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 .
Response to Arguments
35 USC 102 and 103
Applicant's arguments filed 12 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant argues that Keeson fails to teach different relative coefficients of friction between the adjustment mechanism and support surface (Remarks p. 2). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in the 2/12/26 Office Action p. 3, the claimed higher coefficient of friction is taught by the mattress and the anti-skid pad. This is due to the different materials between an anti-skid pad and the rest of the mattress, which is mad of various foams and fabrics (Keeson translation p. 3). Applicant argues that the claimed elements are between the coefficients of friction between 2 groups of structures. The first group is between the “adjustment mechanism” and “support surface”, and the second group is between “mattress” and “support surface”. Applicant then argues that Keeson teaches only one element (remarks pp. 2-3). Examiner respectfully disagrees because there is only one mention of the words “coefficient of friction” in claim 1 (which is the clause “the adjustment mechanism having a higher coefficient of friction with the support surface than the mattress” ), the broadest reasonable interpretation of that clause is a singular group with different coefficients between the adjustment mechanism and the mattress. One of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret the phrase “with the support surface” to mean a separate grouping of friction coefficients. Thus, Applicant is adding features and limitations which are not claimed. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., friction coefficient difference first group is between the “adjustment mechanism” and “support surface”, and the second group is between “mattress” and “support surface”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant’s remarks regarding the dependent claims are unpersuasive for similar reasons detailed above. Regarding claim 2, Applicant argues that Keeson fails to teach the claimed elastomeric material (Remarks p. 3). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in the 2/12/26 Office Action p. 4, at least p. 5 of the translation teaching the anti-skid pad. Further, p. 8 of the translation details that the material may be a cloth or non-slip map or other enhancements, which are elastic. Regarding claim 6, as detailed in the 2/12/26 Office Action p. 5, the claimed coextensive is seen when looking at Keeson Figs. 5 and 9 which show the mattress and base flush in the flat configuration (Fig. 5), that is only seen when the mattress is raised (Fig. 9). Regarding claim 7, Keeson Figs. 2 and 9 shows the base platform element 28 extending beyond the cavity of the underneath of the mattress and thus teaches the claimed lower base having a greater base length. Regarding claim 8, Fig. 2 of Keeson teaches the claimed stanchion, as detailed in the 2/12/26 Office Action p. 5. Applicant can overcome the current rejections by amending claim 1 to more clearly specify the claimed friction groupings.
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) 1-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 114847712 A to Keeson.
Re Claim 1, Keeson teaches:
An adjustable bed system (at least [translated title] “adjustable bed”) comprising:
a mattress (at least Figs. 1-4 element 2 and [p. 4 of translation] “2-mattress”) having a head portion (at least Figs. 1-4 element 3 and [p. 4 of translation] “3-head”) and a foot portion rearward of the head portion (at least Figs. 1-4 element 4 and [p. 4 of translation] “4-tail”), wherein the head portion defines a cavity that is downwardly open (at least Figs. 1-4 element 21 and [p. 4 of translation] “21-groove”); and
an adjustment mechanism (at least Figs. 1-4 element 1 and [p. 4 of translation] “1-adjusting bracket”) having a lower base formed of a planar substrate (at least Figs. 1-4 element 11 and [p. 4 of translation] “11-base”), an upper support formed of either a frame or another planar substrate that is movably coupled to the lower base (at least Figs. 1-4 element 12 and [p. 4 of translation] “12-support base”), and an actuator operable to move the upper support relative to the lower base (at least Figs. 1-4 element 13 and [p. 4 of translation] “13-driver”);
wherein the adjustment mechanism is positioned in the cavity and coupled to the mattress, and when the actuator is operated, the adjustment mechanism moves the adjustable bed system between a flat configuration in which the head portion is substantially coplanar with the foot portion and an inclined configuration in which the head portion is inclined relative to the foot portion (at least Figs. 1-4 and [pp. 4-5 of translation] “the adjusting bracket 1 is independently arranged and can be set in the groove 21 at the bottom of the bed board or the mattress 2 to drive the bed board or the mattress 2 to turn over; the adjusting bracket 1 includes: The base 11, the support base 12 and the driver 13, one end of the base 11 is rotatably connected to one end of the support base 12, and the driver 13 drives the support base 12 to turn relative to the support base 12.”); and
wherein the mattress and the adjustment mechanism are configured to be positioned on a support surface (at least Figs. 1-4 and [p. 5 of the translation] “the bottom of the base 11 is provided with a non-slip pad”), the adjustment mechanism having a higher coefficient of friction with the support surface than the mattress (at least Figs. 1-4 and [p. 5 of the translation] “the anti-skid pad helps to enhance the friction between the base 11 and the ground, prevents the base 11 from being displaced, and can better fix the adjusting bracket 1 and the mattress 2.”).
Re Claim 2, Keeson teaches:
The adjustable bed system of claim 1, wherein the lower base of the adjustment mechanism includes an elastomeric material that engages the support surface with the higher coefficient of friction (at least Figs. 1-4 and [p. 5 of the translation] “the bottom of the base 11 is provided with a non-slip pad. The anti-skid pad helps to enhance the friction between the base 11 and the ground, prevents the base 11 from being displaced, and can better fix the adjusting bracket 1 and the mattress 2.”); wherein the lower base is coextensive with a head portion of the mattress (at least Figs. 1-4);
wherein the lower base includes one or more stanchions that are configured to be engaged by and support the upper support in the flat configuration (at least Fig. 2 element 111 and [p. 5 of the translation] “111-Support rod”); wherein the lower base includes a bottom material that has the higher coefficient of friction and that is configured to couple to the mattress with a coupler (at least Figs. 1-4 and [p. 5 of the translation] “the bottom of the base 11 is provided with a non-slip pad. The anti-skid pad helps to enhance the friction between the base 11 and the ground, prevents the base 11 from being displaced, and can better fix the adjusting bracket 1 and the mattress 2.”).
Re Claim 3, Keeson teaches:
The adjustable bed system of claim 1, wherein the lower base of the adjustment mechanism includes an elastomeric material that engages the support surface with the higher coefficient of friction (at least Figs. 1-4 and [p. 5 of the translation] “the bottom of the base 11 is provided with a non-slip pad. The anti-skid pad helps to enhance the friction between the base 11 and the ground, prevents the base 11 from being displaced, and can better fix the adjusting bracket 1 and the mattress 2.”).
Re Claim 4, Keeson teaches:
The adjustable bed system of claim 3, wherein the elastomeric material forms less than 20% of the area of the surface to which it is applied (at least Fig. 9 element 28).
Re Claim 5, Keeson teaches:
The adjustable bed system of claim 3, wherein the lower base includes a bottom material that is a woven or non-woven sheet material to which the elastomeric material applied on a lower surface thereof, and the bottom material of the lower base is the same material forming a lower covering of the mattress (at least Fig. 9 and [p. 8 of the translation] “an anti-slip device 28 and the anti-slip device 28 is provided on the mattress 2 and/or the bottom surface of the adjustable bracket 1, the anti-skid device 28 is used to limit the displacement along the direction of the head part 3 and the tall part 4.”).
Re Claim 6, Keeson teaches:
The adjustable bed system of claim 1, wherein the lower base is coextensive with a head portion of the mattress (at least Figs. 1-4 and 9).
Re Claim 7, Keeson teaches:
The adjustable bed system of claim 6, wherein the lower base has a base length that is greater than a cavity length of the cavity (at least Figs. 1-4 and 9).
Re Claim 8, Keeson teaches:
The adjustable bed system of claim 7, wherein the lower base is configured to engage a vertical surface of a wall to prevent headward movement of the adjustable bed assembly (at least Figs. 1-4).
Re Claim 9, Keeson teaches:
The adjustable bed system of claim 1, wherein the lower base includes one or more stanchions that are configured to be engaged by and support the upper support in the flat configuration (at least Fig. 2 element 111 and [p. 4 of the translation] “111-Support rod”).
Re Claim 10, Keeson teaches:
The adjustable bed system of claim 9, wherein in the flat configuration, the upper support is parallel with the lower base (at least Figs. 1-5).
Re Claim 11, Keeson teaches:
The adjustable bed system of claim 10, wherein the upper support is pivotably coupled to the lower base with one or more hinges that form an axis of rotation at an approximate mid-height between the upper support and the lower base (at least Fig. 2 element 111 and [p. 4 of the translation] “113-Hinged base”).
Re Claim 12, Keeson teaches:
The adjustable bed system of claim 1, wherein the lower base includes a bottom material that has the higher coefficient of friction and that is configured to couple to the mattress with a coupler (at least Figs. 1-4 and [p. 5 of the translation] “the bottom of the base 11 is provided with a non-slip pad. The anti-skid pad helps to enhance the friction between the base 11 and the ground, prevents the base 11 from being displaced, and can better fix the adjusting bracket 1 and the mattress 2.”).
Re Claim 13, Keeson teaches:
The adjustable bed system of claim 12, wherein the coupler is configured to releasably couple one or more of a head end, a left side, and a right side of the lower base to the mattress (at least Fig. 9 and [p. 8 of the translation] “The anti-skid cloth can be detachably connected to the adjustment bracket 1 through zippers, Velcro, etc., so that the adjustment bracket 1 and the mattress can be detachably connected. 2 are connected together to avoid displacement.”).
Re Claim 15, Keeson teaches:
The adjustable bed of claim 12, further comprising another coupler that couples a foot end of the lower base to the mattress in the flat configuration and the inclined configuration (at least Fig. 9 and [p. 8 of the translation] “The anti-skid cloth can be detachably connected to the adjustment bracket 1 through zippers, Velcro, etc., so that the adjustment bracket 1 and the mattress can be detachably connected. 2 are connected together to avoid displacement.”).
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keeson in view of US 20110247144 A1 to Oh.
Re Claim 14, Keeson teaches:
The adjustable bed system of claim 13 (detailed with respect to claim 13).
Keeson does not explicitly teach:
further comprising a power cord having a plug, wherein the coupler is a zipper that releasably couples the head end, the left side, and the right side of the lower base to the mattress, and in a shipping configuration, the lower base is coupled to the mattress with the coupler and the plug is positioned on an opposite side of the cavity relative to a zipper pull of the coupler.
However, Oh teaches:
further comprising a power cord having a plug (at least Fig. 7 element 75 and [0052] “a power cord 75”), wherein the coupler is a zipper that releasably couples the head end, the left side, and the right side of the lower base to the mattress (at least Fig. 11 and [0060] “Bottom portion 82 that is apparent in FIG. 10 is attached to the perimeter of top portion 83 with a zipper 84”), and in a shipping configuration, the lower base is coupled to the mattress with the coupler and the plug is positioned on an opposite side of the cavity relative to a zipper pull of the coupler (at least Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adjustable bed system taught by Keeson with the power cord and zipper taught by Oh with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because “When adjustable mattress 20 is in the flat configuration, mattress 20 looks like a conventional mattress resting on a box spring, with the exception of a power cord 75 that protrudes out from under the upper section of adjustable mattress 20. Power cord 75 is plugged into a standard wall socket 76 and provides electrical power to the electric motors 63 and 67 of the movement mechanism 33” (Oh [0052]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GEORGE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
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 SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights