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 1-12 are pending in this application. This communication is the first action on its merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 10/31/2024 has been considered by the office.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12446701. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. To the extent that differences may exist between the claims, they are minor and would have been well within the skill level of one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. To the extent necessary, therefore, any such modifications as would be required would have been obvious. Examiner notes that the claims at issue are wholly encompassed and/or would have been obvious (see above) as compared to Claims 1-3 in U.S. Patent No. 12446701.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12446701.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12446701.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12446701.
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 1-12 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. Regarding Claims 1-12. The phrases “The Applicant’s alternative language with the use of the term “or” renders the scope of the claim unclear and indefinite since the Applicant fails to distinctly claim the subject matter. Recitations such as “two or three longitudinal beams”, “three or four individual cells”, “one or more U-shaped seats”, “longitudinal rods are directly connected to each other, or each end of each of the two transverse rods”, “frame rods is connected to one of the two longitudinal rods or one of the two or three longitudinal beams” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “or”), thereby render the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moon (US 20180110339 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Moon discloses a bed frame of an iron frame bed (frame 104), comprising: two transverse rods symmetrically parallel to each other in a front-and-rear direction (See Fig. 1-2, metal bars 102 in the transverse direction symmetrically parallel), two longitudinal rods symmetrically parallel to each other in a left-and-right direction (See Fig. 1-2, metal bars 102 in the longitudinal direction symmetrically parallel), two or three longitudinal beams connected to the two transverse rods (See Fig. 1-2, metal bars 102 parallel to longitudinal bars in the center of panels 110A and 110B), four upright columns arranged vertically (See Fig. 1-2, legs 106), and a plurality of frame rods (See Fig. 1-2, metal bars 102 parallel to transverse bars in the center of panels 110A and 110B), wherein: the two longitudinal rods and the two transverse rods form a rectangular frame (See Fig. 1-2, exterior metal bars 102 forming frame 104), the four upright columns are respectively connected to four corners of the rectangular frame (See Fig. 1-2, legs 106 positioned at corners of frame 104), a length of each of the two transverse rods is greater than a length of each of the two longitudinal rods (See Fig. 1-2, metal bars 102 are longer in the transverse direction than longitudinal direction), the two or three longitudinal beams divide the rectangular frame into three or four individual cells (See Fig. 1-2, bars 102 dividing frame 104 into individual cells), the plurality of frame rods are evenly disposed in the three or four individual cells (See Fig. 1-2, bars 102 within frame 104 cells are symmetrically distributed), the plurality of frame rods are arranged transversely (See Fig. 1-2, bars 102 within frame 104 are transversely arranged), a length of each of the plurality of frame rods is shorter than a length of each of the two or three longitudinal beams (See Fig. 1-2, metal bars 102 within frame 104 are longer in the transverse direction than longitudinal direction), and each end of each of the plurality of frame rods is connected to one of the two longitudinal rods or one of the two or three longitudinal beams (See Fig. 1-2, metal bars 102 within frame 104 connected to longitudinal rods/beams of bars 102).
PNG
media_image1.png
274
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
442
288
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 20180110339 A1) in view of Hong (US 20220125211 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Moon discloses the bed frame of the iron frame bed (frame 104) according to claim 1.
Moon fails to explicitly disclose an inner side of each of the two transverse rods is disposed with one or more U-shaped seats, each end of each of the two or three longitudinal beams is supported on the one or more U-shaped seats, each end of each of the two or three longitudinal beams and the one or more U-shaped seats are detachably buckled to each other, and the two or three longitudinal beams are configured to pull the two transverse rods in a longitudinal direction.
However, Hong teaches an inner side of each of the two transverse rods is disposed with one or more U-shaped seats (See Fig. 1-3, positioning block 4 inserted into slot 21 on frame rods 2), each end of each of the two or three longitudinal beams is supported on the one or more U-shaped seats (See Fig. 1-3, support rods 3 supported by positioning block 4), each end of each of the two or three longitudinal beams and the one or more U-shaped seats are detachably buckled to each other, and the two or three longitudinal beams are configured to pull the two transverse rods in a longitudinal direction (See Fig. 1-3, “first positioning portions 41 are engaged and positioned in the positioning openings 31 of the support rod 3”; [0026]).
PNG
media_image3.png
490
402
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
406
326
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
440
300
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
384
294
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 Moon by adding the U-shaped seats taught by Hong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the support rods can be easily and quickly connected to the bed frame, and the connection and support is stable”; (Hong, [0026]). 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 20180110339 A1) in view of Hong (US 20220125211 A1), further in view of Qiu (US 20200375367 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Moon teaches the bed frame of the iron frame bed (frame 104) according to claim 2.
Moon fails to teach wherein: a left inner side and a right inner side of the one or more U-shaped seats respectively comprises a protruding tongue, a left side and a right side of each end of each of the two or three longitudinal beams respectively comprises a buckle hole, the protruding tongue is inserted into the buckle hole, a bottom surface of the one or more U-shaped seats comprises a position-limiting block, a bottom surface of each end of each of the two or three longitudinal beams comprises a position-limiting hole, and the position-limiting block is inserted into the position-limiting hole.
However, Hong teaches a left inner side and a right inner side of the one or more U-shaped seats respectively comprises a protruding tongue (See Fig. 7, “the inner surfaces of two opposing side plates 412 of the positioning groove block 41 are provided with first positioning portions 413”; [0024]) a left side and a right side of each end of each of the two or three longitudinal beams respectively comprises a buckle hole, the protruding tongue is inserted into the buckle hole (See Fig. 1A, “two sides of either end of each support rod 3 are formed with positioning openings 31 for the first positioning portions 413 to be engaged therein”; [0024]).
PNG
media_image7.png
478
328
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 Moon by adding the protruding tongues taught by Hong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the support rods can be easily and quickly connected to the bed frame, and the connection and support is stable”; (Hong, [0026]). 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.
Moon in view of Hong fails to explicitly teach a bottom surface of the one or more U-shaped seats comprises a position-limiting block, a bottom surface of each end of each of the two or three longitudinal beams comprises a position-limiting hole, and the position-limiting block is inserted into the position-limiting hole.
However, Qiu teaches a bottom surface of the one or more U-shaped seats comprises a position-limiting block (See Fig. 3, “protruding block is correspondingly provided inside the clamping groove 601”; [0025]), a bottom surface of each end of each of the two or three longitudinal beams comprises a position-limiting hole (See Fig. 3, limiting groove 311), and the position-limiting block is inserted into the position-limiting hole (See Fig. 3, “limiting groove 311 is snap-fitted on the protruding block”; [0025]).
PNG
media_image8.png
562
538
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 Moon in view of Hong by adding the protruding block taught by Qiu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “avoid the phenomenon of sliding and deviation of the keel supporting rod 3”; (Qiu, [0025]). 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 20180110339 A1) in view of Li (US 20180372138 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Moon discloses the bed frame of the iron frame bed (frame 104) according to claim 1.
Moon fails to explicitly disclose each end of each of the plurality of frame rods is flattened and folded down vertically to form a vertical hook, each of the two longitudinal rods and each of the two or three longitudinal beams comprise insertion holes, each of the insertion holes is disposed with a plastic buckle, the vertical hook is inserted into the plastic buckle of a corresponding one of the insertion holes, and an anti-releasing structure is disposed between the vertical hook and the plastic buckle.
However, Li teaches each end of each of the plurality of frame rods is flattened and folded down vertically to form a vertical hook (See Fig. 2, hem 31), each of the two longitudinal rods and each of the two or three longitudinal beams comprise insertion holes (See Fig. 1 and 6, beam 2 having grooves 21), each of the insertion holes is disposed with a plastic buckle (See Fig. 6, buckle 4), the vertical hook is inserted into the plastic buckle of a corresponding one of the insertion holes (See Fig. 7-8, hem 31 is inserted into buckle 4), and an anti-releasing structure is disposed between the vertical hook and the plastic buckle (See Fig. 3, block protrusion 411).
PNG
media_image9.png
322
294
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
294
276
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
338
340
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
346
316
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
332
300
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
388
334
media_image14.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 Moon by adding hook structure and buckle mechanism taught by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “that the longitudinal beam and the lateral beam are tightly connected together”; (Li, [0005]). 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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 20180110339 A1) in view of Deng (CN 203272374 U).
Regarding Claim 5, Moon discloses the bed frame of the iron frame bed (frame 104) according to claim 1, comprising: two supporting rods (See Fig. 1, legs 108), and a connecting rod configured to be connected to the two supporting rods (See Fig. 1, connecting rod disposed between legs 108), wherein: the two supporting rods are connected to the two transverse rods in a one-to-one correspondence (See Fig. 1, legs 108 connected to bracket 116 which connects to panels 110A and 110B), each of the two supporting rods is located below a middle position of a corresponding one of the two transverse rods (See Fig. 1, legs 108 connected below the middle of the connection point of the two panels), the connecting rod is configured to be connected to the two supporting rods and pull the two supporting rods in a longitudinal direction (See Fig. 1, rod in between legs 108 pulling legs 108 together for support).
Moon fails to explicitly disclose two ends of the connecting rod are detachably connected to the two supporting rods.
However, Deng teaches two ends of the connecting rod are detachably connected to the two supporting rods (See Fig. 1-3, both ends of beam 2 detachably connected to beam 1).
PNG
media_image15.png
374
342
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
374
448
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
538
470
media_image17.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 Moon by detachably connected the beams as taught by Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “improve the stability”; (Deng, [0014]). 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 6, Moon, as modified, teaches the bed frame of the iron frame bed (frame 104) according to claim 5, wherein: each of the two transverse rods is configured to be folded in half and comprises two transverse rod units (See Fig. 1 and 4, bracket 116 allowing panels 110A and 110B to fold respectfully), so that each of the two transverse rods is configured to be folded in half using a corresponding one of the two supporting rods as a center line (See Fig. 1 and 4, leg 108 is used as folding center line).
PNG
media_image18.png
368
402
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Moon fails to explicitly teach end surfaces of the connecting rod comprise U-shaped channel steels corresponding to the two supporting rods, the U-shaped channel steels are buckled to the two supporting rods, one or more tongue pieces protrude from a bottom surface of each of the U-shaped channel steels, and each of the two supporting rods comprises one or more buckle openings, and the one or more tongue pieces are inserted into the one or more buckle openings.
However, Deng teaches end surfaces of the connecting rod comprise U-shaped channel steels corresponding to the two supporting rods (See Fig. 1-3, corner iron 4), the U-shaped channel steels are buckled to the two supporting rods (See Fig. 1-3, corner iron 4 buckled to beam 1 by tongue 3 and buckle 5), one or more tongue pieces protrude from a bottom surface of each of the U-shaped channel steels (tongue 3), and each of the two supporting rods comprises one or more buckle openings (buckle 5), and the one or more tongue pieces are inserted into the one or more buckle openings (See Fig. 1-3, tongue 3 locked into buckle 5).
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 Moon by adding the connection mechanism as taught by Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “improve the stability”; (Deng, [0014]). 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 7, Moon, as modified, teaches the bed frame of the iron frame bed (frame 104) according to claim 6, wherein: a top end of each of the two supporting rods is disposed with a connecting seat (See Fig. 1-2 and 4, brackets 116 disposed at top of leg 108), inner ends of the two transverse rod units are pivotally connected to the connecting seat (See Fig. 1-2 and 4, panels 110A and 110B pivotally connected to bracket 116), the connecting seat comprises a seat plate and two side plates (See Fig. 1-2 and 4, bracket 116 comprising seat plate and two side plates), the seat plate is connected to a top surface of a corresponding one of the two supporting rods (See Fig. 1-2 and 4, bracket 116 sits atop leg 108), the two side plates are symmetrically connected to two sides of the seat plate, a part of the two side plates extending out of the seat plate is pivotally connected to the two transverse rod units, and when the two transverse rods are folded, a corresponding one of the two supporting rods is disposed between the two transverse rod units (See Fig. 1-2 and 4, bracket 116 connects each end of bars 102 of panels 110A and 110B symmetrically when folded in half, wherein legs 108 are displaced between the panels 110A and 110B in parallel).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 20180110339 A1) in view of Deng (CN 203272374 U) further in view of Wang (US 9044100 B1), in view of Huang (US 5694656 A).
Regarding Claim 8, Moon, as modified, teaches the bed frame of the iron frame bed (frame 104) according to claim 7.
Moon in view of Deng fails to explicitly teach wherein: each of the four upright columns comprises an upper column and a lower column, the upper column and the lower column are configured to be inserted into each other in an upper-and-down direction, a top end of the lower column has a portion having a diameter that is smaller than a remaining portion to form a joint, the upper column is sleeved on the joint, end portions of the two longitudinal rods are fixedly connected to the lower columns of the four upright columns, each of outer ends of the two transverse rod units is disposed with a locking plate, the locking plate abuts an outer surface of the upper column and an outer surface of the lower column, a first part of the locking plate extending above a top surface of a corresponding one of the two transverse rods is locked by an upper bolt, the upper bolt enables the locking plate, the upper column, and the joint to be locked together, a second part of the locking plate extending below a bottom surface of the corresponding one of the two transverse rods is locked by a lower bolt, and the lower bolt enables the locking plate and the lower column to be locked together.
However, Wang teaches wherein: each of the four upright columns comprises an upper column (upper tubular member 11) and a lower column (lower tubular member 21), the upper column and the lower column are configured to be inserted into each other in an upper-and-down direction (See Fig. 2, lower tubular member 21 inserted into upper tubular member 11), a top end of the lower column has a portion having a diameter that is smaller than a remaining portion to form a joint (See Fig. 2, inserting portion 211 of lower tubular member 21 having smaller diameter than the rest of member 21), the upper column is sleeved on the joint (See Fig. 2, upper tubular member 11 sleeved onto inserting portion 211)), end portions of the two longitudinal rods are fixedly connected to the lower columns of the four upright columns (See Fig. 1, rods connected on both sides to lower tubular members 21), each of outer ends of the two transverse rod units is disposed with a locking plate (See Fig. 2, member 31 having frame locker 41), the locking plate abuts an outer surface of the upper column (See Fig. 2, frame locker 41 abuts against outer surface of member 11) and an outer surface of the lower column (See Fig. 1, “support 50 can be mounted to the lower tubular member 21 of the lower supporting frame 20 via the joint arrangement 40”; [Col. 7, Lines 40-41]), the upper bolt enables the locking plate, the upper column, and the joint to be locked together (See Fig. 2, upper threaded body 422 locks the connection and frame locker 41 together), the lower bolt enables the locking plate and the lower column to be locked together (See Fig. 2, lower threaded body 422 locks the connection and frame locker 41 together).
PNG
media_image19.png
486
680
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
494
548
media_image20.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 Moon in view of Deng by adding an upper column and the connection structure as taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “securely and rapidly connecting different frame structures”; (Wang, [Col. 2, Lines 30-31]). 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.
Moon in view of Deng in view of Wang fails to explicitly teach a first part of the locking plate extending above a top surface of a corresponding one of the two transverse rods is locked by an upper bolt and a second part of the locking plate extending below a bottom surface of the corresponding one of the two transverse rods is locked by a lower bolt.
However, Huang teaches a first part of the locking plate extending above a top surface of a corresponding one of the two transverse rods is locked by an upper bolt (See Fig. 2-3, extension 46 extending above top surface of upper rail member 41 locked by bolt of fastening unit 6) and a second part of the locking plate extending below a bottom surface of the corresponding one of the two transverse rods is locked by a lower bolt (See Fig. 2-3, tongue unit 45 extending below bottom surface of upper rail member 41 locked by bolt of fastening unit 5).
PNG
media_image21.png
470
654
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
460
574
media_image22.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 Moon in view of Deng in view of Wang by modifying the locking plate and bolt connection as taught by Huang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “a firmer structure”; (Huang, [Col. 4, Lines 30-31]). 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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 20180110339 A1) in view of Deng (CN 203272374 U) in view of Wang (US 9044100 B1), in view of Huang (US 5694656 A), further in view of Sugiyama (US 5921049 A) and Mitchell (US 6349435 B1).
Regarding Claim 9, Moon, as modified, teaches the bed frame of the iron frame bed (frame 104) according to claim 8.
Moon in view of Deng in view of Wang in view of Huang fails to explicitly teach wherein: the upper column is further locked by a reinforcing bolt, the reinforcing bolt enables the upper column and the joint to be locked together, the reinforcing bolt is located above the upper bolt, and the lower column is disposed with rivet nuts corresponding to the upper bolt, the lower bolt, and the reinforcing bolt.
However, Sugiyama teaches wherein: the upper column is further locked by a reinforcing bolt, the reinforcing bolt enables the upper column and the joint to be locked together, the reinforcing bolt is located above the upper bolt (See Fig. 3, bolt 18 locks the post 12 and tube 32 together, while being above bolts 48).
PNG
media_image23.png
406
458
media_image23.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 Moon in view of Deng in view of Wang in view of Huang by adding the bolt as taught by Sugiyama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “achieving higher mechanical strength”; (Sugiyama, [Col. 1, Lines 24-25]). 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.
Moon in view of Deng in view of Wang in view of Huang in view of Sugiyama fails to explicitly teach the lower column is disposed with rivet nuts corresponding to the upper bolt, the lower bolt, and the reinforcing bolt.
However, Mitchell teaches the lower column is disposed with rivet nuts (See Fig. 3, rivets 14 corresponding to the upper bolt, the lower bolt, and the reinforcing bolt.
PNG
media_image24.png
728
464
media_image24.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 Moon in view of Deng in view of Wang in view of Huang in view of Sugiyama by adding the rivets as taught by Mitchell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “provide a removal resistant engagement”; (Mitchell, [Col. 2, Lines 14-15]). 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 10, Moon, as modified, teaches the bed frame of the iron frame bed (frame 104) according to claim 9, wherein: the plurality of frame rods are ten frame rods arranged within the three or four individual cells (See Fig. 1, bars 102).
Moon in view of Deng fails to explicitly teach the locking plate is arc-shaped to correspond to the outer surface of the upper column and the outer surface of the lower column, a left edge and a right edge of the locking plate are folded toward the corresponding one of the two transverse rods.
However, Wang teaches the locking plate is arc-shaped to correspond to the outer surface of the upper column and the outer surface of the lower column, a left edge and a right edge of the locking plate are folded toward the corresponding one of the two transverse rods (See Fig. 2, arc-shaped end surface 311).
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 Moon in view of Deng by adding the arc-shape locking plate as taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “in order to couple the end of the longitudinal supporting member”; (Wang, [Col. 6, Lines 1-2]). 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 20180110339 A1) in view of Hong (US 20220125211 A1), further in view of Li (US 20180372138 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Moon, as modified, teaches the bed frame of the iron frame bed (frame 104) according to claim 2.
Moon in view of Hong fails to explicitly teach wherein: each end of each of the plurality of frame rods is flattened and folded down vertically to form a vertical hook, each of the two longitudinal rods and each of the two or three longitudinal beams comprise insertion holes, each of the insertion holes is disposed with a plastic buckle, the vertical hook is inserted into the plastic buckle of a corresponding one of the insertion holes, and an anti-releasing structure is disposed between the vertical hook and the plastic buckle.
However, Li teaches each end of each of the plurality of frame rods is flattened and folded down vertically to form a vertical hook (See Fig. 2, hem 31), each of the two longitudinal rods and each of the two or three longitudinal beams comprise insertion holes (See Fig. 1 and 6, beam 2 having grooves 21), each of the insertion holes is disposed with a plastic buckle (See Fig. 6, buckle 4), the vertical hook is inserted into the plastic buckle of a corresponding one of the insertion holes (See Fig. 7-8, hem 31 is inserted into buckle 4), and an anti-releasing structure is disposed between the vertical hook and the plastic buckle (See Fig. 3, block protrusion 411).
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 Moon in view of Hong by adding hook structure and buckle mechanism taught by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “that the longitudinal beam and the lateral beam are tightly connected together”; (Li, [0005]). 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 20180110339 A1) in view of Hong (US 20220125211 A1), in view of Qiu (US 20200375367 A1), further in view of Li (US 20180372138 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Moon, as modified, teaches the bed frame of the iron frame bed (frame 104) according to claim 3.
Moon in view of Hong in view of Qiu fails to explicitly teach wherein: each end of each of the plurality of frame rods is flattened and folded down vertically to form a vertical hook, each of the two longitudinal rods and each of the two or three longitudinal beams comprise insertion holes, each of the insertion holes is disposed with a plastic buckle, the vertical hook is inserted into the plastic buckle of a corresponding one of the insertion holes, and an anti-releasing structure is disposed between the vertical hook and the plastic buckle.
However, Li teaches each end of each of the plurality of frame rods is flattened and folded down vertically to form a vertical hook (See Fig. 2, hem 31), each of the two longitudinal rods and each of the two or three longitudinal beams comprise insertion holes (See Fig. 1 and 6, beam 2 having grooves 21), each of the insertion holes is disposed with a plastic buckle (See Fig. 6, buckle 4), the vertical hook is inserted into the plastic buckle of a corresponding one of the insertion holes (See Fig. 7-8, hem 31 is inserted into buckle 4), and an anti-releasing structure is disposed between the vertical hook and the plastic buckle (See Fig. 3, block protrusion 411).
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 Moon in view of Hong in view of Qiu by adding hook structure and buckle mechanism taught by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “that the longitudinal beam and the lateral beam are tightly connected together”; (Li, [0005]). 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210127846 A1: Chen discloses a bed head structure comprising an upper column slid over a lower column and secured by bolts and a longitudinal rod structure.
US 20180192778 A1: Choi discloses a foldable bed stead with U-shaped seats on the interior of the frame for support a plurality of lateral frame bars.
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