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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, line 31, “have a convex” should read –has a convex--. On page 5, line 5, “in preserved” should read –is preserved--. On page 5, line 9, “limitation can be made” should read –limitation be made--. On page 6, line 3, “position in the” should read –positioned in the--. On page 6, line 19, “flexible” should read –Flexible--. On page 7, line 25, “correspond” should read –corresponds--. On page 8, line 28, “tight” should read –tighten--. On page 9, line 31, “5.9mm. cylindrical” should read –5.9mm. Cylindrical--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 12, “insert” should read –inserts--. In claim 1, lines 17-18, “pin is firm” should read –pin is held firm--. In claim 10, line 2, “comprising” should read –comprises--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-16 are 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 1 discloses “at least one adjustment strap circumference said mattress”. This phrasing makes Applicant’s intent unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Additionally, the term circumference is traditionally used to describe a property of a circle, ellipse, or sphere and the mattress shown appears in the figures as a rectangular prism.
With regard to claims 2-16, in that claims 2-16 depend either directly or indirectly form claim 1, claims 2-16 are similarly rejected.
Claim 8 discloses “in the bottom portion of said retainer body constructed a convex structure”. This wording does not make it clear what is constructed and where it is in relation to the other elements. This unclear wording renders the claim indefinite.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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(s) 1, 2, 4-8 and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2020 0079632 (Oh hereinafter) in view of USPAP 2023/0066732 (Gray hereinafter). For the purposes of this rejection, any reference to the text of Oh refers to the English translation provided by Applicant.
With regard to claim 1, insofar as claim 1 is definite, Oh discloses a sheet retainer for retaining sheet smooth and tight over mattress comprising:
- at least one adjustment strap (B) circumference said mattress (M);
- at least one locking pin (300) having an inserting cylindrical portion (340, 342, 360),
- at least one sheet retainer body (200) having a locking hole (220) with upper, bottom and middle hole portions (Fig.’s 6 and 7); flexible lock pin slits (240) utilized for locking said locking pin (300) into said retainer body (200);
wherein for tightening a sheet (C) over said mattress (M) said sheet (C) is spread over the mattress (M), then a user insert said inserting portion (340, 342, 360) of said locking pin (300) into said locking hole (220) wide section and slide said locking pin (300) upwards towards the narrow section in said locking hole (220) and by doing so, fixes said sheet (C) to said sheet retainer body (200), ensuring a smooth and tight fit over said mattress (M)
whereby, to prevent said locking pin (300) from slipping out of said locking hole (220), said locking pin (300) and said locking hole (220) are shaped so that the locking pin (300) is firm and can be opened only by the user and not slide out spontaneously due to pressure.
Oh does not disclose said sheet retainer body further having strap slide/lock slits for sliding said sheet retainer body along said adjustment straps and locking said sheet retainer body from moving along said adjustment strap after tightening said adjustment strap to said mattress.
Gray teaches a sheet retention assembly comprising a strap (62) and strap slide/lock slits (74a, 74b) for sliding a sheet retainer body (60) along said adjustment straps (62) and locking said sheet retainer body (60) from moving along said adjustment strap (62) after tightening said adjustment strap (62) to a mattress (10) (Fig.’s 1 and 24 and paragraphs [0045] and [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the apparatus of Oh by providing strap slide/lock slits for sliding said sheet retainer body along said adjustment straps and locking said sheet retainer body from moving along said adjustment strap after tightening said adjustment strap to said mattress as taught in Gray for the purposes of changing the sheet tension or moving the sheet retainers to a different configuration (paragraph [0046] of Gray).
It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art.
With regard to claim 2, insofar as claim 2 is definite, the Oh modification with regard to claim 1 discloses a sheet retainer according to claim 1, wherein said sheet retainer body (200) further having a convex structure (Fig. 5) to allow the movement of said locking pin (300) in a convenient manner while sliding in said sheet retainer body (200) and to reduce the required pressure for said retainer body to be embedded and sunk in the mattress (M) circumference surface once pressure is applied on said sheet retainer body (200).
It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art.
With regard to claim 4, insofar as claim 4 is definite, the Oh modification with regard to claim 1 discloses a sheet retainer according to claim 1, wherein said slide/lock slits (74a, 74b) is Ladderlock strap slits.
With regard to claim 5, insofar as claim 5 is definite, the Oh modification with regard to claim 1 discloses a sheet retainer according to claim 1, wherein pair of strap slide/lock slits (74a, 74b) are positioned in the left side of said sheet retainer body (200) and in the right side of said sheet retainer body (200) and additional pair of slide/lock strip slits positioned in the upper and bottom portions of said sheet retainer body (200) wherein said additional pair of said pair of slide/lock strip slits are utilized for retaining sheet (C) over adjustable bed types. Paragraph [0046] of Gray discloses that sheet retainers can be moved and adjusted to different configurations, anticipating the need for slide/lock slits on multiple sides to accommodate different locations and configurations.
With regard to claim 6, insofar as claim 6 is definite, the Oh modification with regard to claim 1 discloses a sheet retainer according to claim 1, wherein said sheet retainer body (200) further comprising a stopper (260) to prevent said sheet retainer body (200) from moving when tightened to a mattress (M) and stay firmly in place in the corners of the mattress (M) or in any desired location along the circumference the mattress (M).
It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art.
With regard to claim 7, insofar as claim 7 is definite, the Oh modification with regard to claim 1 discloses a sheet retainer according to claim 6, wherein said stopper (260) is constructed from a plurality of protrusions.
With regard to claim 8, insofar as claim 8 is definite, the Oh modification with regard to claim 1 discloses a sheet retainer according to claim 6, wherein in the bottom portion of said retainer body constructed a convex structure which is utilized for releasing said retainer body from a bed when said retainer body is tightened to said bed and a user wishes to release said retainer body.
It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art.
With regard to claim 10, insofar as claim 10 is definite, the Oh modification with regard to claim 1 discloses a sheet retainer according to claim 1, wherein the upper portion of said locking pin (300) comprising a grabbing means (320).
With regard to claim 11, insofar as claim 11 is definite, the Oh modification with regard to claim 1 discloses a sheet retainer according to claim 1, wherein said inserting portion (340, 342, 360) is a cylindrical-shaped section having cascading diameters portions.
With regard to claim 12, insofar as claim 12 is definite, the Oh modification with regard to claim 1 discloses a sheet retainer according to claim 1, wherein said sheet retainer body (200) having two flexible lock pin slits (240) positioned near the circumference of said locking hole (220) wherein, said flexibility slits (240) impart elasticity to said locking hole (220), thereby, increasing flexibility, said locking hole (220) is expanded when said locking pin (300) is inserted into said locking pin hole along with the sheet (C),
therefore, to enable said locking hole (220) to expand under pressure so that the sheet (C), which is trapped between said locking pin (300) and said locking hole (220), does not tear; said flexibility slits (240), and the flexibility they impart, relieve some of the pressure on the sheet (C).
It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art.
With regard to claim 13, insofar as claim 13 is definite, the Oh modification with regard to claim 1 discloses a sheet retainer according to claim 1, wherein said inserting cylindrical portion (340, 342, 360) of said locking pin (300) having cascading diameters for locking said locking pin (300) in place and preventing said locking pin (300) from slipping out from said locking hole (220) even when pressure is applied to said locking pin (300).
It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art.
With regard to claim 14, insofar as claim 14 is definite, the Oh modification with regard to claim 1 discloses a sheet retainer according to claim 1, wherein in order for said locking pin (300), when locked to said retainer body will not release or slip out when tightening and locking the corners of the sheet (C) to said sheet retainer or when pressure is applied thereon by the user's weight over said mattress (M); the width of said upper hole portion is bigger than the width of said middle hole portion and the width of bottom hole portion is bigger than the width of said upper portion and said middle portion holes (Fig.’s 6 and 7).
It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art.
With regard to claim 15, insofar as claim 15 is definite, the Oh modification with regard to claim 1 discloses a sheet retainer according to claim 1, wherein said sheet retainer is further used for an adjustable bed that has at least one hinged lying surface which can be profiled to several different positions, wherein at least one of said retainer body is slidable and lockable through at least one adjustable strap (B) that circumference said one hinged lying surface.
It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art.
With regard to claim 16, insofar as claim 16 is definite, the Oh modification with regard to claim 1 discloses a sheet retainer according to claim 13, except for wherein at least one of said cascading diameters portions is 1.03 times bigger than the width of said middle hole portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to at least one of said cascading diameters portions is 1.03 times bigger than the width of said middle hole portion, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case it is only critical that at least one of said cascading diameters portion is bigger than the width of said middle portion, which Oh discloses. The result effective variable is to what degree at least one of said cascading diameters portion is bigger than the width of said middle portion and Applicant has shown no criticality to it being 1.03 times bigger.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Gray and in further view of USP 5,182,827 (Carrier et al. hereinafter) and USPAP 2025/0163281 (Nakamura et al. hereinafter).
With regard to claim 3, insofar as claim 3 is definite, the Oh modification with regard to claim 1 discloses all of the limitations except for wherein said retainer body and said locking pin is made of Polycarbonate/ABS alloy (PC/ABS).
Carrier et al. teaches a sheet retainer (10) made of ABS (col. 1 lines 31-33) and Nakamura et al. teaches that thermoplastic resins such as ABS can be problematic for producing static electricity and sparking (paragraph [0003]) and that a suitable substitute is a Polycarbonate/ABS alloy (paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to further modify the apparatus of the Oh modification with regard to claim 1 by, after learning that ABS is used for sheet retainers as taught in Carrier et al. (col. 1 lines 31-33) to then progress to making the retainer body and said locking pin of Polycarbonate/ABS alloy (PC/ABS) as a suitable substitute for ABS for the purposes of increasing safety by preventing static electricity build-up and sparking (paragraph [0003] of Nakamura et al.).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Gray and in further view of USPAP 2013/0283528 (Tzur ‘528 hereinafter).
With regard to claim 9, insofar as claim 9 is definite, the Oh modification with regard to claim 1 discloses all of the limitations except for wherein said retainer body is affixed to a mattress by attaching means selected from a group of stiches, snap fit joints, adhesive or screws and is integrated in the corners of said mattress.
Tzur ‘528 teaches a sheet retainer (1) that is affixed to a mattress (100) by attaching means selected from a group of stiches, snap fit joints, adhesive or screws and is integrated in the corners of said mattress (paragraphs [0030], [0031] and [0038] and Figure 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to further modify the apparatus of the Oh modification with regard to claim 1 by providing that said retainer body is affixed to a mattress by attaching means selected from a group of stiches, snap fit joints, adhesive or screws and is integrated in the corners of said mattress as taught in Tzur ‘528 for the purposes of allowing the device to function regardless of whether the sheet is slightly small or large (paragraph [0038] of Tzur ‘528).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPAP’s 2024/0298809, 2014/0150181, 2005/0125903, 2020/0060448 and 2017/0095091 as well as USP’s 5,642,547, 5,327,595, 5,191,664, 4,199,831 and 2,450,923 all disclose sheet retention systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON R EASTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 C. 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.
/AARON R EASTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673