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 .
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) 1-8, 10-12, 15-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 3,077,612 hereinafter referred to as Sevcik in view of US Patent 3,801,208 hereinafter referred to as Bourgraf.
Re-Claim 1
Sevcik discloses a folding connection mechanism 22 fig.5, comprising: a hinge 22, wherein the hinge comprises a first connecting member 23 fig.7 and a second connecting member 25 fig.7, wherein the first connecting member and the second connecting member are configured to be rotatably connected to each other; a lock buckle 28 fig.8, wherein the lock buckle is configured to be rotatably positioned on the first connecting member.
However does not discloses wherein the lock buckle is equipped with a lock groove; a lock pin, wherein the lock pin is positioned on the second connecting member, and wherein the lock pin is configured to be inserted into the lock groove.
Bourgraf teaches a folding connection mechanism 34 fig.8, comprising: a hinge 34, wherein the hinge comprises a first connecting member 36 fig.8 and a second connecting member 38 fig.8, wherein the first connecting member and the second connecting member are configured to be rotatably connected to each other (via 39 see fig.8 & 9); a lock buckle 44 fig.9, wherein the lock buckle is configured to be rotatably positioned on the first connecting member and wherein the lock buckle is equipped with a lock groove 454, 41 fig.9; a lock pin 41 fig.9, wherein the lock pin is positioned on the second connecting member, and wherein the lock pin is configured to be inserted into the lock groove.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed, having the teaching of the bed frame of Sevcik and lock apparatus of Bourgraf, to have substituted the lock apparatus of Sevcik for the lock apparatus of Bourgraf having a rotatably connected lock buckle engageable with a lock pin and with a reasonable expectation of success arrived at a folding connection mechanism utilizing a rotatably connected lock buckle engageable with a lock pin. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as the hinge locking apparatus of Sevcik and the hinge locking apparatus of Bourgraf are art recognized equivalents that may be used interchangeably to act as a device that locks the hinge in the unfolded position of use without changing the function of the foldable connection mechanism.
Re-Claim 2
Sevcik as modified by Bourgraf above discloses,
Bourgraf teaches wherein the first connecting member is provided with a bolt 47 fig.9, and the lock buckle is configured to be rotatably sleeved on the bolt [column 4 lines 40-41 “The latch member 44 pivots on pin 47 and includes release button 48 and biasing spring 49.”].
Re-Claim 3
Sevcik as modified by Bourgraf above discloses,
Bourgraf teaches wherein the lock buckle is a flat plate whose width gradually increases from a connecting end with the first connecting member to a free end opposite to the connecting end (see fig.5).
Re-Claim 4
Sevcik as modified by Bourgraf above discloses,
Bourgraf teaches wherein the lock groove is arranged on the free end of the lock buckle (see fig.5 & 9).
Re-Claim 5
Sevcik as modified by Bourgraf above discloses,
Bourgraf teaches wherein the lock groove faces downward when the lock pin is engaged with the lock groove (see fig.5 & 9).
Re-Claim 6
Sevcik as modified by Bourgraf above discloses,
Bourgraf teaches wherein both ends of the lock buckle are arc-shaped.
Regarding the above limitation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the shape of the ends of the lock buckle to be arc shaped, because there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1956). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the claimed shape, because applicant has not disclosed that having such a shape itself solves any stated problem, the claimed shape does not provide any unexpected result, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well where the ends of the buckle is of another shape, such as an angled shape. Overall, applicant has not established any criticality of the claimed shape, and thus selecting the claimed shape would be an obvious matter of design choice. The apparatus simply needs to have a shape where the lock groove end of the lock buckle can contact the lock pin in a way that cause the lock buckle to rotate. An arc shape would allow for such a function.
Re-Claim 7
Sevcik as modified by Bourgraf above discloses,
Bourgraf teaches wherein the lock pin comprises a connecting portion and a limiting portion, wherein the connecting portion is configured to be inserted into the lock groove, and wherein size of the limiting portion is larger than size of the lock groove to limit an axial falling off of the lock buckle (see fig.4).
Re-Claim 8
Sevcik as modified by Bourgraf above discloses,
Bourgraf teaches wherein the connecting portion is of a cylindrical shape and the limiting portion is disc-shaped (see fig.4).
Re-Claim 10
Sevcik as modified by Bourgraf above discloses,
wherein the first connecting member and the second connecting member are separately provided with a protruding hinge portion 37a, 38a fig.9 Bourgraf/ about 27 fig.7 Sevcik comprising a hinge hole 27 Sevcik/ 39 fig.9 Bourgraf, wherein a hinge shaft 27 Sevcik/ 39 fig.9 Bourgraf is configured to pass through the hinge holes of both the first connecting member and the second connecting member, thus enabling the first connecting member and the second connecting member to be rotatably connected.
Re-Claim 11
Sevcik as modified by Bourgraf above discloses,
Sevcik discloses a bed frame 10-13 fig.5 comprising a plurality of bed frame units 10-13 and at least one folding connection mechanism 22, wherein the at least one folding connection mechanism comprises the folding connection mechanism of claim 1, and wherein the at least one folding connection mechanism is configured to position between at least two respective adjacent bed frame units of the plurality of bed frame units (see fig.5).
Re-Claim 12
Sevcik as modified by Bourgraf above discloses,
wherein the plurality of bed frame units comprises a plurality of side rods, wherein the first connecting member and the second connecting member are each separately welded to the plurality of side rods (see fig.8 Sevcik).
Re-Claim 15
Sevcik as modified by Bourgraf above discloses,
wherein the plurality of bed frame unit is configured to be arranged in at least four sections, wherein the four sections of the plurality of bed frame units are arranged in sequence, and at least two adjacent bed frame units of the plurality of bed frame units are connected by the at least one folding connection mechanism (see fig.6 Sevcik).
Re-Claim 16
Sevcik as modified by Bourgraf above discloses,
wherein the bed frame comprises four bed frame units and the at least one folding connection mechanism of claim 1, wherein the at least one folding connection mechanism is configured to position between at least two respective adjacent bed frame units of the four bed frame units (see fig.6 Sevcik).
Re-Claim 17
Sevcik as modified by Bourgraf above discloses,
wherein the plurality of bed frame units comprises a plurality of side rods 10-13 Sevcik, wherein the first connecting member and the second connecting member are each separately welded to the plurality of side rods (see fig.6 & 7 Sevcik).
Re-Claim 20
Sevcik as modified by Bourgraf above discloses,
wherein when the lock groove of the lock buckle is engaged with the connecting portion of the lock pin, the lock groove of the lock buckle is configured to be arranged on one side close to a transverse line of the plurality of bed frame units, while a hinged side of the lock buckle is away from the transverse line of the plurality of bed frame units (see fig.7-9 Bourgraf).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevcik as modified by Bourgraf above further in view of US Patent 7,100,739 hereinafter referred to as Parker.
Re-Claim 9
Sevcik as modified by Bourgraf above discloses the claimed apparatus. However does not discloses wherein the first connecting member and the second connecting member are configured to be connected to each other as a tube having a C- shaped cross-section.
Parker teaches a folding connection mechanism 10 fig.12, comprising: a hinge 10, wherein the hinge comprises a first connecting member 29 fig.15 and a second connecting member 28 fig.15, wherein the first connecting member and the second connecting member are configured to be rotatably connected to each other; wherein the first connecting member and the second connecting member are configured to be connected to each other as a tube having a C- shaped cross-section (see fig.15).
Regarding the above limitation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the shape of the first and second connecting members to have as c-shaped cross-section, because there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1956). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the claimed shape, because applicant has not disclosed that having such a shape itself solves any stated problem, the claimed shape does not provide any unexpected result, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well where the first and second connecting members are of another shape, such as having a circle cross-section, or flat cross-section. Overall, applicant has not established any criticality of the claimed shape, and thus selecting the claimed shape would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 14. 18 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record discloses the claimed apparatus. The prior art of Bourgraf disclose the bolt is configured to pass through the first connecting member and lock pin extends through the second connecting member. However does not disclose wherein the bolt is configured to pass through the side rod or wherein the connecting portion of the lock pin extends from one side of the second connecting member through a side rod of the plurality of side rods until the connecting portion connects to the other side of the second connecting member. For at least that reason these claims are considered allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See notice of references cited).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFEOLU A ADEBOYEJO whose telephone number is (571)270-3072. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IFEOLU A ADEBOYEJO/Examiner, Art Unit 3673 /JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673