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 without traverse of Group I and Species I as represented by Figs. 4-5B in the reply filed on 11/14/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/14/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the frame comprises a wedge.” As written it appears that the claim would require that the frame have a new, wedge structure. However, based upon the original disclosure, this does not appear to be the case. Rather, it appears that applicant intends that the recitation mean that the frame is configured as a wedge or that the frame is wedge-shaped as there is no support for a new, wedge structural element on or as part of the frame.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “hospital grade.” The term is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by McCauley (US Patent No. 1865030).
Re Claim 1
McCauley discloses:
A system (see all figs.) comprising:
a frame comprising:
a first triangular shaped stand (one side of the combination of 11, 14, and 16; see figs. 1-2);
a second triangular shaped stand (opposite side of the combination of 11, 14, and 16; see figs. 1-2); and
at least one cross beam connecting the first triangular shaped stand and the second triangular shaped stand (cross beam of one of the u-shaped frames 11, 14, and 16; see figs. 1-2); and
a mesh support extending between the first triangular shaped stand and the second triangular shaped stand (see mesh support being the covers 11A and/or 9; see fig. 1).
Re Claim 8
McCauley discloses:
wherein the frame comprises a wedge (see figs. 1-2) and the mesh support is held at a 30 degree angle or less (it is clear from the disclosure and figs. 1-2 that the mesh support is readily able to be held at the claimed angle range; see also page 1 lines 90-96 and lines 82-87; note that the angle is able to be adjusted through the angle bracket orifices and that 16 may be moved to the back of the frame e.g. at 7, but is able to extend beyond and be held at even lower angles).
Re Claim 9
McCauley discloses:
wherein angles in the frame are curved (see 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) 3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCauley (US Patent No. 1865030).
Re Claim 3
McCauley discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the first triangular shaped stand, the second triangular shaped stand, and the at least one cross beam are made of stainless steel tubing.
The tubing in McCauley is not disclosed as being stainless steel, but rather light metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to make the claimed elements of stainless steel tubing since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Such a modification would have been obvious for the purpose of providing a corrosion / rust resistant and/or strong, rigid material for support and is also in line with the suggested material in the reference’s disclosure.
Re Claim 5
McCauley discloses all claim limitations, see above, including:
further comprising:
a plurality of straps (25) operably attached to the mesh support (fig. 1).
McCauley does not explicitly disclose:
a plurality of mounts on the frame, each of the plurality of mounts configured to operably engage one of the plurality of straps.
McCauley discloses mounts (e.g. 26) which are eyelets on the frame for securing the mesh, but they do not appear to be operably configured to engage the straps. The straps are also intended to secure the mesh. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have straps configured to operably engage mounts on the frame as a simple substitution of one attachment mechanism for another (e.g. as a substitute for either or both of the eyelets and the mounts in the reference), use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, applying a known technique ready for improvement to yield predictable results, and/or via simple common knowledge in the art – attachment of an element via straps connecting to mounts is old and well known in the art, for the purpose of providing a releasably secure means of attachment.
Re Claim 6
McCauley discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the mesh support further comprises:
a hospital grade, machine washable mesh.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have the mesh support further comprise a hospital grade, machine washable mesh, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Such a modification would have been obvious for the purpose of providing a safe and supportive surface which can be readily cleaned as necessary.
Re Claim 7
McCauley discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
wherein the system weighs 30 pounds or less.
McCauley recognizes weight as a consideration in the apparatus – see discussion of light metal in the original disclosure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have the system weigh 30 pounds or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Such a modification would have been obvious for the purpose of portability, ease of use, and/or to prevent injury to the user.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCauley (US Patent No. 1865030) in view of O’Leary (US Patent No. 2856614).
Re Claim 2
McCauley discloses all claim limitations, see above, except:
further comprising:
at least one riser configured between two sides of the first triangular shaped stand; and
at least one riser configured between two sides of the second triangular shaped stand.
O’Leary teaches at least one riser configured between two sides of the first triangular shaped stand and at least one riser configured between two sides of the second triangular shaped stand (22 on each side; see all figs) for the purpose of providing increased support for structural purposes and/or to suit a user’s comfort preferences. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify McCauley to include the limitations above for the purpose articulated above.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCauley (US Patent No. 1865030) in view of Paris (US Patent No. 5125650).
Re Claim 4
McCauley discloses all claim limitations, see above, including:
wherein the frame comprises:
a lower rear cross beam configured to connect to a right angle of the first triangular shaped stand and a right angle of the second triangular shaped stand (cross beam portion of 14 which spans between the two sides; alternatively, the cross beam at 16 or at 13);
a lower middle cross beam extending between a bottom side of the first triangular shaped stand and a bottom side of the second triangular shaped stand (cross beam portion of 16 which spans between the two sides; alternatively, the cross beam at 14 or at 13)
McCauley does not explicitly disclose:
a top cross beam configured between a top apex of the first triangular shaped stand and a top apex of the second triangular shaped stand.
McCauley does disclose a top cross beam of 11 which is between the first and second triangular shaped stands, but it is not at the top apex. Paris teaches a cross beam at the top apex between triangular shaped stands to provide additional strength and support to the apparatus (see fig. 3). It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify McCauley to have the top cross beam located at the top apex between the triangular shaped stands as taught by Paris for the purpose articulated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional mesh supports and triangular stands / frames are provided within the beds art and other analogous art areas.
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