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 37-50 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 12/27/2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
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) 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harding (CN 101203160 A) in view of Earle et al., hereinafter 'Earle' (US 3225365 A).
In regards to Claim 37, Harding teaches: A mattress seat (1 - Fig. 1) comprising a mattress seat body (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Harding) configured to receive a mattress (9 - Fig. 1) thereon, the mattress seat body comprising a plurality of frames (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Harding) disposed sequentially in a circumferential direction of the mattress seat body ("Specific implementation examples with reference to the accompanying drawings, rectangular frame 5 and upstanding sidewall standard bed 1 comprises a support level of the four corner legs 7 to 3. the small bed 1 further includes a rectangular mattress 9, the mattress 9 is, during normal use the small bed can be placed in the vertical sidewall 7 of the bottom frame 5 of the top.", Examiner noting: that the frame of a traditional rectangular bed would circumferential to the mattress body as it surrounds it), at least one of the plurality of frames is movable with respect to the other one of the plurality of frames (13 - Figs. 1-3, is shown to be movable relative to the other plurality of frames) in the circumferential direction of the mattress seat body to enable a length and/or a width of the mattress seat body to be adjusted (see annotated Figs. 1-3 from Harding indicating the adjustment in circumfrential direction ), but Harding does not explicitly teach, to fit the mattress of different sizes.
Earle teaches: to fit the mattress of different sizes (Col 2 Lines 24-33: "The flanges 12 engage brackets 13 secured to the vertical faces of the posts 1 by means of screw fastening members 14 in a conventional manner. In conventional models a plurality of such brackets 13 are provided on the faces of each of the posts 1 to permit the frame 9 to be adjusted vertically within the crib frame structure. This is usually done to accommodate children of different age groups or to accommodate different size 'mattresses etc. With this arrangement, each corner of the frame 9 may be freely raised and lowered to engage bracket 13.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the adjustable mattress seat of Harding to incorporate Earle’s teaching of accommodating mattresses of different sizes. Earle expressly teaches adjustability of a mattress-supporting structure to receive mattresses of varying dimensions, thereby improving the versatility and usability of the bed structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying Earle’s teaching to Harding’s adjustable mattress seat would have predictably allowed Harding’s mattress seat body to accommodate mattresses of different sizes while retaining its intended function of dimensional adjustment.
Examiner’s Note: Harding already teaches a mattress seat body having multiple frame portions movable relative to one another in a circumferential direction to adjust the dimensions of the mattress seat body. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the circumferential dimensions of a mattress-supporting structure include adjustment along multiple directions extending about the perimeter of the mattress seat body, including both horizontal (x direction) and vertical (y direction) dimensions. Earle specifically teaches vertical adjustment of the mattress supporting frame through repositioning of the frame relative to support brackets. Thus, Earle demonstrates adjustment in the y direction, while Harding teaches adjustment of the mattress-supporting structure through movement of frame portions relative to one another. Combining these teachings merely represents the application of a known adjustment technique to an analogous mattress supporting structure to obtain the predictable result of accommodating mattresses of different sizes and configurations. Furthermore, the claim does not define the length, width or height dimensions and specifically the intention as to how or in which direction(s) they would be adjusted. Therefore, the combination would have been no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
PNG
media_image1.png
286
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.1 from Harding
PNG
media_image2.png
470
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs. 1-3 of Harding
In regards to Claim 38, Harding in view of Earle teaches: The mattress seat according to claim 37, Harding further teaches, wherein at least two adjacent frames of the plurality of frames (3 - Fig. 1)are provided with a connecting member in between (5 - Fig. 1), at least one frame is slidably connected with the connecting member in the circumferential direction of the mattress seat body (13 - Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 39, Harding in view of Earle teaches: The mattress seat according to claim 38, Harding further teaches, wherein the mattress seat further comprises a lifting mechanism (35 - Fig. 4)connected to the mattress seat body (shown in Fig. 4 to be connected to mattress seat body through element '13'), a driving device (37- Fig. 4) connected to the lifting mechanism and a control device (49 - Fig. 4), an output end of the control device is electrically connected to an input end of the driving device (47 - Fig. 4, noting input end of 37 the driving device is connected through the cable and the output end of 49 of the control device is connected through the same cable), the control device is configured to activate or inactivate the driving device (switch per specification, can be switched on or off), when the driving device is activated, the driving device is configured to drive the lifting mechanism to reciprocate upwards (as 35 inflates - Fig. 4) and downwards (as 35 deflates - Fig. 4) and/or swing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 40-50 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to Claim 40, Harding in view of Earle, either alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious a supporting plate connected to the lifting mechanism, wherein the supporting plate is movably connected to two frames on opposite sides of the mattress seat. While Harding discloses a lifting mechanism (35) operatively associated with the mattress seat body, the reference relies on a movable frame structure (e.g., element 13) as the primary support. Harding does not disclose an intermediate supporting plate that is distinct from the frame structure, nor does it disclose a plate that is movably coupled to opposing frames while simultaneously being connected to the lifting mechanism. Accordingly, the specific structural relationship between the supporting plate, lifting mechanism, and opposing frames as claimed is not taught or suggested by Harding.
In regards to Claim 41, Harding in view of Earle, either alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious a lifting mechanism comprising an air bag and a first plate member provided above the supporting plate, with at least one air bag disposed between the first plate member and the supporting plate. Although Harding generally discloses inflation and deflation of an airbag-type lifting mechanism, the reference does not teach a layered plate-and-airbag arrangement in which an air bag is positioned between a supporting plate and a first plate member. Harding instead relies on direct interaction between the lifting element and the frame structure, and does not disclose additional plate members configured to sandwich one or more airbags therebetween as claimed. As such, Harding does not teach the claimed configuration or the associated control of inflation and deflation relative to the claimed plate members.
In regards to Claim 42, Harding in view of Earle, either alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious a mattress seat body comprising spaced first connecting plates with second connecting plates slidably disposed between adjacent first connecting plates. While Harding discloses movable frames arranged circumferentially, it does not disclose or suggest the claimed multi-plate connecting architecture involving alternating first and second connecting plates configured for relative sliding motion. The claimed arrangement provides a distinct structural organization and mode of adjustability that is neither shown nor suggested by Harding’s frame-based construction.
In regards to Claim 46, Harding in view of Earle, either alone or in combination, fail to teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious a control device configured to control a driving device such that the driving device drives a lifting mechanism to reciprocate upwards and downwards with an adjustable amplitude and/or frequency. While Harding discloses adjustment of mattress seat dimensions through relative movement of frame portions, neither Harding nor Earle teaches or suggests electronically controlling a lifting mechanism to provide oscillating vertical motion having user-adjustable amplitude and frequency characteristics. The cited references are directed to structural adjustment of a mattress-supporting frame and do not disclose the claimed dynamic reciprocating motion control functionality.
In regards to Claim 47, Harding in view of Earle, either alone or in combination, fail to teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious a cry detection device comprising a sound sensor and a speech recognition chip configured to detect and recognize a baby’s cry, wherein the cry detection device is operatively connected to a control device that activates a driving device when a detected cry exceeds a predetermined loudness threshold and/or duration threshold. Neither Harding nor Earle discloses monitoring infant vocalizations, performing cry recognition, or automatically initiating operation of a lifting mechanism in response to detected crying conditions. The cited references are directed to mattress-supporting structures and adjustment mechanisms and do not teach or suggest the claimed cry-responsive control architecture.
In regards to Claim 49, Harding in view of Earle, either alone or in combination, fail to teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious at least one sound playing device provided on the mattress seat body and connected to an output end of a control device, wherein the control device automatically controls the sound playing device to play a soothing sound when a detected cry exceeds a predetermined sound loudness threshold value. Neither Harding nor Earle teaches or suggests integrating a sound-generating device with a cry detection system and control device to automatically provide soothing audio in response to detected infant crying. The cited references are directed to adjustable mattress support structures and do not disclose or suggest the claimed automated infant-soothing functionality.
Accordingly, the specific structural configurations and cooperative relationships recited in claims 40–42 are not taught or suggested by Harding, either alone or in combination with the prior art of record. The claims are therefore considered allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
Argument #1: “Specifically, for the understanding of "length" and "width" in claim 37, as we can see in FIG.1 of this application, these two features define the size of the mattress seat body, by limiting a length or a width of the mattress seat body to be adjustable, the size of the mattress seat body can be adjusted as well, and with the growth of children, the intelligent mattress seat can adapt to mattress of different sizes, accommodate children of different body types or different ages, and extend a service life of the intelligent mattress seat (see paragraph [0007] of the specification).”
Argument #2: “Harding discloses a mattress seat 1 comprises a frame (a base frame 5, four angle legs 3 of upstanding sidewall 7), a mattress 9 and mattress support 13. As we can see from fig. 1-3 of Harding, and the mattress 9 could only be movable with respect to the frame to rock, the width or length of the frame couldn't be adjusted to fit in different size of the mattress 9.”
Examiner’s Response:
Response to Argument #1: Applicant argues that the claimed “length” and “width” define the size of the mattress seat body and that adjustment of the length and/or width allows the mattress seat body to accommodate mattresses of different sizes. The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s interpretation that adjustment of the dimensions of the mattress seat body permits accommodation of mattresses of different sizes. However, the rejection does not rely solely upon Harding for teaching accommodation of mattresses of different sizes. Rather, Harding teaches a mattress seat body comprising a plurality of frames that are movable relative to one another to adjust the dimensions of the mattress seat body, while Earle teaches that an adjustable mattress-supporting structure may be configured to accommodate different size mattresses. Further noting, the claim does not define the length, width or height dimensions and specifically does not further limit as to how or in which direction(s) they would be adjusted. Such that a thicker mattress being used (from infant to toddler, as a toddler might need a thicker product due to their heavier weight) could be of an adjustment in length and/or width as the claim does not limit the length and/or width dimension to be within a specific plane (x, y, z) of the device.
Specifically, Earle discloses that a plurality of brackets are provided to permit adjustment of a mattress-supporting frame and explains that such adjustment is performed “to accommodate children of different age groups or to accommodate different size mattresses” (Col 2, Lines 24-33).Thus, Earle expressly teaches the newly recited limitation of accommodating mattresses of different sizes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating Earle’s teaching into Harding’s adjustable mattress seat would have predictably enabled Harding’s mattress seat body to accommodate mattresses of different sizes while retaining Harding’s intended functionality.Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Earle expressly teaches accommodation of different size mattresses, and the rejection relies upon the combined teachings of Harding and Earle.
Response to Argument #2:
Applicant argues that Harding’s mattress 9 is merely movable with respect to the frame to provide a rocking function and that the width or length of the frame cannot be adjusted to fit different size mattresses. The Examiner agrees that Harding does not expressly disclose adjusting the frame specifically for accommodating mattresses of different sizes. However, the rejection does not rely on Harding alone for this teaching. Rather, Harding is relied upon for teaching a mattress seat body having a plurality of frame portions movable relative to one another, while Earle is relied upon for teaching adjustment of a mattress-supporting structure to accommodate different size mattresses. Further noting, the claim does not define the length, width or height dimensions and specifically does not further limit as to how or in which direction(s) they would be adjusted. Such that a thicker mattress being used (from infant to toddler, as a toddler might need a thicker product due to their heavier weight) could be of an adjustment in length and/or width as the claim does not limit the length and/or width dimension to be within a specific plane (x, y, z) of the device.As shown in Earle and described at Col 2 Lines 24-33, Earle teaches that the mattress supporting frame may be adjusted relative to support brackets and expressly states that such adjustment is used “to accommodate children of different age groups or to accommodate different size mattresses.”
Earle’s figures further illustrate an adjustable mattress-supporting structure that is repositionable relative to the crib frame. Therefore, while Harding may not expressly teach accommodation of different size mattresses, Earle clearly provides such a teaching. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Earle’s known adjustment technique and purpose into Harding’s adjustable mattress seat in order to provide the recognized benefit of accommodating mattresses of different sizes. The modification would merely involve applying a known adjustment feature for its known purpose and would have yielded predictable results.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the rejection relies upon the combined teachings of Harding and Earle, and Earle expressly teaches accommodating mattresses of different sizes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shultz et al. (US 5228155 A) teaches: A multi-tilting movement platform that periodically and gradually tilts a platform supporting a person's body, that platform tilting periodically and gradually, side to side and head to foot; the side tilt following the head tilt and preceding the foot tilt, and so on. The apparatus enables a user to experience sensations which have been reported as relaxing, stress relieving and beneficial. The apparatus comprises a base, a platform for holding a human body thereon, an elongated teeter-totter board pivotally mounted upon the base, a drive shaft upon which is mounted a tilted plate. Low frictional rollers support the platform on the tilted plate with the platform also being pivotally supported on a first pivot axis on the teeter-totter board with the teeter-totter board being mounted on a second pivot axis on the base. The first pivot axis is oriented perpendicular to the second pivot axis. The function is that the platform does not turn as the drive shaft turns, but rather tilts multidirectionally (side to side and head to foot) as the tilted plate turns on the drive shaft contacting the rollers on the platform. Further noting the following from the inventions disclosure "This allows good and thorough cleaning and disinfecting of the cradle prior to reuse or replacement of the cradle. This, of course, also permits different sizes, types and styles of cradles (as well as beds) to be used interchangeably.".
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 MADISON MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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.
MADISON MATTHEWS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/MADISON MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
05/29/2026
Prosecution Insights