DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The Amendments filed May 5th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 21-40 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every Drawing and Specification Objection, alongside each and every 112b Rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 6th, 2026 and are hereby withdrawn in light of their correction.
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) 21, 31, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (U.S. Pub. No. 20080201856) in view of Liu (U.S. Pat. No. 4788727).
Regarding claim 21, Howard discloses (FIGS. 1-5) a bedding system (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5) comprising: a chassis (22; FIG. 2) defining a cavity (22e) a spring pack (26a-26p) positioned in the cavity (as illustrated in FIG. 2), a topper (18; FIG. 1) positioned over the spring pack (as illustrated through FIG. 1), wherein the chassis comprises walls (comprising opposite first (22a) and second side walls (22b) and opposite first (22c) and second end walls (22d) each extending from the first side wall to the second side wall (illustrated in FIG. 2)).
However, Howard does not explicitly disclose the chassis comprising end walls and side walls connected at ends thereof and movable relative thereto and configured to pivot relative to one another, the end walls and side walls defining a bounded entity that forms the cavity, wherein the walls have a folded configuration for chassis packaging and an unfolded configuration that allows for ease of assembly of the spring pack and the topper with the chassis.
Regardless, Liu teaches (FIGS. 1-4) a chassis for a bed wherein the end walls (16/18; FIG. 1) each include a first section (30, 22) connected to the first side wall (20) and a second section (28, 24) connected to the second side wall (26) such that the second section is pivotable relative to the first section (as illustrated in FIGS. 1, 3, and 4), the first section of the first end wall being pivotable relative to the second section of the first end wall (illustrated in FIG. 3), the first section of the second end wall being pivotable relative to the second section of the second end wall (illustrated in FIG. 3) to form compacted and expanded configurations (as illustrated between FIGS. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have simply substituted the chassis of Liu (as illustrated in FIG. 3) for the chassis of Howard (22; FIG. 2) wherein the results would have been predictable as they are both rectilinear beds concerned with shipping, wherein the incorporation into Howard would advantageously permit the chassis of the substitutional result to be more easily transported as Liu considers (Col. 2, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 22, Howard in view of Liu discloses (Howard: FIG. 2, Liu: FIG. 1) the bedding system recited in claim 21, wherein the chassis is a unitary element (As illustrated in FIGS. 2 of Howard and FIG. 1 of Liu).
Regarding claim 23, Howard in view of Liu discloses (Howard: FIG. 5) the bedding system recited in claim 21, wherein the topper has a folded configuration for packing and an unfolded configuration that allows for ease of assembly of the bedding system. Whereas illustrated and conveyed in FIG. 5, topper 18 is made of all flexible components (foam topper chassis 26, foam blocks 38a/40a, and fabric casing 34). It has been held that the recitation that an element is “capable of” performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138. Where “allows for” is considered synonymous with “capable of”. Where it is has been previously been considered Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
Regarding claim 24, Howard in view of Liu discloses (Liu: FIG. 3) the bedding system recited in claim 21, wherein the walls include opposite first and second end walls (Liu: 16 and 18; FIG. 1 and 3) and opposite first and second sidewalls (20 and 26) that each extend from the first end wall to the second end wall (as illustrated in FIG. 3 of Liu), the end walls being bonded to the side walls (as illustrated in FIG. 3 of Liu).
Regarding claim 25, Howard in view of Liu discloses (Liu: FIG. 1 and 3) the bedding system recited in claim 21, wherein the end walls include opposite first and second end walls (Liu: 16 and 18; FIG. 1 and 3) and the side walls include opposite first and second sidewalls (20 and 26) that each extend from the first end wall to the second end wall (as illustrated in FIG. 3 of Liu), and interfaces (correspondent 62; FIG. 3) between the end walls and the side walls have a reduced thickness to allow the end walls to pivot relative to the side walls (as illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 26, Howard in view of Liu discloses (Liu: FIG. 1 and 3) the bedding system recited in claim 21, wherein the end walls include opposite first and second end walls (Liu: 16 and 18; FIG. 3) and the side walls include opposite first and second sidewalls (20 and 26) that each extend from the first end wall to the second end wall (as illustrated in FIG. 3 of Liu), wherein the first end wall includes a first section (30 or 22) that is coupled to the first side wall (20) and a second section (28 or 24) that is coupled to the second side wall (26), the second section being pivotable relative to the first section to allow the chassis to move between the folded configuration and the unfolded configuration (As illustrated between FIGS. 1 and 3 of Liu).
Regarding claim 27, Howard in view of Liu discloses (Howard: FIGS. 1-5) the bedding system recited in claim 26, wherein the chassis comprises a foam material (Wherein in FIGS. 1-5, Howard eminently demonstrates foam materials comprised within the chassis).
Regarding claim 28, Howard in view of Liu discloses (Liu: FIG. 1, 3, and 4) the bedding system recited in claim 26, wherein the first section is rotatable relative to the first side wall (as illustrated in FIGS. 1, 3, and 4) and the second section is rotatable relative to the second side wall (as illustrated in FIGS. 1, 3, and 4).
Regarding claim 29, Howard in view of Liu discloses the bedding system recited in claim 26, wherein the first section is pivotable relative to the first side wall (as illustrated in FIGS. 1, 3, and 4) and the second section is pivotable relative to the second side wall (as illustrated in FIGS. 1, 3, and 4).
Regarding claim 30, Howard in view of Liu discloses the bedding system recited in claim 26, wherein the second end wall includes a third section (22 or 30 inversely; FIG. 3) that is coupled to the first side wall and a fourth section (24 or 28 inversely) that is coupled to the second side wall (as illustrated in FIGS. 1, 3, and 4), the fourth section being pivotable relative to the third section to allow the chassis to move between the folded configuration and the unfolded configuration (as illustrated in and between FIGS. 1, 3, and 4).
Regarding claim 31, Howard discloses (FIGS. 1-5) a bedding system (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5) comprising: a chassis (22; FIG. 2) defining a cavity (22e) a spring pack (26a-26p) positioned in the cavity (as illustrated in FIG. 2), a topper (18; FIG. 1) positioned over the spring pack (as illustrated through FIG. 1), wherein the chassis comprises walls (comprising opposite first (22a) and second side walls (22b) and opposite first (22c) and second end walls (22d) each extending from the first side wall to the second side wall (illustrated in FIG. 2)).
However, Howard does not explicitly disclose the chassis comprising end walls and side walls connected at ends thereof and movable relative thereto and configured to pivot relative to one another, the end walls and side walls defining a bounded entity that forms the cavity; wherein the walls have a compacted configuration for chassis packaging and an expanded configuration that allows for ease of assembly of the spring pack and the topper with the chassis.
Regardless, Liu teaches (FIGS. 1-4) a chassis for a bed wherein the end walls (16/18; FIG. 1) each include a first section (30, 22) connected to the first side wall (20) and a second section (28, 24) connected to the second side wall (26) such that the second section is pivotable relative to the first section (as illustrated in FIGS. 1, 3, and 4), the first section of the first end wall being pivotable relative to the second section of the first end wall (illustrated in FIG. 3), the first section of the second end wall being pivotable relative to the second section of the second end wall (illustrated in FIG. 3) to form compacted and expanded configurations (as illustrated between FIGS. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have simply substituted the chassis of Liu (as illustrated in FIG. 3) for the chassis of Howard (22; FIG. 2) wherein the results would have been predictable as they are both rectilinear beds concerned with shipping, wherein the incorporation into Howard would advantageously permit the chassis of the substitutional result to be more easily transported as Liu considers (Col. 2, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 32, Howard in view of Liu discloses (Howard: FIG. 2, Liu: FIG. 1) the bedding system recited in claim 31, wherein the chassis is a unitary element (As illustrated in FIGS. 2 of Howard and FIG. 1 of Liu).
Regarding claim 33, Howard in view of Liu discloses (Howard: FIG. 5) the bedding system recited in claim 31, wherein the topper has a compacted configuration for packing and an expanded configuration that allows for ease of assembly of the bedding system. Whereas illustrated and conveyed in FIG. 5, topper 18 is made of all flexible components (foam topper chassis 26, foam blocks 38a/40a, and fabric casing 34). It has been held that the recitation that an element is “capable of” performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138. Where “allows for” is considered synonymous with “capable of”. Where it is has been previously been considered Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
Regarding claim 34, Howard in view of Liu discloses the (Liu: FIG. 3) the bedding system recited in claim 31, wherein the end walls include opposite first and second end walls (Liu: 16 and 18; FIG. 1 and 3) and the side walls include opposite first and second sidewalls (20 and 26) that each extend from the first end wall to the second end wall (as illustrated in FIG. 3 of Liu), the end walls being bonded to the side walls (as illustrated in FIG. 3 of Liu).
Regarding claim 35, Howard in view of Liu discloses (Liu: FIG. 1 and 3) the bedding system recited in claim 31, wherein the end walls include opposite first and second end walls (Liu: 16 and 18; FIG. 1 and 3) and the side walls include opposite first and second sidewalls (20 and 26) that each extend from the first end wall to the second end wall (as illustrated in FIG. 3 of Liu), and interfaces (correspondent 62; FIG. 3) between the end walls and the side walls have a reduced thickness to allow the end walls to pivot relative to the side walls (as illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 36, Howard in view of Liu discloses (Liu: FIG. 1 and 3) the bedding system recited in claim 31, wherein the end walls include opposite first and second end walls (Liu: 16 and 18; FIG. 3) and the side walls include opposite first and second sidewalls (20 and 26) that each extend from the first end wall to the second end wall (as illustrated in FIG. 3 of Liu), wherein the first end wall includes a first section (30 or 22) that is coupled to the first side wall (20) and a second section (28 or 24) that is coupled to the second side wall (26), the second section being pivotable relative to the first section to allow the chassis to move between the folded configuration and the unfolded configuration (As illustrated between FIGS. 1 and 3 of Liu).
Regarding claim 37, Howard in view of Liu discloses (Howard: FIGS. 1-5) the bedding system recited in claim 36, wherein the chassis comprises a foam material (Wherein in FIGS. 1-5, Howard eminently demonstrates foam materials comprised within the chassis).
Regarding claim 38, Howard in view of Liu discloses (Liu: FIG. 1, 3, and 4) the bedding system recited in claim 36, wherein the first section is rotatably connected to the first side wall (as illustrated in FIGS. 1, 3, and 4) and the second section is rotatably coupled to the second side wall (as illustrated in FIGS. 1, 3, and 4).
Regarding claim 39, Howard in view of Liu discloses (Liu: FIG. 1, 3, and 4) the bedding system recited in claim 36, wherein the first section is pivotably connected to the first side wall (as illustrated in FIGS. 1, 3, and 4) and the second section is pivotably coupled to the second side wall (as illustrated in FIGS. 1, 3, and 4).
Regarding claim 40, Howard discloses (FIGS. 1-5) a bedding system (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-5) comprising: a chassis (22; FIG. 2) defining a cavity (22e) a spring pack (26a-26p) positioned in the cavity (as illustrated in FIG. 2), a topper (18; FIG. 1) positioned over the spring pack (as illustrated through FIG. 1), wherein the chassis comprises walls (as illustrated in FIG. 2, wherein the side walls include opposite first (22a) and second side walls (22b) and opposite first (22c) and second end walls (22d) each extending from the first side wall to the second side wall (illustrated in FIG. 2)), wherein the chassis is a unitary element (as illustrated in FIG. 2).
However, Howard does not explicitly disclose the chassis comprisinq end walls and side walls connected at ends thereof and movable relative thereto and configured to pivot relative to one another, the end walls and side walls defining a bounded entity that forms a cavity, the chassis comprising a foam material disposed about the side walls and end walls; wherein the walls have a folded configuration for chassis packaging and an unfolded configuration that allows for ease of assembly of the spring pack and the topper with the chassis; wherein the first end wall includes a first section that is coupled to the first side wall and a second section that is coupled to the second side wall, the second section being rotatable relative to the first section to allow the chassis to move between the folded configuration and the unfolded configuration and wherein the second end wall includes a third section that is coupled to the first side wall and a fourth section that is coupled to the second side wall, the fourth section being rotatable relative to the third section to allow the chassis to move between the folded configuration and the unfolded configuration.
Regardless, Liu teaches (FIGS. 1-4) a chassis for a bed wherein the end walls (16/18; FIG. 1) each include a first section (30, 22) connected to the first side wall (20) and a second section (28, 24) connected to the second side wall (26) such that the second section is pivotable relative to the first section (as illustrated in FIGS. 1, 3, and 4), the first section of the first end wall being pivotable relative to the second section of the first end wall (illustrated in FIG. 3), the first section of the second end wall being pivotable relative to the second section of the second end wall (illustrated in FIG. 3) to form compacted and expanded configurations (as illustrated between FIGS. 1 and 3); wherein the first end wall includes a first section (30 or 22) that is coupled to the first side wall (20) and a second section (28 or 24) that is coupled to the second side wall (26), the second section being rotatable relative to the first section to allow the chassis to move between the folded configuration and the unfolded configuration (As illustrated between FIGS. 1 and 3 of Liu); wherein the second end wall includes a third section (22 or 30 inversely; FIG. 3) that is coupled to the first side wall and a fourth section (24 or 28 inversely) that is coupled to the second side wall (as illustrated in FIGS. 1, 3, and 4), the fourth section being rotatable relative to the third section to allow the chassis to move between the folded configuration and the unfolded configuration (as illustrated in and between FIGS. 1, 3, and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have simply substituted the chassis of Liu (as illustrated in FIG. 3) for the chassis of Howard (22; FIG. 2) wherein the results would have been predictable as they are both rectilinear beds concerned with shipping, wherein the incorporation into Howard would advantageously permit the chassis of the substitutional result to be more easily transported as Liu considers (Col. 2, lines 1-2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pages 7-11), filed May 5th, with respect to Drawing and Specification Objections alongside each and every 112a Rejection previously set forth have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Drawing and Specification Objections alongside each and every 112a Rejections of January 6th, 2026 has been withdrawn.
Particularly in light of applicant’s amendments that overcome or obviate the previous objections or rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed May 5th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to applicant’s arguments that Howard (in view of Liu) fails to provide the claimed features of the chassis comprises end walls and sidewalls connected, and movable relative thereto, Liu respectfully demonstrates such a feature eminently in FIGS. 1-7. And while applicant expresses that examiner has found allowability of the features previously, Examiner respectfully disagrees with this characterization as such allowances were previously predicated on a different combination of features. The instant claims still respectfully appear to be rendered anticipated or obvious by the prior art.
Therefore, the claims remain rejected based on previous rationale and additional contexts/clarities/mapping provided.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights