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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed 8/5/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1, 3, 11, and 17 have been amended; claim 9, 10 and 15 have been cancelled; claims 1-6, 8, 11, 12, 16-18, and 20 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 9 – “wile” should be corrected to “while”. The same typo is also present in claims 11 and 17.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 11, 12, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan et al. (US 20230255360 A1), hereinafter Srinivasan, in view of Kamei (US 20230270261 A1) and Plemmons (US 11812858 B1).
Regarding Claim 11
Srinivasan teaches an oscillating/rotating/rocking dog bed (Abstract, Fig. 1, 2), comprising: a substantially static support frame (rectangular base frame (80)); a dynamic bed movably connected to the substantially static support frame (bed formed by top frame structure (10)), the dynamic bed comprising a surface configured to allow an animal to rest on (Fig. 1, 2), and a plurality of upwardly extending sidewalls extending above and surrounding the surface to form an open-topped enclosure (walls (10, 210) shown upwardly extending from base of bed, Fig. 1, 2), wherein the dynamic bed movable relative to the substantially static support frame in at least two distinct planes (Para. [0006] “The motion of a rocking bed can be broken down into three categories. First, “pitching” motion, characterized by up and down motion of the bedframe and mattress up and down about its transverse (along the left and right side of the sleeping person, also referred to as the Y axis) axis. “Rolling” motion is a tilting rotation about a longitudinal (from the head to the toe of the sleeping person, often referred to as the X axis) axis. This is distinguished from a turning rotation about the vertical or “Z” axis, within the X-Y plane, referred to sometimes as “yaw” motion. “Translational” motion is a shifting or turning motion, including yawing motion, within the X-Y plane, such as moving a bed side to side without changing its orientation”); and a plurality of linear actuators positioned between the frame and the bed (Claim 3 “wherein said motor is a linear actuator”, Fig. 1), at least two of the plurality of linear actuators being oriented in at least two distinct planes (Fig. 2), but does not teach:
wherein the plurality of linear actuators alternate extension and retraction, with at least one of the linear actuators extending while at least another of the linear actuators retracts, to provide rocking, wavelike movement, or other movement about multiple planes/axes.
Kamei teaches:
a plurality of linear actuators positioned between the frame and the bed (drive devices (40), Fig. 1 and 2), at least two of the plurality of linear actuators being oriented in at least two distinct planes (Fig. 1)
wherein the plurality of linear actuators alternate extension and retraction to provide rocking, wavelike movement, or other movement about multiple planes/axes (Para. [0032], Para. [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuators of Srinivasan with the linear actuators of Kamei with a reasonable expectation of success. As pointed out by Applicant, although the actuators of Srinivasan are disclosed as being linear actuators, the disclosure further states that the linear actuator is “capable of converting rotary motion to linear motion” (claim 3) and as such, does not extend and retract as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to instead use linear actuators that extend and retract, as taught by Kamei, since linear actuators are known to be energy efficient and require less space than rotary actuators. Both linear and rotary actuators are well-known and it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted one for the other where applicable.
Examiner notes that Srinivasan teaches a plurality of actuators that permit a full range of motion that can combine types of motion (i.e., pitching, rolling, and translational) (Abstract). Examiner believes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would require one of the actuators of Srinivasan, in view of Kamei, to be extending while a second one of the actuators is retracting as claimed in order to accomplish the stated combination of motion. However, since this limitation is not expressly stated, Plemmons is brought in as a supporting reference to explicitly teach this feature.
Plemmons teaches:
with at least one of the jacks extending while at least another of the jacks retracts (Col. 4 Lines 43-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dog bed of Srinivasan, in view of Kamei, with the teachings of Plemmons with a reasonable expectation of success. Having one of the linear actuators extend while another retracts provides a wave-like or rocking motion, which may aid in relaxing the user and encouraging the user to fall asleep (Plemmons: Col. 4 Lines 43-55).
Regarding Claim 12
Srinivasan, in view of Kamei and Plemmons, teaches the oscillating/rotating/rocking dog bed of claim 11, further comprising a fulcrum operatively connected to the substantially static support frame and the dynamic bed to allow movement in at least two distinct planes (Srinivasan: ball and socket joint (240)).
Regarding Claim 16
Srinivasan, in view of Kamei and Plemmons, teaches the oscillating/rotating/rocking dog bed of claim 11, further comprising a remote control operatively connected to the plurality of linear actuators to activate the dynamic bed in at least two distinct planes (Srinivasan: Claim 5 “control apparatus… which controls angle of the pitching motion, time duration of rocking, activating or deactivating motion… and wherein said electronic assembly may be controlled remotely via a remote-control device”, Examiner notes that when modified with the teachings of Kamei, the linear actuators would also be powered by the remote control apparatus).
Regarding Claim 17
Srinivasan teaches a dynamic dog bed system (Abstract, Fig. 1, 2), comprising: a substantially static frame (rectangular base frame (80)); a dynamic dog bed operatively connected to the substantially static frame (bed formed by top frame structure (10)), the dynamic dog bed comprising a plurality of upwardly extending sidewalls creating an open-topped enclosure (walls (10, 210) shown upwardly extending from base of bed, Fig. 1, 2); an electronically activated moving system positioned relative to the dynamic dog bed (motors (290, 300), Para. [0021] “Electronic or mechanical controls may be used for the user to control extent of movement”); the electronically activated moving system comprising a plurality of linear actuators positioned between the substantially static frame and the dynamic dog bed (Claim 3 “wherein said motor is a linear actuator”, Fig. 1), at least two of the plurality of linear actuators being oriented in at least two distinct planes (Fig. 2); and a remote control connected to the electronically activated moving system to activate the same (Claim 5 “control apparatus… which controls angle of the pitching motion, time duration of rocking, activating or deactivating motion… and wherein said electronic assembly may be controlled remotely via a remote-control device”), wherein the activation of the electronically activated moving system causes the dynamic dog bed to move in at least two distinct planes relative to the substantially static frame (Para. [0006] “The motion of a rocking bed can be broken down into three categories. First, “pitching” motion, characterized by up and down motion of the bedframe and mattress up and down about its transverse (along the left and right side of the sleeping person, also referred to as the Y axis) axis. “Rolling” motion is a tilting rotation about a longitudinal (from the head to the toe of the sleeping person, often referred to as the X axis) axis. This is distinguished from a turning rotation about the vertical or “Z” axis, within the X-Y plane, referred to sometimes as “yaw” motion. “Translational” motion is a shifting or turning motion, including yawing motion, within the X-Y plane, such as moving a bed side to side without changing its orientation”, Para. [0021] “Electronic or mechanical controls may be used for the user to control extent of movement”), but does not teach:
wherein the plurality of linear actuators alternate extension and retraction, with at least one of the linear actuators extending while at least another of the linear actuators retracts, to provide rocking, wavelike movement, or other movement about multiple planes/axes.
Kamei teaches:
a plurality of linear actuators positioned between the frame and the bed (drive devices (40), Fig. 1 and 2), at least two of the plurality of linear actuators being oriented in at least two distinct planes (Fig. 1)
wherein the plurality of linear actuators alternating extension and retraction to provide rocking, wavelike movement, or other movement about multiple planes/axes (Para. [0032], Para. [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuators of Srinivasan with the linear actuators of Kamei with a reasonable expectation of success. As pointed out by Applicant, although the actuators of Srinivasan are disclosed as being linear actuators, the disclosure further states that the linear actuator is “capable of converting rotary motion to linear motion” (claim 3) and as such, does not extend and retract as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to instead use linear actuators that extend and retract, as taught by Kamei, since linear actuators are known to be energy efficient and require less space than rotary actuators. Both linear and rotary actuators are well-known and it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted one for the other where applicable.
Examiner notes that Srinivasan teaches a plurality of actuators that permit a full range of motion that can combine types of motion (i.e., pitching, rolling, and translational) (Abstract). Examiner believes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would require one of the actuators of Srinivasan, in view of Kamei, to be extending while a second one of the actuators is retracting as claimed in order to accomplish the stated combination of motion. However, since this limitation is not expressly stated, Plemmons is brought in as a supporting reference to explicitly teach this feature.
Plemmons teaches:
with at least one of the jacks extending while at least another of the jacks retracts (Col. 4 Lines 43-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dog bed of Srinivasan, in view of Kamei, with the teachings of Plemmons with a reasonable expectation of success. Having one of the linear actuators extend while another retracts provides a wave-like or rocking motion, which may aid in relaxing the user and encouraging the user to fall asleep (Plemmons: Col. 4 Lines 43-55).
Regarding Claim 18
Srinivasan, in view of Kamei and Plemmons, teaches the dynamic dog bed system of claim 17, wherein the remote control is connected wired or wirelessly to the electronically activated moving system (Srinivasan: Claim 5 “control apparatus… which controls angle of the pitching motion, time duration of rocking, activating or deactivating motion… and wherein said electronic assembly may be controlled remotely via a remote-control device”, Examiner notes that “controlled remotely” implies a wireless connection. However, Srinivasan teaches that the remote-control device controls the moving system, and this must be done either wirelessly or via wired connection, either or which meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding Claim 20
Srinivasan, in view of Kamei and Plemmons, teaches the dynamic dog bed system of claim 17, further comprising a timer connected to a processor to control operation of the electronically activated moving system (Kamei: Para. [0021] “Electronic or mechanical controls may be used for the user to control extent of movement or angle of swing, time duration of rocking, time duration of staying in rest position, switching on or off of motion, resting position/angle of bed and speed of rocking”, Examiner notes that electronic controls must encompass both a timer and processer to perform a timed activation of the moving system).
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan et al. (US 20230255360 A1), hereinafter Srinivasan, in view of Copeland et al. (US 20240260538 A1), hereinafter Copeland, Kamei (US 20230270261 A1), and Plemmons (US 11812858 B1).
Regarding Claim 1
Srinivasan teaches an apparatus (Abstract, Fig. 1, 2), comprising: a frame (rectangular base frame (80)); a bed positioned relative to the frame (bed formed by top frame structure (10)), said bed comprising a mattress (Para. [0020] “the top frame structure of the bed (which holds the mattress) 10”); a plurality of linear actuators positioned between the frame and the bed (Claim 3 “wherein said motor is a linear actuator”, Fig. 1), at least two of the plurality of linear actuators being oriented in at least two distinct planes (Fig. 2); wherein the bed is movable relative to the frame in at least a first plane and a second plane (Para. [0006] “The motion of a rocking bed can be broken down into three categories. First, “pitching” motion, characterized by up and down motion of the bedframe and mattress up and down about its transverse (along the left and right side of the sleeping person, also referred to as the Y axis) axis. “Rolling” motion is a tilting rotation about a longitudinal (from the head to the toe of the sleeping person, often referred to as the X axis) axis. This is distinguished from a turning rotation about the vertical or “Z” axis, within the X-Y plane, referred to sometimes as “yaw” motion. “Translational” motion is a shifting or turning motion, including yawing motion, within the X-Y plane, such as moving a bed side to side without changing its orientation”), wherein the first and second planes are different from one another (Examiner notes that the motion described in Para. [0006] moves the bed relative to the frame around the X and Y axes, which are within different planes), but does not teach:
said bed comprising a plurality of upwardly extending sidewalls extending above and surrounding a mattress to form an open-topped enclosure;
wherein the bed is movable via the plurality of linear actuators alternating extension and retraction, with at least one of the linear actuators extending while at least another of the linear actuators retracts, to provide rocking, wavelike movement, or other movement about multiple planes/axes.
Copeland teaches:
said bed comprising a plurality of upwardly extending sidewalls extending above and surrounding a mattress to form an open-topped enclosure (prominence (24)).
Examiner notes that Srinivasan does teach a plurality of upwardly extending sidewalls, but the bed in the figures is shown without the mattress, so it is unclear whether or not the sidewalls would extend above the mattress, as this would depend on the thickness of the mattress. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bed of Srinivasan with the features of Copeland with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a surface that is comfortable for an animal (Copeland: Para. [0022]) and a means to prevent the animal from falling or rolling off the bed.
Furthermore, Kamei teaches:
a plurality of linear actuators positioned between the frame and the bed (drive devices (40), Fig. 1 and 2)
wherein the bed is movable… via the plurality of linear actuators alternating extension and retraction to provide rocking, wavelike movement, or other movement about multiple planes/axes (Para. [0032], Para. [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuators of Srinivasan with the linear actuators of Kamei with a reasonable expectation of success. As pointed out by Applicant, although the actuators of Srinivasan are disclosed as being linear actuators, the disclosure further states that the linear actuator is “capable of converting rotary motion to linear motion” (claim 3) and as such, does not extend and retract as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to instead use linear actuators that extend and retract, as taught by Kamei, since linear actuators are known to be energy efficient and require less space than rotary actuators. Both linear and rotary actuators are well-known and it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted one for the other where applicable.
Examiner notes that Srinivasan teaches a plurality of actuators that permit a full range of motion that can combine types of motion (i.e., pitching, rolling, and translational) (Abstract). Examiner believes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would require one of the actuators of Srinivasan, in view of Copeland and Kamei, to be extending while a second one of the actuators is retracting as claimed in order to accomplish the stated combination of motion. However, since this limitation is not expressly stated, Plemmons is brought in as a supporting reference to explicitly teach this feature.
Plemmons teaches:
with at least one of the jacks extending while at least another of the jacks retracts (Col. 4 Lines 43-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dog bed of Srinivasan, in view of Copeland and Kamei, with the teachings of Plemmons with a reasonable expectation of success. Having one of the linear actuators extend while another retracts provides a wave-like or rocking motion, which may aid in relaxing the user and encouraging the user to fall asleep (Plemmons: Col. 4 Lines 43-55).
Regarding Claim 2
Srinivasan, in view of Copeland, Kamei, and Plemmons, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the bed is connected to the frame by at least a first rotatable axis and a second rotatable axis (Srinivasan: bed is connected to the frame via ball and socket joint (240) which allows rotation around multiple axes as claimed, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3
Srinivasan, in view of Copeland, Kamei, and Plemmons, teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the plurality of linear actuators comprises a first actuator operatively positioned between the bed and the frame (Srinivasan: motor (290), Claim 8 “wherein said motors are linear actuators”) and a second actuator operatively positioned between the bed and the frame (Srinivasan: motor (300), Claim 8 “wherein said motors are linear actuators”).
Regarding Claim 4
Srinivasan, in view of Copeland, Kamei, and Plemmons, teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the first actuator moves the bed relative to the frame about the first rotatable axis and the second actuator moves the bed relative to the frame about the second axis (Srinivasan: Para. [0022] “Different types of motions, pitch and roll, can be created by appropriately operating the two motors as required to generate the motions. For pitch motion, the motors 290 and 300 would be operated such that their respective shafts 330 and 340 move simultaneously upwards or simultaneously downwards. For roll motion, the motors 290 and 300 would be operated such that their respective shafts 330 and 340 move in opposite directions to each other (for example, when shaft 330 is moved upwards, shaft 340 would be moved correspondingly downwards)”).
Regarding Claim 5
Srinivasan, in view of Copeland, Kamei, and Plemmons, teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first and second axes are positioned approximately 90-degrees relative to one another (Srinivasan: Para. [0011] “As discussed, “pitching motion,” is rotation about the Y axis, “rolling motion” is rotation about the X axis”, Examiner notes that although not explicitly defined by Srinivasan, the X and Y axes form a 90 degree angle).
Regarding Claim 6
Srinivasan, in view of Copeland, Kamei, and Plemmons, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an onboard control on one of the upwardly extending sidewalls (Srinivasan discloses “Electronic or mechanical controls may be used for the user to control intensity of vibration, time duration of vibration, intervals or patterns of vibration, combinations of vibration and motion, and the electronic control of rolling and pitching discussed prior” in Para. [0025], but the location of the controller is not disclosed, Copeland shows a switch (60) shown attached to one of the upwardly extending sidewalls in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 8
Srinivasan, in view of Copeland, Kamei, and Plemmons, teaches the apparatus of claim 7, further comprising a fulcrum positioned between the bed and the frame (Srinivasan: ball and socket joint (240)), and wherein the plurality of actuators is configured to move the bed in any number of planes about the fulcrum (Srinivasan: Para. [0022] “Different types of motions, pitch and roll, can be created by appropriately operating the two motors as required to generate the motions”, Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks pp. 7-12) that none of the cited prior art references teach the limitations of amended claims 1, 11, and 17.
Specifically, Applicant argues (Remarks pp. 9) that none of the references show a plurality of extend/retract linear actuators oriented in two distinct planes. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The actuators of both Srinivasan and Kamei are in separate and distinct vertical planes. As best understood by Examiner, Applicant is arguing that the prior art does not teach linear actuators in different horizontal planes. Examiner respectfully notes that this feature is not claimed.
Applicant also argues (Remarks pp. 9-10) that although Kamei is being relied upon for the alternating extension and retraction to provide rocking, wavelike movement, or other movement about multiple planes/axes, Kamei only oscillates in one direction. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kamei discloses drive devices (40) which work with the pendulum member (31) to oscillate in the lateral direction, as well as movement via vibration frequency, which Examiner notes adds another axis of movement. Fig. 1b, for example, shows possible locations of the bed relative to the frame, and Examiner notes that there is both a vertical and horizontal component of this movement. Examiner further notes that, when the linear actuators of Kamei are applied to the dog bed of Srinivasan, the resulting combination also teaches movement in a plurality of planes/axes since Srinivasan itself teaches movement in multiple planes/axes. Applicant goes on to argue that since the motion of Kamei is synchronized, the reference does not read upon the linear actuators that alternate extending/retracting. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The previous claim language did not specify that one actuator needed to extend while the other retracted, just simply that the actuators as a whole alternate extending/retracting. To teach the amended claim limitation “wherein the plurality of linear actuators alternating alternate extension and retraction, with at least one of the linear actuators extending wile at least another of the linear actuators retracts”, Plemmons has been brought in as a supporting reference. Applicant is correct that none of the previously cited prior art references explicitly teach one actuator extending while the other retracts.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine June Walter whose telephone number is (571)272-6150. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/K.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights