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 .
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 embodiment of claim 31 which requires an articulation mechanism and gas spring must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The embodiments of the current application each appear to have either gas springs or an articulation mechanism but not both.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20-24, 26, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dreyer, Jr. (US Patent No. 5,020,173 – hereinafter Dreyer).
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 – Fig. 1); and a foundation lid (lid 2 of Dreyer) positioned on the foundation base (as shown in Fig. 1 of Dreyer) and defining a storage space (Col. 3, lines 18-22 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”) between the foundation lid and the foundation base (Fig. 1 of Dreyer).
Regarding Claim 21: Dreyer discloses the bed system of claim 20, wherein the foundation lid is configured to support the mattress (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 discloses 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 discloses 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).
Regarding Claim 24: Dreyer discloses the bed system of claim 23, wherein the foundation base further comprises a bottom panel (bottom 19 of Dreyer – Fig. 1) extending between the pair of side rails, the head rail, and the foot rail further defining the storage space (Fig. 1 and Col. 3, lines 15-22 of Dreyer - “The bedstead storage box is adaptable for use with other regular-size beds--the single, the full and the queen, and size variations thereon. 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.”)
Regarding Claim 26: Dreyer discloses the bed system of claim 20, further comprising a gas spring (gas springs 4 of Dreyer) coupled between the foundation base and the foundation lid (Fig. 1 of Dreyer), the gas spring configured to provide lift assistance to a user raising the foundation lid (Col. 3, lines 26-33 of Dreyer – “ “the gas springs 4 for easing the opening and closing of the lid and the mechanics of their operation.”)
Regarding Claim 27: Dreyer discloses the bed system of claim 26, wherein the gas spring is coupled at one end to an inner surface of a side rail of the foundation base (Fig. 1 of Dreyer) 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.”).
Claim(s) 20 (alternatively), 25, and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Romero et al. (EP 1698257 - hereinafter Romero).
Regarding Claim 20: Romero discloses a bed system (bed of Romero – Fig. 1, paragraph [0012]) comprising: a foundation (base frame 1 and bearing surface 2 of Romero) configured to support a mattress (paragraph [0012] of Romero – “the bearing surface which acts as a support for the mattress on the box of the invention”), the foundation comprising: a foundation base (base frame 1 of Romero – Fig. 1); and a foundation lid (headboard 3 and middle segment 5 of the bed of Romero – Fig. 3) positioned on the foundation base and defining a storage space between the foundation lid and the foundation base (paragraph [0002] of Romero – “The box that is the object of this invention has a hollow interior fitted out to house all kinds of articles and, furthermore, in order to facilitate access to the interior of this compartment and enhance the user's comfort, the bearing surface of the box is articulated giving rise to a number of sections, some of them folding by means of a motor” and [0016] of Romero - “The bearing surface of the articulated box is located on the frame and its dimensions match up approximately with those of the perimeter of said frame, so that when it is placed on the latter it closes superiorly the space defined by the inner surface of the frame. This bearing surface is what acts as the frame for the articulated bed composed of the box that is the object of the invention and the mattress that will be laid on it”).
Regarding Claim 25: Romero discloses the bed system of claim 20, wherein the foundation further comprises an articulation mechanism (the lifting element of Romero – Figs. 1-6 and paragraph [0035]), the articulation mechanism configured to actuate (paragraph [0035] of Romero – “he lifting element, common to both embodiments, comprises a motor block (7) with the two outputs operated by electricity, which it receives via an input lead connected to the mains. Each of the two outputs of the motor block (7) transmits a longitudinal forward or backward movement to the respective pushrod, connected in turn to a shaft (8) whose length matches up with the width of the frame (1). The ends of said shaft (8) are connected to two points of the inner surface of the frame (1), such that the shaft (8) passes transversely through the space intended for storing articles. In the vicinity of the ends of the shaft (8) and attached to said shaft (8) there are two connecting rods (9, 9'), which are the ones that act as a fastening for the motor, each of them presenting, at its opposite end to that of the joint with the shaft (8), a roller wheel (10) capable of rotating around a spindle, which passes through it and acts as a link between the roller (10) and the respective connecting rod (9,9'). In this way, as each of the pushrods receives the output movement of the motor block (7), it transmits it as rotary movement to the respective shaft (8), with the result that each of the roller wheels (10) describes a circular movement around the shaft (8). As they move, the roller wheels (10), which are in contact with the inner surface of the respective folding segment all the time, exert a thrust on said surface, causing the segment in question to be raised or lowered, depending on whether the longitudinal movement described by each pushrod is forward or backward”) the foundation lid between a first position (raised position of Romero – paragraph [0035]) and a second position (lowered position of Romero – paragraph [0035]).
Regarding Claim 28: Romero discloses the bed system of claim 25, wherein the articulation mechanism comprises one or more rollers (roller wheels 10 of Romero – Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 29: Romero discloses the bed system of claim 20, wherein the foundation lid comprises a plurality of deck panels (headboard 3, middle segment 5 and footboard 6 of Romero – Figs. 4-6) and an articulation mechanism (the lifting element of Romero – Figs. 1-6 and paragraph [0035]), configured to rotate one or more deck panels of the plurality of deck panels relative to the foundation base (paragraph [0035] of Romero – “The lifting element, common to both embodiments, comprises a motor block (7) with the two outputs operated by electricity, which it receives via an input lead connected to the mains. Each of the two outputs of the motor block (7) transmits a longitudinal forward or backward movement to the respective pushrod, connected in turn to a shaft (8) whose length matches up with the width of the frame (1). The ends of said shaft (8) are connected to two points of the inner surface of the frame (1), such that the shaft (8) passes transversely through the space intended for storing articles. In the vicinity of the ends of the shaft (8) and attached to said shaft (8) there are two connecting rods (9, 9'), which are the ones that act as a fastening for the motor, each of them presenting, at its opposite end to that of the joint with the shaft (8), a roller wheel (10) capable of rotating around a spindle, which passes through it and acts as a link between the roller (10) and the respective connecting rod (9,9'). In this way, as each of the pushrods receives the output movement of the motor block (7), it transmits it as rotary movement to the respective shaft (8), with the result that each of the roller wheels (10) describes a circular movement around the shaft (8). As they move, the roller wheels (10), which are in contact with the inner surface of the respective folding segment all the time, exert a thrust on said surface, causing the segment in question to be raised or lowered, depending on whether the longitudinal movement described by each pushrod is forward or backward.”).
Regarding Claim 30: Romero discloses the bed system of claim 29, wherein the plurality of deck panels is positioned above the storage space to cover a top of the storage space (paragraph [0036] of Romero - “With regard to the folding of the footboard (6) of the second embodiment, this does not take place under the action of a motor but is the result of a manual folding action, for which purpose a strut (11) is provided between the part of the structure of the frame (1) that is below said segment and the inner surface of the footboard (6). Figures 4, 5 and 6 show the footboard (6) in the raised position, a position that is useful not only for enhancing the comfort of the user of the bed, but also for facilitating access to the inside of the inner compartment of the frame (1), a compartment designed for storing objects.”).
Claim(s) 20 (alternatively) and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasunaka (JP 201124818A).
Regarding Claim 20: Yasunaka discloses a bed system (bed of Yasunaka) comprising: a foundation (frame 5 of Yasunaka) configured to support a mattress (mattress 25 of Yasunaka), the foundation comprising: a foundation base (bed frame 5 of Yasunaka – Fig. 1); and a foundation lid (top plate 7 of Yasunaka) positioned on the foundation base (Figs. 1-3 of Yasunaka) and defining a storage space (first and second storage portions 31 and 32 of Yasunaka – Fig. 2) between the foundation lid and the foundation base (Figs. 2-3 of Yasunaka).
Regarding Claim 31: Yasunaka discloses the bed system of claim 20, wherein the storage space is sized to receive an articulation mechanism (link members 10 and 11 with pivots 10a of Yasunaka) and a gas spring (gas spring 14 of Yasunaka) while still defining additional storage space (see first and second storage portions 31 and 32 of Yasunaka – Fig. 2 and the abstract of Yasunaka which describes portions 31-32 being for storage).
Claim(s) 34 and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 20110123498 – hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 34: Lee discloses a foundation (pedestal 2 of Lee – Fig. 1) for supporting a mattress (mattress 1 of Lee) in a bed system, the foundation comprising: a foundation base (pedestal 2 of Lee – Fig. 1); at least one drawer (box 6 of Lee – Fig. 1) positioned in the foundation base (Fig. 1 of Lee), the at least one drawer accessible externally of the foundation (as shown in Fig. 1 of Lee); and an electrical system positioned interior of the at least one drawer (power source 3 of Lee) .
Regarding Claim 37: Lee discloses the foundation of claim 34, wherein the electrical system comprises an electrical component (operating panel 32 of Lee – Fig. 1) configured to be used by a user resting on the mattress supported on the foundation (see the positioning of the operating panel 32 of Lee which is described as being touched to operate the power control unit 3).
Regarding Claim 38: Lee discloses the foundation of claim 34, wherein the electrical system comprises one or more of a pump, a temperature control unit (heat generator 14 controllable by the operating panel 32 of Lee), and a light source for an under-bed lighting system.
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) 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 Takano (JP 2002209675).
Regarding Claim 32: Dreyer discloses the bed system of claim 20, but does not disclose further comprising a ledge positioned within 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) 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 Koughan et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2008/0052830 – hereinafter Koughan).
Regarding Claim 33: Dreyer discloses the bed system of claim 20, but does not disclose or 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) 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) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lee et al. (KR 20110123498 – hereinafter Lee) in view of Wilson et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2011/0012403 - hereinafter Wilson).
Regarding Claim 35: Lee discloses the foundation of claim 34, but does not disclose or make obvious wherein the electrical system comprises an electrical power outlet positioned within the at least one drawer to supply electrical power to an electrical component positioned in the at least one drawer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, furniture for supporting a person (see the abstract of Wilson), Wilson teaches wherein the electrical system comprises an electrical power outlet (paragraph [0024] of Wilson - “power source 14 preferably includes a plurality of power outlets in order to accommodate more than one item of media equipment”) positioned within the at least one drawer (Fig. 1 of Wilson) to supply electrical power to an electrical component positioned in the at least one drawer (paragraph [0025] of Wilson – “The drawer 12 further includes an opening 16 on its rearward wall 18 to facilitate the passage of any wires or cables associated with the power source 14 and/or the media equipment stored in the drawer to the exterior of the furniture 12”).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Lee (directed toward a bed frame an electrical system interior of a drawer) and Wilson (directed toward an outlet positioned within a drawer) with a reasonable expectation of success by including an outlet in the drawer of Lee. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in because in order to accommodate more than one item of media equipment (paragraph [0024] of Wilson - “power source 14 preferably includes a plurality of power outlets in order to accommodate more than one item of media equipment”).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lee et al. (KR 20110123498 – hereinafter Lee) in view of Pedersen (WO 03/096958 A1).
Regarding Claim 36: Lee discloses the foundation of claim 34, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the electrical system comprises a docking hub configured to receive a rechargeable electrical component.
However, solving the same problem of controlling a person support with a hand held controller (see the abstract of Pedersen), Pedersen teaches wherein the electrical system (turning device for a human – abstract of Pedersen) comprises a docking hub (holder described in Col. 5, lines 10-19 of Pedersen) configured to receive a rechargeable electrical component (Col. 5, lines 10-19 of Pedersen - “In the examples of embodiments where the manipulation means are arranged in a special separate unit, the manipulation means may advantageously be supplied with energy from the control panel, as well as the telescopic cylinders are supplied with energy centrally from the control panel. When the case is that the separate unit with the manipulation means is a wireless unit, it is necessary that the wireless unit has an energy supply itself, e.g. in the form of batteries. These batteries may e.g. be coupled to a charging unit arranged in the control panel, so that when the separate unit is hung back in a holder on the control panel after use, there will automatically occur a charging of the batteries in the remote control unit”).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Lee (directed toward a bed frame an electrical system interior of a drawer) and Pedersen (directed toward a rechargeable remote control with holder) with a reasonable expectation of success and arrived at a bed as taught by Lee with a wireless, rechargeable remote. 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. replacing the wired stationary controller of Lee with a charging mount and wireless controller) 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 use of the remote at a location other than the head of the bed, improving usability for the user).
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lee et al. (KR 20110123498 – hereinafter Lee) in view of Yasunaka (JP 201124818A).
Regarding Claim 29: Lee discloses the foundation of claim 34, but does not disclose further comprising a mechanical bed actuator system positioned within the foundation, the mechanical bed actuator system configured to articulate a portion of the mattress placed on the foundation relative to the foundation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, beds with storage (see the abstract of Yasunaka), Yasunaka teaches further comprising a mechanical bed actuator system (lift mechanism shown in Figs. 4 and 6 of Yasunaka) positioned within the foundation (as shown in Figs. 2-3 and 10 of Yasunaka), the mechanical bed actuator system configured to articulate a portion of the mattress (the whole mattress considered a portion of the mattress of Yasunaka – Fig. 10) placed on the foundation relative to the foundation (see the articulation of the mattress relative to the foundation by comparing figures 9-10 of Yasunaka).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Lee (directed toward a bed frame an electrical system interior of a drawer) and Yasunaka (directed toward an articulating bed frame for storage) with a reasonable expectation of success by including a lift system within the foundation of Lee. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because lifting of the bed frame enables “use [of] the inside of the bed frame as a storage unit” (page 4, paragraph 1 of the English translation of Yasunaka).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 2,956,290 to Scheinerman is cited for teaching a bed frame with hinged section for accessing a storage compartment within the bed frame.
US Patent No. 4,928,332 to Ogden et al. is cited for teaching storage sections provided beneath articulating bed decks.
US PG Pub. No. 2007/0245489 to Boudreau is cited for teaching a bed with articulation capabilities and storage.
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