination.
Information Disclosure Sheet
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/01/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 11, 14, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “…the second combiners is capable of reciprocating…” However, it appears that the claim should instead recite, “…the second combiners are capable of reciprocating…”
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “…the second combiners is capable of being flipped…” However, it appears that the claim should instead recite, “…the second combiners are capable of being flipped…”
Regarding claims 14 and 16, the claims recite “…the second spring string distributed in the S shape are cut into sections…” However, it appears that the claim should instead recite “…the second spring string distributed in the S shape is cut into sections…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC §112f
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following elements are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Regarding claim 1, “first loading mechanism” (because A – “mechanism” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “configured to transport first spring strings of a set length to a first position in the bed mesh combination device” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body, thus “first loading mechanism” is understood as equivalent to “means for transporting first spring strings of a set length to a first position in the bed mesh combination device”). A review of the specification suggests that the corresponding structure is an upper conveyor belt #1100 and lower conveyor belt #1200 or equivalent.
Regarding claim 1, “feeding mechanism” (because A – “mechanism” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “configured to transfer the first spring strings form the first position to a second position in the bed mesh combination device” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body, thus “feeding mechanism” is understood as equivalent to “means for transferring the first spring strings form the first position to a second position in the bed mesh combination device”). A review of the specification suggests that the corresponding structure is a flipping assembly #2100 with magnetic part #2102 OR pushing assembly #2200 or equivalent.
Regarding claim 1, “second loading mechanism” (because A – “mechanism” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “configured to transport a second spring string” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body, thus “second loading mechanism” is understood as equivalent to “means for transporting a second spring string”). A review of the specification suggests that the corresponding structure is a rotatable toggling part #5100 with toggling grooves #5101 OR opposite second loading conveyor belts or equivalent.
Regarding claim 1, “combination mechanism” (because A – “mechanism” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “configured to weld or sew each of the first spring strings at the second position with an adjacent section of the second spring string to form a bed mesh” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body, thus “combination mechanism” is understood as equivalent to “means for welding or sewing each of the first spring strings at the second position with an adjacent section of the second spring string to form a bed mesh”). A review of the specification suggests that the corresponding structure is first and second combiners #3100/#3200 configured as welding cutter/head assemblies #3101/#3201 OR sewing/cloth pressing assemblies #3102/#3202 or equivalent.
If the applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre -AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre –AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 10, 12, 14-15, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “…the pushing assembly located on the other side of the first loading mechanism…” However, claim 1 does not establish an initial “side” of the mechanism, rendering “the other side” without antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites two mutually exclusive structural configurations of the apparatus using the conjunction “or” (either the second combiners reciprocate to switch pairings, or the quantity of second combiners equals the sum of the two groups). Claiming distinct structural configurations in the alternative renders the scope indefinite.
Regarding claim 12, the claim repeatedly drops the word “string”, leaving dangling references to a “spring” (e.g. “…and the (N+1)th section of the second spring;”). This creates confusion as to whether the limitation refers to a single coil or the entire string.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, these product-by-process claims recite that the second spring string is “distributed in an S shape or the second spring string distributed in the S shape are cut into sections”. Claiming a product in the alternative – where it is either a single continuous string or completely severed into separate sections – defines two physically distinct structural states, leaving the product scope indefinite.
Regarding claims 15 and 17, these claims utilize the conjunction “and/or” to link two different structural variables (spacing and string length). This creates three distinct potential product configurations within a single claim, blurring the metes and bounds of the claimed product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 13 are currently deemed allowable. Furthermore, if the above rejections and objections are overcome, claims 3, 10-12, and 14-17 also be deemed allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ye (CN 110328309 A) teaches a bed mesh combination device (#100), comprising: a first loading mechanism (#111), wherein the first loading mechanism is configured to transport first spring strings (#211) of a set length (cut from bar 21) to a first position (#113) in the bed mesh combination device in a first direction parallel to a length direction of a cloth bag of the first spring strings (The conveying direction is parallel to the string length); a feeding mechanism (#12), wherein the feeding mechanism is configured to transfer the first spring strings (#201) from the first position (Conveyor) to a second position in the bed mesh combination device (Onto the assembly bench #13), and at the second position, the first spring strings are parallel to the first direction (This process is performed while maintaining the parallel alignment); a second loading mechanism (#112).
Jewett (US 2019/0357694 A1), Eigenmann (US 2015/0359349 A1), Wolfson (US 2015/0216318 A1), and Wells (US 2004/0128771 A1) all teach relevant aspects of devices for forming a bed mesh.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights