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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-16 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 12/19/2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8, lines 12-13 recite “where the longitudinal bar comprises a first longitudinal bar and a second longitudinal bar” however, “a first/second longitudinal bar” was introduced prior in lines 6-7. Suggest changing the second iteration to be: “the first/second longitudinal bar” for improved antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 207855414 U to Chen.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches: A connecting member for a bed frame (see Fig. 2, connecting member 12), comprising a longitudinal connecting portion (see Fig. 2, 122/123 on both sides), a lateral connecting portion (see Fig. 2, either of plates 50A or 50B) and a supporting portion (see Fig. 2, support leg 14), wherein the longitudinal connecting portion is arranged at an end of the supporting portion (see Fig. 2, plates 122/123 are located at a top end of leg 14), the longitudinal connecting portion is provided with a first longitudinal mounting hole (see Fig. 2, space between 122/123 on LEFT side form a gap/“hole”) in which a first longitudinal bar is to be assembled (see Fig. 2, LEFT rod 13 slides over space/hole), and a second longitudinal mounting hole (see Fig. 2, space between 122/123 on RIGHT side form a gap/“hole”) in which a second longitudinal bar is to be assembled (see Fig. 2, RIGHT rod 13 slides over space/hole), and the first longitudinal mounting hole is coaxial with the second longitudinal mounting hole and arranged opposite to the second longitudinal mounting hole (see Fig. 2, as shown, holes/gap where opposite rods 13 are connected are coaxial), wherein the lateral connecting portion intersects with the longitudinal connecting portion (see Fig. 2, as shown, 50B intersects with 122/123 orthogonally), and the lateral connecting portion is provided with a lateral mounting hole (see Fig. 2, space between 50B tabs) in which a lateral bar is to be assembled (see Fig. 2, rod 22).
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein each of a side wall of the first longitudinal mounting hole, a side wall of the second longitudinal mounting hole, and a side wall of the lateral mounting hole is provided with a pin hole (see Fig. 2, holes 1211/1221 on sidewalls of 121/123 as well as holes on sidewalls of 50b).
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the first longitudinal mounting hole and the second longitudinal mounting hole are in communication with each other (see Fig. 2, as shown, the gap/space/hole between 122/123 extends across the middle so the holes are in ‘communication’).
Regarding claim 8, Chen teaches: A bed frame (see Abstract and title, “folding bed frame, also Fig. 1, 10), comprising a connecting member (see Fig. 2, connecting member 12) for the bed frame, a lateral bar (see Fig. 2, 22) and a longitudinal bar (see Fig. 2, 13), wherein the connecting member for the bed frame comprises a longitudinal connecting portion (see Fig. 2, 122/123 on both sides), a lateral connecting portion (see Fig. 2, either of plates 50A or 50B) and a supporting portion (see Fig. 2, support leg 14), wherein the longitudinal connecting portion is arranged at an end of the supporting portion (see Fig. 2, plates 122/123 are located at a top end of leg 14), the longitudinal connecting portion is provided with a first longitudinal mounting hole (see Fig. 2, space between 122/123 on LEFT side form a gap/“hole”) in which a first longitudinal bar is to be assembled (see Fig. 2, LEFT rod 13 slides over space/hole), and a second longitudinal mounting hole (see Fig. 2, space between 122/123 on RIGHT side form a gap/“hole”) in which a second longitudinal bar is to be assembled (see Fig. 2, RIGHT rod 13 slides over space/hole), and the first longitudinal mounting hole is coaxial with the second longitudinal mounting hole and arranged opposite to the second longitudinal mounting hole (see Fig. 2, as shown, holes/gap where opposite rods 13 are connected are coaxial), wherein the lateral connecting portion intersects with the longitudinal connecting portion (see Fig. 2, as shown, 50B intersects with 122/123 orthogonally), and the lateral connecting portion is provided with a lateral mounting hole (see Fig. 2, space between 50B tabs) in which a lateral bar (see Fig. 2, rod 22) is to be assembled, wherein the longitudinal bar comprises a first longitudinal bar and a second longitudinal bar (see Fig. 2, bars 13 on both sides of 12), the first longitudinal bar is snapped into the first longitudinal mounting hole (see Fig. 2, LEFT 13 connects to left side of 122/123), the second longitudinal bar is snapped into the second longitudinal mounting hole (see Fig. 2, RIGHT 13 connects to right side of 122/123), and the lateral bar is snapped into the lateral mounting hole (see Fig. 2, bar 22 connects to 50b as shown).
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 8, and additionally teaches: wherein each of a side wall of the first longitudinal mounting hole, a side wall of the second longitudinal mounting hole, and a side wall of the lateral mounting hole is provided with a pin hole (see Fig. 2, holes 1211/1221 on sidewalls of 121/123 as well as holes on sidewalls of 50b).
Regarding claim 12, Chen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 8, and additionally teaches: wherein the first longitudinal mounting hole and the second longitudinal mounting hole are in communication with each other (see Fig. 2, as shown, the gap/space/hole between 122/123 extends across the middle so the holes are in ‘communication’).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 207855414 U to Chen in view of U.S. Patent 7,003,822 to Sheehy.
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however it does not teach: wherein the longitudinal connecting portion, the lateral connecting portion and the supporting portion are integrally formed.
Sheehy teaches: wherein the longitudinal connecting portion, the lateral connecting portion and the supporting portion are integrally formed (see Fig. 4, connector bracket 26 is formed integrally of extruded plastic, per Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed Chen’s connecting member as an integral component, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 5, Chen, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 4, however it does not teach: wherein each of the longitudinal connecting portion, the lateral connecting portion and the supporting portion is a plastic member, and the longitudinal connecting portion, the lateral connecting portion and the supporting portion are integrally injection-molded.
Sheehy teaches: wherein each of the longitudinal connecting portion, the lateral connecting portion and the supporting portion is a plastic member (see Abstract: “a connector bracket, also formed from plastic”), and the longitudinal connecting portion, the lateral connecting portion and the supporting portion are integrally injection-molded (see Abstract: “extruded plastic components”).
The claimed recitation of “injection-molded” is best understood and interpreted by the examiner as a product-by-process claim limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2113, Section I.
The process of injection molding the respective portions does not yield a patentable distinction over the apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce weight and cost, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a 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. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 13, Chen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 8, however it does not teach: wherein the longitudinal connecting portion, the lateral connecting portion and the supporting portion are integrally formed.
Sheehy teaches: wherein the longitudinal connecting portion, the lateral connecting portion and the supporting portion are integrally formed (see Fig. 4, connector bracket 26 is formed integrally of extruded plastic, per Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed Chen’s connecting member as an integral component, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 14, Chen, as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 13, however it does not teach: wherein each of the longitudinal connecting portion, the lateral connecting portion and the supporting portion is a plastic member, and the longitudinal connecting portion, the lateral connecting portion and the supporting portion are integrally injection-molded.
Sheehy teaches: wherein each of the longitudinal connecting portion, the lateral connecting portion and the supporting portion is a plastic member (see Abstract: “a connector bracket, also formed from plastic”), and the longitudinal connecting portion, the lateral connecting portion and the supporting portion are integrally injection-molded (see Abstract: “extruded plastic components”).
The claimed recitation of “injection-molded” is best understood and interpreted by the examiner as a product-by-process claim limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2113, Section I.
The process of injection molding the respective portions does not yield a patentable distinction over the apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce weight and cost, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a 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. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 207855414 U to Chen in view of U.S. Patent 6,941,596 to Schuman et al. (hereinafter Schuman).
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however it does not teach: wherein the longitudinal connecting portion is provided with a blocking sheet in an extension of the longitudinal connecting portion, and the blocking sheet is arranged opposite to the supporting portion.
Schuman teaches: wherein the longitudinal connecting portion is provided with a blocking sheet (see Fig. 4, upwardly extending retaining clip 42) in an extension of the longitudinal connecting portion (see Fig. 4, clip 42 is integral with horizontal surface 48 and therefore an ‘extension’ thereof), and the blocking sheet is arranged opposite to the supporting portion (see Fig. 4, clip 42 is vertically opposite the foot/supporting portion 24).
Chen and Schuman are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of bed frame and mattress supporting elements. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Chen with these aforementioned teachings of Schuman in order to add a blocking sheet/retaining clip as taught by Schuman to the existing connecting member of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success to hold the horizontal rail in place (Schuman, col. 7, lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 7, Chen as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 6, however, Chen does not teach: wherein the blocking sheet is integrally injection-molded with the longitudinal connecting portion.
Schuman teaches: wherein the blocking sheet is integrally injection-molded with the longitudinal connecting portion (see Fig. 4, as shown, retaining clip 42 is integral with horizontal portion 48).
The claimed recitation of “injection-molded” is best understood and interpreted by the examiner as a product-by-process claim limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ
Regarding claim 15, Chen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 8, however it does not teach: wherein the longitudinal connecting portion is provided with a blocking sheet in an extension of the longitudinal connecting portion, and the blocking sheet is arranged opposite to the supporting portion.
Schuman teaches: wherein the longitudinal connecting portion is provided with a blocking sheet (see Fig. 4, upwardly extending retaining clip 42) in an extension of the longitudinal connecting portion (see Fig. 4, clip 42 is integral with horizontal surface 48 and therefore an ‘extension’ thereof), and the blocking sheet is arranged opposite to the supporting portion (see Fig. 4, clip 42 is vertically opposite the foot/supporting portion 24).
Chen and Schuman are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of bed frame and mattress supporting elements. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Chen with these aforementioned teachings of Schuman in order to add a blocking sheet/retaining clip as taught by Schuman to the existing connecting member of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success to hold the horizontal rail in place (Schuman, col. 7, lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 16, Chen as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 15, however, Chen does not teach: wherein the blocking sheet is integrally injection-molded with the longitudinal connecting portion.
Schuman teaches: wherein the blocking sheet is integrally injection-molded with the longitudinal connecting portion (see Fig. 4, as shown, retaining clip 42 is integral with horizontal portion 48).
The claimed recitation of “injection-molded” is best understood and interpreted by the examiner as a product-by-process claim limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2113, Section I.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 207855414 U to Chen in view of Korean Publication KR 200269459 (hereinafter KR 2002).
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 8, and additionally teaches the following: each of a side wall of the first longitudinal mounting hole, a side wall of the second longitudinal mounting hole, and a side wall of the lateral mounting hole is provided with a pin hole (see Fig. 2, holes 1211/1221 on sidewalls of 121/123 as well as holes on sidewalls of 50b).
Chen, however does not teach: wherein the bed frame comprises a plurality of elastic pins each arranged on a respective one of the first longitudinal bar, the second longitudinal bar and the lateral bar and each of the plurality of elastic pins is snapped into a respective one of the pin hole of the first longitudinal mounting hole, the pin hole of the second longitudinal mounting hole, and the pin hole of the lateral mounting hole.
KR 2002 teaches: wherein the bed frame comprises a plurality of elastic pins (see Fig. 2a/2b, spring 4 and pin 6 on inner pipe 2) each arranged on a respective one of the first longitudinal bar, the second longitudinal bar and the lateral bar (see Fig. 2a/2b, a pin could be located on multiple legs/bars as required) and each of the plurality of elastic pins is snapped into a respective one of the pin hole of the first longitudinal mounting hole, the pin hole of the second longitudinal mounting hole, and the pin hole of the lateral mounting hole (see Fig. 2a/b, pin 6 enters hole 3, which is duplicated across all required tubular connections).
Chen and KR 2002 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of connecting adjustable frame elements of beds and other support surfaces. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Chen with these aforementioned teachings of KR 2002 in order to replace the rivet and nut combination of Chen with an elastic pin member of KR 2002 with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a simpler and easier method to operate the securement of the connection (see KR 2002, translation of Abstract: “The parts are simple and easy to operate, and the position is secured so that there is no fear of breakdown or parts loss”).
Regarding claim 10, Chen as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 9, however Chen does not teach the following: wherein each of the plurality of elastic pins comprises an elastic sheet arranged in the respective one of the first longitudinal bar, the second longitudinal bar and the lateral bar, and a pin pillar extending beyond the respective one of the first longitudinal bar, the second longitudinal bar and the lateral bar, and the pin pillar is arranged on the elastic sheet.
KR 2002 teaches: wherein each of the plurality of elastic pins comprises an elastic sheet (see Fig. 2a/b, u-shaped elastic spring 4) arranged in the respective one of the first longitudinal bar, the second longitudinal bar and the lateral bar (see Fig. 2a/b, arranged on inner pipe 2), and a pin pillar extending beyond the respective one of the first longitudinal bar, the second longitudinal bar and the lateral bar, and the pin pillar is arranged on the elastic sheet (see Fig. 2a/b, pin 6 extends beyond the bar).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited patents show connectors and support members for bed frames and other devices with similar properties to the claimed invention. They show the general state of the art and are of general relevance with respect to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R HARE whose telephone number is (571)272-4420. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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.
Sincerely,
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
6/18/2026
Prosecution Insights