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 .
Application Status
Claims 1 and 4-8 are pending in this application. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2 and 3 have been cancelled. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 3/3/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 comprises incorrect spacing in Line 2. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite, “knocked-down (K/D)”. 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanthasamy (US 20100269255 A1) in view of Huse (US 20050247255 A1), in view of Reilly (US 2648071 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Kanthasamy discloses a modular sofa bed (sofa bed 100), wherein the modular sofa bed comprises: one or more base modules (sofa bed 100), wherein each of the base modules comprises a hollow base frame (See Fig. 4, frame 302) and a seat board module (seat deck 101) detachably set to the hollow base frame (See Fig. 3, seat deck 101 detachably set on track mechanism 301); one or more backrest modules (back rest 102), wherein each of the backrest modules is detachably connected to a corresponding one of the base modules (See Fig. 5 and 5A, back rest 102 connected to frame 302 by way of butterfly hinges 402); and two handrail modules (arm rests 104), detachably set on two outer sides of the base modules (See Fig. 4-5 and 5B, arm rests 104 set on outer sides of frame 302 by way of hook plates 501), respectively; wherein the seat board modules are set on the hollow base frames by sliding mechanisms (See Fig. 3, track mechanism 301); wherein the sliding mechanisms comprise sliding rails set on the hollow base frames and wheels set on the seat board modules (See Fig. 4 and 4B, “roll-out wheels 401 may simply glide smoothly on track mechanism 301”; [0033]), wherein the sliding rails and the wheels are configured to be compatible with each other (See Fig. 4 and 4B, “roll-out wheels 401 may simply glide smoothly on track mechanism 301”; [0033]).
PNG
media_image1.png
380
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
462
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
286
386
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
234
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
236
240
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kanthasamy fails to explicitly disclose wherein middle sections of the sliding rails are horizontally arranged, to enable sliding of the seat board modules; wherein front ends and rear ends of the sliding rails are downwardly inclined to form suspended ends to secure the seat board modules, such that upon the wheels of the seat board modules being at the front ends or rear ends of the sliding rails, the wheels at a bottom of the seat board modules are in a suspended state.
However, Huse teaches wherein middle sections of the sliding rails are horizontally arranged, to enable sliding of the seat board modules (See Fig. 6, rail 52 is horizontally flat).
PNG
media_image6.png
280
750
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Kanthasamy by adding the sliding rail taught by Huse. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so for “moving the seating platform between the seating position and the flat position”; (Huse, [Asbtract]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Kanthasamy in view of Huse fails to explicitly teach wherein front ends and rear ends of the sliding rails are downwardly inclined to form suspended ends to secure the seat board modules, such that upon the wheels of the seat board modules being at the front ends or rear ends of the sliding rails, the wheels at a bottom of the seat board modules are in a suspended state.
However, Reilly teaches wherein front ends and rear ends of the sliding rails are downwardly inclined to form suspended ends to secure the seat board modules, such that upon the wheels of the seat board modules being at the front ends or rear ends of the sliding rails, the wheels at a bottom of the seat board modules are in a suspended state (See Fig. 3, rails 23 forms downwardly inclined ends at both sides forming suspended ends and causing the carriages 21 to stop at either end of the rails 23).
PNG
media_image7.png
426
742
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Kanthasamy in view of Huse by adding the sloped rails taught by Reilly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “limit the travel of the carriage”; (Reilly, [Col. 2, Lines 44-45]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 4-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanthasamy (US 20100269255 A1) in view of Huse (US 20050247255 A1), in view of Reilly (US 2648071 A), further in view of Nelson (US 2018000244 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Kanthasamy, as modified, teaches the modular sofa bed (sofa bed 100) according to claim 1.
Kanthasamy in view of Huse in view of Reilly fails to explicitly disclose wherein the base modules are coupled to the handrail modules via connecting footboards.
However, Nelson teaches wherein the base modules are coupled to the handrail modules via connecting footboards (See Fig. 10B, transverse members 14 coupled to base member 12 by foot couplers 34).
PNG
media_image8.png
314
366
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Kanthasamy in view of Huse in view of Reilly by adding the footboards taught by Nelson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “remodel or reconfigure the furniture system”; (Nelson, [0078]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 5, Kanthasamy, as modified, teaches the modular sofa bed (sofa bed 100) according to claim 4.
Kanthasamy in view of Huse in view of Reilly fails to explicitly teach wherein the connecting footboards comprise one or more of two-hole connecting footboards, three-hole connecting footboards, and four-hole connecting footboards.
However, Nelson teaches wherein the connecting footboards comprise one or more of two-hole connecting footboards, three-hole connecting footboards, and four-hole connecting footboards (See Fig. 10B, foot couplers 34 having four holes).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Kanthasamy in view of Huse in view of Reilly by adding the footboards with multiple holes taught by Nelson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “remodel or reconfigure the furniture system”; (Nelson, [0078]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 8, Kanthasamy, as modified, teaches the modular sofa bed (sofa bed 100) according to claim 1.
Kanthasamy in view of Huse in view of Reilly fails to explicitly disclose wherein the base modules are detachably connected by connecting footboards.
However, Nelson teaches wherein the base modules are detachably connected by connecting footboards (See Fig. 1B, base members 12 connected by foot couplers 34).
PNG
media_image9.png
308
446
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Kanthasamy in view of Huse in view of Reilly by coupling the base members with the foot couplers as taught by Nelson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “remodel or reconfigure the furniture system”; (Nelson, [0078]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanthasamy (US 20100269255 A1) in view of Huse (US 20050247255 A1), in view of Reilly (US 2648071 A), further in view of Platte (US 3618993 A).
Regarding Claim 6, Kanthasamy, as modified, teaches the modular sofa bed (sofa bed 100) according to claim 1, wherein the backrest modules are connected to the hollow base frames via knocked-down(K/D) detachable hinges (See Fig. 4A, butterfly hinge 402), enabling a folding movement between the backrest modules and the hollow base frames (“allow rotation of back rest 102”; [0033]).
Kanthasamy in view of Huse in view of Reilly fails to explicitly disclose the K/D detachable hinges comprise female hinge parts and male hinge parts; wherein the female hinge parts are installed on the backrest modules, and wherein the male hinge parts are installed on the hollow base frames; wherein the female hinge parts are connected to the male hinge parts via a slip-on connection.
However, Platte teaches the K/D detachable hinges comprise female hinge parts (female clip element 18b) and male hinge parts (male clip element 16b); wherein the female hinge parts are installed on the backrest modules (See Fig. 9, female clip element installed on member 14b), and wherein the male hinge parts are installed on the hollow base frames (See Fig. 9, male clip element installed on member 12b); wherein the female hinge parts are connected to the male hinge parts via a slip-on connection (See Fig. 9, female clip element 18b slips onto male clip element 16b by way of male clip means 26b and female clip means 30b).
PNG
media_image10.png
220
286
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Kanthasamy in view of Huse in view of Reilly by adding the male and female hinge connection as taught by Platte. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the structural members may be locked to each other by engagement of the male and female clip means”; (Platte, [0035]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanthasamy (US 20100269255 A1) in view of Huse (US 20050247255 A1), in view of Reilly (US 2648071 A), further in view of Huang (CN 104223832 B).
Regarding Claim 7, Kanthasamy, as modified, teaches the modular sofa bed (sofa bed 100) according to claim 1, wherein the handrail modules are connected to the hollow base frames via K/D connecting plates (See Fig. 5 and 5B, metal hook plates 501): wherein the K/D connecting plates comprise female sliding plug parts (501 hook plate), male sliding plug parts (male portion of 501 hook plate); wherein the male sliding plug parts are installed on the handrail modules (male portion of 501 hook plates on arm rests 104), and the handrail modules are detachably connected to the hollow base frames via a slip-on connection between the male sliding plug parts and the female sliding plug parts (“right and left armrests 104 are each connected to frame 302 via two metal hook plates 501 attached to frame 302”; [0033]).
Kanthasamy in view of Huse in view of Reilly fails to explicitly disclose U-shaped hangers, wherein U-shaped hangers are set on the hollow base frames; and wherein the female sliding plug parts are fastened to the U-shaped hangers.
However, Huang teaches U-shaped hangers (See Fig. 2, brackets attached to rail members 301a, 301b), wherein U-shaped hangers are set on the hollow base frames (See Fig. 1, brackets set on front cross beam 301 and rear cross beam 302); and wherein the female sliding plug parts are fastened to the U-shaped hangers (See Fig. 2, rail members 301a, 301b fastened to brackets).
PNG
media_image11.png
502
666
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
512
528
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Kanthasamy in view of Huse in view of Reilly by adding the U-shaped hanger connection as taught by Huang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “obtain different sofa seat depth”; (Huang). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230210267: Song discloses a modular sectional sofa with detachable side and back rests.
US 20180335082 A1: Andersson discloses a sofa bed and a sofa bed slider system comprising a guide rail wherein the sofa bed slides along said guide rail.
US 8850638 B1: Suh discloses a modular folding bed frame set wherein the side portions of the frame are attached by a hinge having a male and female portion.
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 GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673 /JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights