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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the following in the reply filed on 6/4/26 is acknowledged: Species A-I (apparatus includes a fabric band), Species B-I (left rail and right rail are substantially identical as defined in [0018]), Species C-I (head and foot rail are identical), Species D-I (apparatus includes a center rail), and Species E-II (female element as illustrated by the dashed lines in fig. 7). The traversal is on the ground(s) as set forth in the remarks. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant argues that the requirement improperly conflates all the alleged species groups with each other, which is incorrect. Nowhere in the original requirement is that the case. The requirement further properly articulates the reasoning for a serious search burden, contrary to applicant’s argument. Applicant appears to be requesting examples of what is plainly obvious and readily apparent, e.g. requesting search queries for the different species within the groups. For example, search queries for the species in group B would require different queries based upon the species elected. If Species B-I were elected, the queries would need to include terms such as similar, identical, same, corresponding, etc. If Species B-II were elected, the queries would need to include terms such as different, not identical, dissimilar, unique, etc. The other species within each group would require tailored search queries as well in a similar manner. Further, the art applicable to one would likely not be applicable to the others / another species within each group. For example, a reference in which the left and right side rails are identical would likely not be applicable to an elected species claim in which the left and right side rails are not identical. The same is true, readily apparent, and obvious with regard to each group and the species therein. Therefore, the proper prima facie case was made, a serious search burden exists and applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1-3, 7-9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Jones (US 20160255963 A1).
Re Claim 1
Jones discloses:
A bed base kit for assembling a bed base (see all figs), the kit comprising:
a left and a right side rail (pair of side rails 20) each having opposed first and second ends (fig. 1), each side rail having an upper surface (fig. 1), a lower surface (fig. 1), an outer surface and an inner surface (fig. 1);
a head rail and a foot rail (pair of end rails 40 being the head rail and foot rail) each having opposed left and right ends (fig 1), the head rail and foot rail each having an upper surface (fig 1), a lower surface (fig 1), an outer surface and an inner surface (fig 1);
a plurality of slats (80);
wherein;
the first end of the left side rail interconnects with the left end of the head rail at a left head joint (figs. 1-2);
the first end of the right side rail interconnects with the right end of the head rail at a right head joint (figs. 1-2);
the second end of the left side rail interconnects with the left end of the foot rail at a left foot joint (figs. 1-2);
the second end of the right side rail interconnects with the right end of the foot rail at a right foot joint (figs. 1-2);
thereby forming a bed base perimeter (figs. 1-2);
each of the joints comprising a male and a female interconnect element cooperatively operable to interconnect the respective ends, one of the male and female interconnect elements provided on the respective side rail and a corresponding other of the male and female interconnect elements provide on the corresponding head or foot rail (each of the joints has male and female interconnect elements as claimed, see grooves 52/32 and see clips 120 at each end of the clip, for example).
Re Claim 2
Jones discloses:
wherein each of the joints cooperatively interconnects by the respective side rail moving outwardly relative to a centerline of the head and foot rails, into an interconnected position, and disconnects by the respective side rail moving inwardly relative to the centerline (see figs. 1-2; note that the movement connection/disconnection system as claimed occurs when the siderails are moved such that the clip engages or disengages).
Re Claim 3
Jones discloses:
wherein the slats have ends that engage the side rails and maintain the side rails in the outwardly moved interconnected position (see figs. 1-2).
Re Claim 7
Jones discloses:
wherein the upper surfaces of the side rails have a plurality of inwardly facing slat recesses extending downwardly therein for receiving ends of the slats (fig. 1, e.g. 27), each recess having a vertical depth approximately equal to a vertical height of the slats so that an upper surface of each slat disposed in one of the recesses is generally coplanar with the upper surface of the side rails adjacent the recesses (figs. 1-2).
Re Claim 8
Jones discloses:
wherein each recess has a terminal surface that faces inwardly (fig. 1), each slat having length dimension such that ends of the slats engage the terminal surface to maintain the side rails in their outwardly moved interconnected positions (figs. 1-2).
Re Claim 9
Jones discloses:
further comprising:
a center rail (60) having opposed first and second ends (fig. 1), the center rail having an upper surface and a lower surface (fig. 1), the first end of the center rail interconnecting with a midportion of the head rail at a center head joint and the second end of the center rail interconnecting with a midportion of the foot rail at a center foot joint (fig. 1), each of the center joints comprising a male and a female interconnect element cooperatively operable to interconnect the respective end with the respective head or foot rail (fig. 1), one of the male and female interconnect elements provided on the center rail and a corresponding other of the male and female interconnect elements provide on the corresponding head or foot rail (fig. 1).
Re Claim 11
Jones discloses:
wherein the upper surface of the center rail in the interconnected position is lower than the upper surfaces of the side, head and foot rails, such that the slats are disposed on top of the center rail and have an upper surface that is generally coplanar with the upper surfaces of the side, head and foot rails (figs. 1-2).
Re Claim 12
Jones discloses:
further comprising a stretchable fabric band configured to be stretched around the bed base perimeter and to cover the outer surfaces of the side, head and foot rails in an assembled configuration (140; see fig. 4).
Re Claim 13
Jones discloses:
further comprising a stretchable fabric band configured to be stretched around the bed base perimeter and to cover the outer surfaces of the side, head and foot rails in an assembled configuration (140; see fig. 4).
Re Claim 14
Jones discloses:
wherein the side rails and head and foot rails are open trusses (figs. 1-2), each having a upper element (figs. 1-2), a lower element (figs. 1-2), and connecting elements extending between the upper and lower elements (figs. 1-2).
Re Claim 15
Jones discloses:
wherein the left side rail and right side rail are substantially identical (figs. 1-2).
Re Claim 16
Jones discloses:
wherein the head rail and foot rail are substantially identical (figs. 1-2).
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 20160255963 A1) in view of Official Notice.
Re Claims 4-6 and 10
Jones discloses all claim limitations, see above, but does not explicitly disclose the following:
4. (Original) The bed base kit according to claim 2,
wherein the joints are dovetail joints with the respective male interconnect elements moving outwardly into the respective female interconnect elements.
5. (Original) The bed base kit according to claim 4,
wherein the dovetail joints each have lower sides that are generally horizontal in a lateral direction and upper sides that are angled upwardly in the lateral direction.
6. (Original) The bed base kit according to claim 4,
wherein the dovetail joints each have lower sides and upper sides that both are angled upwardly in the lateral direction.
10. (Original) The bed base kit according to claim 9,
wherein the center joints are dovetail joints with the male and female engagement elements moving vertically into an interconnected position.
Regarding each and every one of the above, examiner hereby takes official notice that the claimed limitations / features are old and well known in the art and further that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Jones to include each of the above for the purpose(s) of providing a secure and releasable connection which facilitates assembly and provides adequate support for a user, often without requiring the use of additional tools. It is further noted that dovetail joints are commonplace in the art, including with the particulars claimed, and that using them at any joint location is obvious and also known in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See US 10709254 B2 for yet another example of connections at the corners with male and female members. US 20170042336 A1 provides an additional example of a fabric band / cover in fig. 5. CA 2912909 A1 has the claimed truss structure, slats, and arrangement of the elements generally as well as a fabric band. Regarding dovetails, see the following: EP 2108850 A2, US 20080235868 A1 (noted in the prior art, see 0006), CN 1807042 A, EP 0935936 A2, US 4391008 A, GB 407273 A, US 0064175 A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SOSNOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7944. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM and 9 PM through 11:59 PM Monday through Friday, generally.
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.
/DAVID E. SOSNOWSKI/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
