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
Applicant's arguments filed 7 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s argument #1: Without conceding the merits of the rejection, claims are amended and the following arguments are presented. Claim 20 as amended recites: A bed system comprising: a foundation configured to support a mattress, the foundation comprising: a foundation base; a foundation lid positioned on the foundation base and defining a storage space between the foundation lid and the foundation base; a spring coupled between the foundation base and the foundation lid, the spring configured to provide lift assistance to a user raising the foundation lid; an adjustable layer comprising a series of hingedly interconnected adjustable platforms; and an articulation mechanism configured to actuate the series of hingedly interconnected adjustable platforms. None of the cited references describe the combination of features including the foundation lid, the spring, the adjustable layer, and the articulation mechanism as claimed. Accordingly, amended claim 20 and all claims depending therefrom are patentable over the cited references for at least this reason as well as for the additional features recited therein.
Applicant’s argument #2:
Claim 34 recites: As explained above with respect to the drawing objections, the specification does provide support for a spring (such as a gas spring) and an articulation mechanism in the same embodiment of a foundation defining a storage space. These claim amendments are supported by the above-cited sections and figures of the specification, and throughout the specification as originally filed. A foundation for supporting a mattress in a bed system, the foundation comprising: a foundation base; at least one drawer positioned in the foundation base, the at least one drawer accessible externally of the foundation; and an electrical system positioned interior of the at least one drawer. The Office Action identifies Lee's "box 6" as meeting the feature of a drawer positioned in the foundation base. Applicant respectfully disagrees. First, Lee's box 6 is named by Lee as a "box" and not a "drawer". The Office Action has merely recites the claim language and cites to Lee's "box," but critically has not provided any reasoning for why a "box" is the same thing as a "drawer." Therefore, Lee's "box" can not be understood to be the "drawer" as used in the claims. Second, Lee's box 6 is not "positioned in the foundation base" as claimed. As can be seen from Lee's Figure 1 (and the supporting text of Lee's specification) the box 6 sits on the ground and rolls-it is not a "drawer" and is not "in" the foundation. Accordingly, claim 34 and all claims depending therefrom are patentable over the cited references for at least this reason as well as for the additional features recited therein.
Examiner’s Response
Examiner’s Response #1: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 20 have been considered. The Examiner acknowledges that Dreyer does not teach all of the limitations of claim 20 but points to the rejection of amended claim 20 further in view of Pruim et al.
Examiner’s Response #2:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that Lee’s box is not considered a drawer positioned in the foundation base. On page 3 of the English translation of Lee, Lee refers to the box (6) as a “drawer-type box.” Additionally, the Examiner does not agree that a drawer with wheels positioned on the ground and sliding into and out of the foundation base would not be considered a drawer. The Examiner does not find any special definition of a drawer that requires the drawer to include a built in slide mechanism or some other configuration which would preclude the rolling in and out of the drawer-type box to be reasonably considered a drawer. There is no mention of the drawer-type box of Lee being an optional feature and the figures show an adjacent wall and seemingly a cutout for receiving the drawer-type box of Lee. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the position that the drawer-type box of Lee is reasonably considered a "drawer positioned in the foundation base." The Examiner has, however, modified the rejection of claim 34 and its dependents in order to reject the amended dependent claims.
Claim 34 recites: As explained above with respect to the drawing objections, the specification does provide support for a spring (such as a gas spring) and an articulation mechanism in the same embodiment of a foundation defining a storage space. These claim amendments are supported by the above-cited sections and figures of the specification, and throughout the specification as originally filed. A foundation for supporting a mattress in a bed system, the foundation comprising: a foundation base; at least one drawer positioned in the foundation base, the at least one drawer accessible externally of the foundation; and an electrical system positioned interior of the at least one drawer. The Office Action identifies Lee's "box 6" as meeting the feature of a drawer positioned in the foundation base. Applicant respectfully disagrees. First, Lee's box 6 is named by Lee as a "box" and not a "drawer". The Office Action has merely recites the claim language and cites to Lee's "box," but critically has not provided any reasoning for why a "box" is the same thing as a "drawer." Therefore, Lee's "box" can not be understood to be the "drawer" as used in the claims. Second, Lee's box 6 is not "positioned in the foundation base" as claimed. As can be seen from Lee's Figure 1 (and the supporting text of Lee's specification) the box 6 sits on the ground and rolls-it is not a "drawer" and is not "in" the foundation. Accordingly, claim 34 and all claims depending therefrom are patentable over the cited references for at least this reason as well as for the additional features recited therein.
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 20-23, 26-27, 28, 31-33, and 40-43 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. Amended claim 20 requires a foundation base, a foundation lid positioned on the foundation base and defining a storage space between the foundation lid and the foundation base; a spring coupled between the foundation base and the foundation lid, the spring configured to provide lift assistance to a user raising the foundation lid; an adjustable layer comprising a series of hingedly interconnected adjustable platforms; and an articulation mechanism configured to actuate the series of hingedly interconnected adjustable platforms. There is not sufficient support for a bed system with each of these elements. Although the Applicant has included the cited paragraph [0150] which enables the combination of aspects of different embodiments, the Examiner disagrees that the different embodiments can reasonably be combined to reach the claimed embodiment of claim 20. Claim 20 requires a foundation lid which raises from the foundation base with the assistance of a spring. Claim 20 also requires an adjustable layer comprising a series of hingedly interconnected adjustable platforms with an articulation mechanism. The Applicant has attempted to overcome the previous drawing objections by adding annotations showing an articulation mechanism and a gas spring to the embodiments of Figs. 8-10. However, the specification and drawings only teach a hinging lid in the embodiment of Figs. 5-7 and Fig. 12. While one can reasonably combine teachings from different embodiments there does not appear to be a reasonable way to combine the teachings of the hinged lid for supporting a mattress and an articulation mechanism as shown in Figs. 8-11. The specification teaches that the lid is supporting the mattress and enabling the hinging of the mattress relative to the base. The embodiment with the articulation mechanism includes platforms for supporting a portion of the adjustable mattress and enabling the recessed adjustable layer 220 to adjust the curvature desirable to the user. “The recessed adjustable layer 220 has a top surface 238 which can abut and support the bottom 134 of the adjustable mattress 212 and has a bottom surface 240 which can abut and be supported by the ledge 182 or another portion of the adjustable foundation 214. The recessed adjustable layer 220 can be sized to fit in the recessed portion 216 of the adjustable mattress 212.“ In order for the lid to be able to pivot and lift the mattress relative to the foundation base, the lid must provide sufficient support for the mattress to prevent the mattress from buckling/bending etc. However the purpose of the articulation mechanism is to bend the mattress. Additionally, the specification teaches that the adjustment mechanism 220 extends into a recessed portion 216 of the mattress shown in Fig. 8. Although the Examiner acknowledges the general recitation that features of one embodiment could be reasonably combined, the Examiner disagrees that proper support is provided for the combination of the articulating mechanism and the hinged lid. Many essential elements are missing from the alleged combination of the embodiments of Figs. 5 and 8. Most notably, the hinge, articulation mechanism, spring and lid all combined into one figure with sufficient structure to understand the claimed invention. For example, if the embodiments of Figs. 5 and 8 were combined, the deck must seemingly be removably positioned with relation to the mattress and a lid would have to be positioned between the deck and the bottom of the mattress. This feature is not explained by the specification or shown in the drawings enough to reasonably understand how this would work. While there may be ways of reasonably making this configuration the specification and drawings are lacking enough information to reasonably support the combination as claimed.
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 plurality of rollers and a plurality of lever arms 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.
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) 20-23, 26-28, 31, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreyer Jr. (US Patent No. 5,020,173 – hereinafter Dreyer) in view of Pruim et al. (US Patent No. 3,222,693 – hereinafter Pruim).
Regarding Claim 20: Dreyer discloses a bed system (bedstead storage box of Dreyer) comprising: a foundation (rectangular wooden box 1 with lid 2 of Dreyer) configured to support a mattress (mattress 7 of Dreyer), the foundation comprising: a foundation base (rectangular box 1 of Dreyer); a foundation lid (lid 2 of Dreyer) positioned on the foundation base (as shown in Fig. 1 of Dreyer) and defining a storage space (space between sides 10, 11, and bottom 19 of Dreyer as shown in Fig. 1 and discussed throughout the specification as providing storage) between the foundation lid and the foundation base (as shown in Fig. 1 of Dreyer); a spring (gas springs 4 of Dreyer) coupled between the foundation base and the foundation lid (Fig. 1 of Dreyer), the spring configured to provide lift assistance to a user raising the foundation lid (Col. 3, lines 26-33 of Dreyer - “The most dramatic amount of storage is provided by the king-size storage box, which affords 22.5 cubic feet of storage space, which challenges the storage volume of the popular 36".times.18".times.72" steel cabinet, which affords 27 cubic feet.”) […].
Dreyer does not disclose an adjustable layer comprising a series of hingedly interconnected adjustable platforms; and an articulation mechanism configured to actuate the series of hingedly interconnected adjustable platforms.
However, in the same field of endeavor, beds (see the abstract of Pruim) Pruim discloses an adjustable layer comprising a series of hingedly interconnected adjustable platforms (see panels 50-53 of Pruim which are hinged together – Fig. 2); and an articulation mechanism (arms 180, 200, rollers 189, 207, tubes 183, 203 and motors 185, 205 of Pruim – Figs. 5-6) configured to actuate the series of hingedly interconnected adjustable platforms (Col. 6, lines 1-11 and 43-49 of Pruim which discuss the actuation of the head and knee panels respectively).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Dreyer (directed toward a bed which is tiltable for accessing storage) and Pruim (directed toward a bed with articulating sections) with a reasonable expectation of success by adding an adjustable layer including a series of hingedly interconnected adjustable platforms and an articulation mechanism to the bed of Dreyer. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enable adjusting the mattress for positions of “comfort and therapy” (Col. 1, lines 13-20 of Pruim).
Regarding Claim 21: Dreyer in view of Pruim make obvious the bed system of claim 20, wherein the foundation lid is configured to support the mattress and is rotatable relative to the foundation base to allow a user to access the storage space (Col. 3, lines 10-12 of Dreyer - “The lid is a frame 5 with a platform 6 (FIG. z) to support a bed assembly including a mattress 7, box springs s, and bedding (not illustrated)”) and is rotatable relative to the foundation base to allow a user to access the storage space (Fig. 1 and claim 1 of Dreyer).
Regarding Claim 22: Dreyer in view of Pruim make obvious the bed system of claim 20, further comprising a hinge (hinges 3 of Dreyer – Fig. 2) coupling the foundation lid to the foundation base (as shown in Figs. 1-4 of Dreyer).
Regarding Claim 23: Dreyer in view of Pruim make obvious the bed system of claim 20, wherein the foundation base comprises a pair of side rails (sides of the box 10 of Dreyer – Fig. 1), a head rail (hinged side 13 of Dreyer – Fig. 1) extending between the pair of side rails (Fig. 1 of Dreyer), and a foot rail (side 11 of Dreyer – Fig. 1) extending between the pair of side rails opposite the head rail (Fig. 1 of Dreyer), and wherein the pair of side rails, the head rail, and the foot rail further define the storage space (Fig. 1 and claim 1 of Dreyer), wherein the foundation base further comprises a bottom panel (bottom 19 of Dreyer) extending between the pair of side rails, the head rail, and the foot rail further defining the storage space (Fig. 1 of Dreyer).
Regarding Claim 26: Dreyer in view of Pruim make obvious the bed system of claim 20, wherein the spring is a gas spring (gas spring 4 of Dreyer).
Regarding Claim 27: Dreyer in view of Pruim make obvious the bed system of claim 26, wherein the gas spring (gas springs 4 of Dreyer) is coupled at one end to an inner surface of a side rail (Fig. 1 of Dreyer) of the foundation base and at an opposite end to a sub frame (three-sided frame 5 formed of wooden beams 23 of Dreyer) of the foundation lid (Col. 6, lines 3-13 of Dreyer - “Reading the drawings, FIGS. 1, 2, 3, it is seen that one end of each gas spring is attached to a side of the lid at a point approximately midway from the hinged end to the opposite end of the lid. The other end of each gas spring is orientated toward the hinge side of the box and is mounted at a selected point on the inside face of the corresponding side of the box, to provide that the piston rod will be substantially fully retracted when the lid is closed, and to provide that the lid will be tilted at an angle of approximately 25 degrees when the piston rod is fully extended.”).
Regarding Claim 28: Dreyer in view of Pruim make obvious the bed system of claim 20 wherein the articulation mechanism comprises a plurality of rollers (189 and 207 of Pruim – Figs. 5-6) and a plurality of lever arms (180, 200 of Pruim) positioned in the foundation and concealed by deck panels and rails (see at least Figs. 1, 13 and 14 of Pruim showing concealed lever arms and rollers at least partially because of the channel 47 which the examiner considers a rail).
Regarding Claim 31: Dreyer in view of Pruim make obvious the bed system of claim 20, wherein the storage space is sized to receive both the articulation mechanism and the spring in the storage space while still defining additional storage space (as modified by the combination of Dreyer and Pruim – note the size of the storage space of Dreyer and the extension of the motors and tubes of Pruim that extend beneath the channels 47 and therefore would extend into the storage space of Dreyer as modified).
Regarding Claim 41: Dreyer in view of Pruim make obvious the bed system of claim 20, wherein the articulation mechanism comprises one or more electric motors configured to actuate the series of hingedly interconnected adjustable platforms between a raised position and a lowered position (see motors 185 and 205 of Pruim being electric – Fig. 15 shows the electric circuitry for the bed).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreyer Jr. (US Patent No. 5,020,173 – hereinafter Dreyer) in view of Pruim et al. (US Patent No. 3,222,693 – hereinafter Pruim) in view of Takano (JP 2002209675).
Regarding Claim 32: Dreyer in view of Pruim make obvious the bed system of claim 20.
Dreyer in view of Pruim do not together make obvious further comprising a ledge positioned within the storage space and proximate a perimeter of the storage space, the ledge configured to receive and support a portion of the foundation lid when the foundation lid is in a closed position.
However, in the same field of endeavor, bed with storage region (see paragraph [0010] of Takano – “The base 1 is formed in a rectangular box shape whose upper surface is open and the inside is an accommodating portion 1a for small items”) further comprising a ledge (inner plates 4 of Takano – Fig. 1) positioned within the storage space (as shown in Figs. 1-3 of Takano), the ledge configured to receive and support a portion of the foundation lid when the foundation lid is in a closed position (see Fig. 2 of Takano which shows movable floor plate 8 supported on walls 4).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Dreyer (directed toward a bed frame with hinged plate which enables storage beneath the mattress), Pruim (directed toward a bed with an articulating frame) and Takano (directed toward a bed frame with hinged plate and inner plates for supporting the hinged plate in a closed position) with a reasonable expectation of success by including plates adjacent to the gas cylinders of Dreyer. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because the plates create a space such that “small articles…are prevented from entering below the gas spring” (see page 4, paragraph [0022] of Takano).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreyer Jr. (US Patent No. 5,020,173 – hereinafter Dreyer) in view of Pruim et al. (US Patent No. 3,222,693 – hereinafter Pruim) in view of Koughan et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2008/0052830 – hereinafter Koughan).
Regarding Claim 33: Dreyer in view of Pruim make obvious the bed system of claim 20. Dreyer and Pruim do not together make obvious further comprising a light source for an under-bed lighting system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, bed foundations (see the abstract of Koughan), Koughan teaches further comprising a light source for an under-bed lighting system (under bed lights 476a-476b of Koughan).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Dreyer (directed toward a bed frame with hinged plate which enables storage beneath the mattress), Pruim (directed toward a bed frame with an articulating frame) and Koughan (directed toward a bed frame with underbed lights) with a reasonable expectation of success by including underbed lights in the bed of Dreyer. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “Under bed lighting may provide safer movement around the bed at night, or may provide mood lighting to enhance the bedroom environment” (paragraph [0114] of Koughan).
Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreyer Jr. (US Patent No. 5,020,173 – hereinafter Dreyer) in view of Pruim et al. (US Patent No. 3,222,693 – hereinafter Pruim) in view of Stusynski et al. (US Patent No. 8,984,687 – hereinafter Stusynski).
Regarding Claim 43: Dreyer in view of Pruim make obvious the bed system of claim 20. Dreyer in view of Pruim do not together make obvious the wherein the adjustable layer comprises a first zone and a second zone independently adjustable from the first zone, the first zone configured to support a first user resting on the mattress and the second zone configured to support a second user resting on the mattress.
However, in the same field of endeavor, beds (see the abstract of Stusynski) Stusynski teaches wherein the adjustable layer comprises a first zone (mattress 18A – Fig. 3 of Stusynski) and a second zone (mattress 18B of Stusynski) independently adjustable from the first zone the first zone configured to support a first user resting on the mattress and the second zone configured to support a second user resting on the mattress (Col. 2, line 63-Col. 3, line 3 of Stusynski - “The adjustable bed can be configured so that each side of the bed can be independently adjusted by each occupant of the bed, e.g., so that each occupant can select a particular position or positions that he or she prefers. Each side of the bed can be independently controlled by a controlling device, such as a remote control, so that each occupant has individual control over their side of the bed.”).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Dreyer (directed toward a bed frame with hinged plate which enables storage beneath the mattress), Pruim (directed toward a bed frame with an articulating frame) and Stusynski (directed toward a bed frame with two zones) with a reasonable expectation of success by configuring the adjustable frame of Dreyer as modified by Pruim as a side by side adjustable frame. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “so that each occupant has individual control over their side of the bed.” (Col. 2, line 63-Col. 3, line 3 of Stusynski).
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreyer Jr. (US Patent No. 5,020,173 – hereinafter Dreyer) in view of Pruim et al. (US Patent No. 3,222,693 – hereinafter Pruim) in view of Vrzalik et al. (US Patent No. 6,467,111 – hereinafter Vrzalik).
Regarding Claim 40: Dreyer in view of Pruim make obvious the bed system of claim 20. Dreyer and Pruim together do not make obvious further comprising an electrical system positioned within the storage space, the electrical system comprising at least one of: a pump configured to supply air to one or more air chambers of the mattress and a temperature control unit configured to move fluid through a temperature control layer of the mattress.
However, in the same field of endeavor, beds (see the abstract of Vrzalik), Vrzalik teaches further comprising an electrical system (modular control assembly 30 of Vrzalik) positioned within a storage space (see the cavity of Vrzalik) the electrical system comprising at least one of: a pump configured to supply air to one or more air chambers of the mattress and a temperature control unit configured to move fluid through a temperature control layer of the mattress (see the abstract of Vrazlik which describes a low air loss mattress and Col. 4, lines 47-52 of Vrazlik which teaches the blower motor including an air heater manifold and temperature sensors).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Dreyer (directed toward a bed with a storage section), Pruim (directed toward bed with articulating sections) and Vrazlik (directed towards a low airloss control system for connecting to a bed frame) with a reasonable expectation of success by positioning a control system taught by Vrazlik within the storage space. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to utilize a low air loss mattress on the foundation of Dreyer as modified for the purpose of providing therapeutic support to a patient (see the abstract and Col. 1, lines 9-14 of Vrazlik).
Claim(s) 20 (alternatively) and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreyer Jr. (US Patent No. 5,020,173 – hereinafter Dreyer) in view of Koughan et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2008/0052830 – hereinafter Koughan).
Regarding Claim 20: Dreyer discloses a bed system (bedstead storage box of Dreyer) comprising: a foundation (rectangular wooden box 1 with lid 2 of Dreyer) configured to support a mattress (mattress 7 of Dreyer), the foundation comprising: a foundation base (rectangular box 1 of Dreyer); a foundation lid (lid 2 of Dreyer) positioned on the foundation base (as shown in Fig. 1 of Dreyer) and defining a storage space (space between sides 10, 11, and bottom 19 of Dreyer as shown in Fig. 1 and discussed throughout the specification as providing storage) between the foundation lid and the foundation base (as shown in Fig. 1 of Dreyer); a spring (gas springs 4 of Dreyer) coupled between the foundation base and the foundation lid (Fig. 1 of Dreyer), the spring configured to provide lift assistance to a user raising the foundation lid (Col. 3, lines 26-33 of Dreyer - “The most dramatic amount of storage is provided by the king-size storage box, which affords 22.5 cubic feet of storage space, which challenges the storage volume of the popular 36".times.18".times.72" steel cabinet, which affords 27 cubic feet.”) […].
Dreyer does not disclose an adjustable layer comprising a series of hingedly interconnected adjustable platforms; and an articulation mechanism configured to actuate the series of hingedly interconnected adjustable platforms.
However, in the same field of endeavor, beds (see the abstract of Koughan) Koughan discloses an adjustable layer comprising a series of hingedly interconnected adjustable platforms (see panels 306-312 of Pruim which are hinged together – Fig. 12); and an articulation mechanism (articulation units of Koughan – Fig. 13 – paragraph [0087]) configured to actuate the series of hingedly interconnected adjustable platforms (articulation units of Koughan – Fig. 13 – paragraph [0087]).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Dreyer (directed toward a bed which is tiltable for accessing storage) and Koughan (directed toward a bed with articulating sections) with a reasonable expectation of success by adding an adjustable layer including a series of hingedly interconnected adjustable platforms and an articulation mechanism to the bed of Dreyer. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enable adjusting the mattress for positions for allowing a user to raise or lower their head (see the abstract of Koughan).
Regarding Claim 42: Dreyer in view of Koughan make obvious the bed system of claim 20, wherein the series of hingedly interconnected adjustable platforms comprises a non-articulating platform (308 of Koughan) [and ] a passage configured to allow a hose to extend from within the foundation, below the non-articulating platform, through the passage, to a mattress positioned above the series of hingedly interconnected adjustable platforms (see Fig. 20 and paragraph [0108] of Koughan which describes the integrated tubing and showing passages for the tubing to access the mattress).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Dreyer (directed toward a bed which is tiltable for accessing storage) and Koughan (directed toward a bed with articulating sections and tubing for coupling a pump to an inflatable mattress) with a reasonable expectation of success by adding an adjustable layer including a series of hingedly interconnected adjustable platforms and a pump/tubing assembly. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the predictable results of enabling automatic inflation of an air mattress positioned on the frame of Dreyer as modified.
The Examiner notes that although Koughan does not explicitly disclose that the passage is positioned within the non-articulating panel one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the non-articulating panel would be the most likely to not interfere with the tubing by preventing additional movement of the tubing during articulation.
Claim(s) 34, 37, 39 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koughan et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2008/0052830 – hereinafter Koghan) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2011-0123498 – hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 34: Koughan discloses a foundation (foundation of Figs. 1-21 of Koughan) for supporting a mattress (mattress described in paragraph [0038] of Koughan) in a bed system, the foundation comprising: a foundation base (formed by the side walls of the bed foundation 402 as described in paragraph [0109] of Koughan); at least one drawer (460a-460b of Koughan) positioned in the foundation base (Fig. 21 and paragraph [0109] of Koughan – “In this illustrative embodiment, the drop-in unit 400f provides built-in drawers 460a and 460b, cabinets, and/or lock boxes that can provide the consumer with desirable storage locations for clothes, valuables, and other items within the cavity 404 formed by the side walls of the bed foundation 402. In the illustrative embodiment, the drawers 460a and 460b extend through the side walls of the bed foundation 402. In some cases, the existing side walls of the bed foundation 402 can include removable sections that can be removed by the user prior to installing the drop-in unit 400f to accommodate the drawers 460a and 460b.”), the at least one drawer accessible externally of the foundation (see Fig. 21 of Koughan) […].
Koughan further teaches “For example, the drop-in unit 400 may provide one or more of articulation (as described above), heating, cooling, massage, magnetic therapy, adjustable lumbar support, sound, light, aromatherapy, air purifier/filtration, fold-out tray/table capability, on-board bed controls, on board TV and other controls, TV-A/V-phone connections and/or mounts, air pump holder for air beds, storage, as well as any other suitable function or functions, as desired.”
Koughan does not disclose an electrical system positioned interior of the at least one drawer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, beds (see the abstract of Lee), Lee teaches an electrical system positioned interior of the at least one drawer (power source 3 of Lee).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Koughan (directed toward a bed with adjustable sections) and Lee (directed toward a bed with a drawer for storing portions of the control unit within the foundation) with a reasonable expectation of success and arrived at a bed foundation with an electrical system positioned interior of the at least one drawer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g. positioning any of the features listed by Koughan (i.e. heating, cooling, massage, sound, light aromatherapy, controls, phone connections and mounts, air pump holder for air beds etc.) within the drawers of Koughan) with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g. enabling discrete positioning of the features with easy accessibility for use, repair, replacement etc.).
Regarding Claim 37: Koughan in view of Lee make obvious the foundation of claim 34, wherein the electrical system that is positioned interior of the at least one drawer comprises an electrical component configured to be used by a user resting on the mattress supported on the foundation (any of the heating, cooling, massage, sound, light aromatherapy, controls, phone connections and mounts, air pump holder for air beds would be usable by the user resting on the mattress).
Regarding Claim 39: Koughan in view of Lee make obvious the foundation of claim 34, further comprising a mechanical bed actuator system (articulation units 360,390 of Koughan) positioned within the foundation (Fig. 12 of Koughan), the mechanical bed actuator system configured to articulate a head portion of the mattress placed on the foundation (paragraph [0088] of Koughan – “the motor assembly 372, the first articulation unit 360 may lower the head section 306”) and a foot portion of the mattress independently from one another (paragraph [0091] of Koughan – “By reversing the motor assembly 402, the second articulation unit 390 may lower the leg section 310 and foot section 312 of the bed foundation to a flat or substantially flat position.”), wherein a central portion of the mattress between the head portion and the foot portion remains substantially stationary when the head portion and the foot portion are articulated (see at least Figs. 11-12 and paragraph [0088] of Koughan).
Regarding Claim 45: Koughan in view of Lee make obvious the foundation of claim 34, wherein portions of the foundation base are above, below, and on multiple sides of the at least one drawer (see Koughan – Fig 21 and paragraph [0109] of Koughan).
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koughan et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2008/0052830 – hereinafter Koghan) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2011-0123498 – hereinafter Lee) further in view of Vrzalik et al. (US Patent No. 6,467,111 – hereinafter Vrzalik).
Regarding Claim 38: Koughan in view of Lee make obvious the foundation of claim 34. Koughan discloses [a heating and/or cooling feature for heating and cooling the mattress] (see paragraph [0100]).
Neither Koughan nor Lee disclose or make obvious wherein the electrical system comprises a temperature control unit positioned within the at least one drawer and configured to move fluid through a temperature control layer of the mattress.
However, in the same field of endeavor, beds (see the abstract of Vrzalik), Vrzalik teaches a temperature control unit (modular control assembly 30 of Vrzalik) positioned within [a cavity] […] and configured to move fluid through a temperature control layer of the mattress (see the abstract of Vrazlik which describes a low air loss mattress and Col. 4, lines 47-52 of Vrazlik which teaches the blower motor including an air heater manifold and temperature sensors).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Koughan (directed toward a bed with adjustable sections), Lee (directed toward a bed with a drawer for storing portions of the control unit within the foundation) and Vrazlik (directed towards a low airloss control system for connecting to a bed frame) with a reasonable expectation of success by positioning a control system within the drawer of Koughan as modified. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to utilize a low air loss mattress on the foundation of Koughan as modified for the purpose of providing therapeutic support to a patient (see the abstract and Col. 1, lines 9-14 of Vrazlik).
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koughan et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2008/0052830 – hereinafter Koghan) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2011-0123498 – hereinafter Lee) further in view of Candell (US Patent No. 6,615,425).
Regarding Claim 44: Koughan in view of Lee make obvious the foundation of claim 34, wherein the at least one drawer comprises first and second drawers on opposite sides of the foundation (see Fig. 21 and paragraph [0109] of Koughan) […].
Koughan as modified does not explicitly disclose or make obvious each [of the drawers] positioned proximate a foot of the foundation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, beds (see the abstract of Candell), Candell teaches built in drawers positioned proximate a head end and/or a foot end of the bed (see Fig. 1 of Candell).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Koughan (directed toward a bed with adjustable sections), Lee (directed toward a bed with a drawer for storing portions of the control unit within the foundation), and Candell (directed toward drawers positioned proximate head or feet ends of the bed) and arrived at a bed foundation with drawers positioned proximate feet ends of the bed and including an electrical element. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g. locating drawers near a foot end of a bed) with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g. a desired aesthetic is achieved or the drawers are more accessible for certain features).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner’s Note: Although currently only claims 20 and 42 are rejected as being unpatentable over Dreyer in view of Koughan, the Examiner could further reject other dependent claims with the combination of Dreyer in view of Koughan.
US Patent No. 7,367,069 to Connell is cited for teaching a lifting mechanism for a bed deck.
DE 202004004573 to Greeve et al. is cited for teaching a lifting bed with an articulating upper frame.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA L BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/AMANDA L BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
