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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "the chassis is configured to be unrolled" (claims 21, 31, 40), “spring pack have a folded configuration” (claim 23), “the chassis is made of foam”/foam chassis” (claims 27, 37, and 40), and “spring pack have a compacted configuration” (claim 33) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The amendment filed January 23rd, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
"the chassis is configured to be unrolled to move from the folded configuration to the unfolded configuration" (claims 21, 31, 40),
“spring pack have a folded configuration and an unfolded configuration that allows for ease of assembly of the bedding system” (claim 23),
“the chassis is made of foam”/”a foam chassis” (claims 27, 37, and 40), and
“spring pack have a compacted configuration for packing and an expanded configuration that allows for ease of assembly of the bedding system” (claim 33)
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, 31, and 40, the limitation “wherein the chassis is configured to be unrolled to move from the folded configuration to the unfolded configuration” is recited. There appears to be a lack of possession of the claimed feature in the invention. Where it is particularly considered, the limitations cited respectfully but eminently appear to have been amended into the application after the filing date of the instant application. Although later continuity was provided to applicant’s sibling applications (16/293029, 17/563311, and 62/639223), such applications do not recite or demonstrate the chassis configured to unroll (as though by a flexible foam or similar). Although applicant’s allege (Remarks: received January 23rd, 2025) that the support for such amendment is found throughout the specification and in the figures and claims, no such language to ‘unrolling’ is attributed to any feature except the tambor 64, which is not particularly the chassis, but only a part thereof and the rolling is specific to the chassis by stating its placement in the chassis and unrolling. The subject matter concerning the chassis (as a whole) is unrolled/rollable is respectfully therefore considered to introduce new matter and should be cancelled from the claim.
Regarding claim 23, the limitation “spring pack have a folded configuration for packing and an unfolded configuration that allows for ease of assembly of the bedding system” is recited. Notably, under similar considerations as those for claims 21/31/40 (and those concerning amendment after the filing date), applicant respectfully does not appear to have possession of the claimed limitation for an amended feature introduced after the filing date of the instant application. Particularly, no instance of the spring pack being foldable is recited in the specification, claims, or demonstrated in the drawings of the instant application or the applications the instant application claims continuity/priority with, nor the incorporated reference 63/347199 (only noting a ‘fold’ pertinent to the folding of the single piece of fabric material, not that the chassis is made of foam). Respectfully, the limitation appears to constitute new matter and should be cancelled from the claim.
Regarding claims 27, 37, and 40, the limitation “the chassis is made of foam” (claims 27/37) or “foam chassis” (claim 40) is recited. Notably, under similar considerations as those for claims 21/31/40 (and those concerning amendment after the filing date), applicant respectfully does not appear to have possession of the claimed limitation for an amended feature introduced after the filing date of the instant application. Particularly, the material of the chassis not described or disclosed to be of a foam material or even a flexible material is recited in the specification, claims, or demonstrated in the drawings of the instant application or the applications the instant application claims continuity/priority with. Respectfully, the limitation appears to constitute new matter and should be cancelled from the claim.
Regarding claim 33, the limitation “spring pack have a compacted configuration for packing and an expanded configuration that allows for ease of assembly of the bedding system” is recited. Notably, under similar considerations as those for claim 23 (and those concerning amendment after the filing date), applicant respectfully does not appear to have possession of the claimed limitation for an amended feature introduced after the filing date of the instant application. Particularly, no instance of the spring pack being compacted is recited in the specification, claims, or demonstrated in the drawings of the instant application or the applications the instant application claims continuity/priority with. Respectfully, the limitation appears to constitute new matter and should be cancelled from the claim.
It is further respectfully recommended by examiner that applicant’s should likely file such aspects under a continuation in part as applicant would not have possession of the claimed subject matter pertinent the claimed priority dates as far back as 2018, such feature has not been previously disclosed by applicant in neither of the antecedent applications the instant application draws priority from and would constitute a priority date coinciding the filing date of the claimed subject matter. Regardless, for the purposes of examination, the limitations cited prior are construed to be cancelled in the absence of a reasonable showing of possession and a lack of both antecedent basis in the specification, and a lack of showing in the figures, with consideration that such amendments were made after the filing date respectfully precludes conversion of the instant ‘continuation’ application into a continuation in part application. Absent a reasonable and particular showing of the cited subject matter, examiner cannot identify and is respectfully not persuaded at the present time that applicant’s specifications/claims/drawings provides basis for the aforementioned cited subject matters.
Claims 22, 24-26, 28-30, 32, 34-36, and 38-39 are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 first paragraph as being dependent on a rejected antecedent claim.
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 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 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), 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 walls include opposite first and second end walls (Liu: 16 and 18; FIG. 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), 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).
Claim 27 is treated as cancelled due to the claim consisting entirely of new matter identified therein and in the pertinent sections of the instant office action.
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 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 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 35, Howard in view of Liu discloses (Liu: FIG. 1 and 3) the bedding system recited in claim 31, 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), 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 walls include opposite first and second end walls (Liu: 16 and 18; FIG. 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), 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).
Claim 37 is treated as cancelled due to the claim consisting entirely of new matter identified therein and in the pertinent sections of the instant office action.
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 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 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references cited on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) were considered pertinent because they address the state of the art of bedding assemblies, covers, toppers, and assorted accessories and arrangements of bedding, and spring and filling considerations thereof.
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