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 12/15/2025, the following has occurred: claims 1, 6, 8, 11, and 17 have been amended; claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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)(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.
Claims 11-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Srinivasan et al. (US 20230255360 A1), hereinafter Srinivasan.
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 movable member positioned relative to the dynamic bed and configured to move the dynamic bed in the at least two distinct planes relative to the substantially static support frame (motors (290, 300)).
Regarding Claim 12
Srinivasan 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 (ball and socket joint (240)).
Regarding Claim 13
Srinivasan teaches the oscillating/rotating/rocking dog bed of claim 11, wherein the movable member comprises an actuator to move the bed in at least two distinct planes (motors (290, 300), Claim 8 “wherein said motors are linear actuators”, Para. [0022] “Different types of motions, pitch and roll, can be created by appropriately operating the two motors as required to generate the motions”).
Regarding Claim 14
Srinivasan teaches the oscillating/rotating/rocking dog bed of claim 11, wherein the movable member comprises a plurality of actuators (motors (290, 300), Claim 8 “wherein said motors are linear actuators”), with at least two of the actuators being linear actuators oriented in at least two distinct planes (Claim 8 “wherein said motors are linear actuators”, Examiner notes that two distinct planes can be defined that each contain one of the actuators, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 16
Srinivasan teaches the oscillating/rotating/rocking dog bed of claim 11, further comprising a remote control operatively connected to the movable member to activate the movable member in at least two distinct planes (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”).
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”); 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”).
Regarding Claim 18
Srinivasan teaches the dynamic dog bed system of claim 17, wherein the remote control is connected wired or wirelessly to the electronically activated moving system (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 19
Srinivasan teaches the dynamic dog bed system of claim 17, wherein the electronically activated moving system comprises: a. one or more electronic actuators (motors (290, 300), Claim 8 “wherein said motors are linear actuators”) to move the dynamic dog bed about a fulcrum positioned between the dynamic dog bed and the substantially static frame (ball and socket joint (240)); c. one or more electronic actuators (motors (290, 300), Claim 8 “wherein said motors are linear actuators”) operated in a pattern to move the dynamic dog bed (Para. [0022] “Different types of motions, pitch and roll, can be created by appropriately operating the two motors as required to generate the motions”, Examiner notes that operating the two motors together to form a specific motion can be considered a pattern).
Regarding Claim 20
Srinivasan 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 (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).
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 1-8 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.
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”); 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.
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.
Regarding Claim 2
Srinivasan, in view of Copeland, 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, teaches the apparatus of claim 2, further comprising 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, 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, 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, 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 7
Srinivasan, in view of Copeland, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of actuators positioned between the bed and the frame (Srinivasan: motors (290, 300), Fig. 2, Claim 8 “wherein said motors are linear actuators”).
Regarding Claim 8
Srinivasan, in view of Copeland, 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).
Claims 1, 2, 9-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al. (US 20130340168 A1), hereinafter Meyer, in view of Taguchi et al. (US 20050160530 A1), hereinafter Taguchi.
Regarding Claim 1
Meyer teaches an apparatus (bed (10)), comprising: a frame (upper (18) and lower (16) frames); a bed positioned relative to the frame (support surface (14) or bed (10)), said bed comprising a mattress (foam shell (40)); wherein the bed is movable relative to the frame in at least a first plane and a second plane (Para. [0065] “The rotation bladders 52 are positioned below the support bladders 50 and are configured to inflate to rotate a patient on the support surface 14 about a longitudinal axis 14A of the support surface”, Para. [0066] “The support bladders 50 include head-support bladder 60, seat-support bladder 62, and foot-support bladder 64 as shown, for example, in FIGS. 2 and 3. The head-support bladder 60 having a plurality of laterally extending inflatable cells 60' is located at a head end 65 of the support surface 14. The foot-support bladder 64 having a plurality of laterally extending inflatable cells 64' is located at a foot end 66 of the support surface 14 and is encased in a cover 67. The seat-support bladder 62 having a plurality of laterally extending inflatable cells 62' is located between the head-support bladders 60 and the foot-support bladders 64”), wherein the first and second planes are different from one another (Examiner notes the first plane is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (14a) and the second plane aligns with the page of Fig. 5-8, thereby making these planes perpendicular to each other), but does not teach:
a plurality of upwardly extending sidewalls extending above and surrounding a mattress to form an open-topped enclosure.
Taguchi teaches:
a plurality of upwardly extending sidewalls extending above and surrounding the sides of a mattress (side members (12Ra-12Rd/12La-12Ld), Fig. 1).
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 Meyer with the sidewalls of Taguchi with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing means for supporting the user’s body from the side (Taguchi: Para. [0050]). Examiner notes that Meyer teaches a footboard (37) and headboard (19) that surround the top and bottom of the mattress, respectively, but only teaches siderails (71, 73) and headrails (75, 77) that are spaced apart along the sides of the mattress. Modifying the bed of Meyer with the sidewalls of Taguchi, that is, sidewalls that extend the entire length of the sides of the mattress, would result in a bed that has a plurality of sidewalls extending above and surrounding the mattress to form an open-ended enclosure as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2
Meyer, in view of Taguchi, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the bed is connected to the frame by at least a first rotatable axis (Meyer: longitudinal axis (14a)) and a second rotatable axis (Meyer: axis perpendicular to the page of Fig. 6-8).
Regarding Claim 9
Meyer, in view of Taguchi, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an inflatable member positioned between the bed and the frame (Meyer: inflatable cells (50) and bladders (52)), said inflatable member able to inflate to provide movement to the bed relative to the static frame (Meyer: Para. [0065] “The rotation bladders 52 are positioned below the support bladders 50 and are configured to inflate to rotate a patient on the support surface 14 about a longitudinal axis 14A of the support surface”, for example).
Regarding Claim 10
Meyer, in view of Taguchi, teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the inflatable member comprises a plurality of inflatable portions that are able to be inflated individually to provide varying movement to the bed in multiple planes (Meyer: Para. [0065] “The rotation bladders 52 are positioned below the support bladders 50 and are configured to inflate to rotate a patient on the support surface 14 about a longitudinal axis 14A of the support surface”, Para. [0066] “The support bladders 50 include head-support bladder 60, seat-support bladder 62, and foot-support bladder 64 as shown, for example, in FIGS. 2 and 3. The head-support bladder 60 having a plurality of laterally extending inflatable cells 60' is located at a head end 65 of the support surface 14. The foot-support bladder 64 having a plurality of laterally extending inflatable cells 64' is located at a foot end 66 of the support surface 14 and is encased in a cover 67. The seat-support bladder 62 having a plurality of laterally extending inflatable cells 62' is located between the head-support bladders 60 and the foot-support bladders 64”, Examiner notes that each of the bladders/inflatable cells are shown in Fig. 3 to be individual elements and are discussed in the disclosure as individually inflated).
Regarding Claim 11
Meyer, in view of Taguchi, teaches an oscillating/rotating/rocking dog bed (Meyer: bed (10)), comprising: a substantially static support frame (Meyer: upper (18) and lower (16) frames); a dynamic bed movably connected to the substantially static support frame (Meyer: support surface (14) or bed (10)), the dynamic bed comprising a surface configured to allow an animal to rest on (Meyer: foam shell (40)), wherein the dynamic bed movable relative to the substantially static support frame in at least two distinct planes (Meyer: Para. [0065] “The rotation bladders 52 are positioned below the support bladders 50 and are configured to inflate to rotate a patient on the support surface 14 about a longitudinal axis 14A of the support surface”, Para. [0066] “The support bladders 50 include head-support bladder 60, seat-support bladder 62, and foot-support bladder 64 as shown, for example, in FIGS. 2 and 3. The head-support bladder 60 having a plurality of laterally extending inflatable cells 60' is located at a head end 65 of the support surface 14. The foot-support bladder 64 having a plurality of laterally extending inflatable cells 64' is located at a foot end 66 of the support surface 14 and is encased in a cover 67. The seat-support bladder 62 having a plurality of laterally extending inflatable cells 62' is located between the head-support bladders 60 and the foot-support bladders 64”, Examiner notes the first plane is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (14a) and the second plane aligns with the page of Fig. 5-8, thereby making these planes perpendicular to each other); and a movable member positioned relative to the dynamic bed and configured to move the dynamic bed in the at least two distinct planes relative to the substantially static support frame (Meyer: inflatable cells (50) and bladders (52)).
Regarding Claim 15
Meyer, in view of Taguchi, teaches the oscillating/rotating/rocking dog bed of claim 11, wherein the movable member comprises an inflatable member (Meyer: inflatable cells (50) and bladders (52)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks pp. 7-9) that Srinivasan and Meyer do not disclose the amended claim language. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. With respect to claims 11-14 and 16-20, Examiner respectfully disagrees that Srinivasan does not disclose the amended claim language. Applicant specifically argues that Srinivasan does not teach upward extending side walls that form an enclosure and goes on to argue that Srinivasan does not teach a bed at all. Examiner respectfully notes that the disclosure of Srinivasan, of which the title is “Rocking Bed That Produces Pitch, Roll, Translational And Vibration Movements”, explicitly recites a bed on numerous occasions. For example, Para. [0016] states “Fig. 1 shows an embodiment comprising a rocking bed” and Examiner notes that both the specification and figures of Srinivasan provide a structure of a bed, despite not designating a reference number for the bed itself. Furthermore, Examiner notes that the walls of the frame extend upwardly to form an enclosure, with the slats forming the base of the bed (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
375
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Srinivasan.
Similarly, Applicant argues that Examiner’s citation of Srinivasan’s claims on the Non-Final Office Action dated 9/17/2025 to reject the claims of the instant application cannot point to any particular structure in the reference. Examiner respectfully notes that the claims of the prior art reference are part of the reference’s disclosure and clearly recite the structure of the instant application’s claimed limitations.
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