DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 01/17/2025.
Claims 1-19 have been cancelled.
Claims 20-39 are pending for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 21 disclose “ means for articulating the first sleep area and the second sleep area”.
In review of the specification, paragraph [0006] disclose one or more articulation motors as the structure correspondent to the “ means for articulating the first sleep area and the second sleep area”
Claim 27 disclose “first means for controlling articulation of the first sleep area”, “second means for controlling articulation of the second sleep area along a second set of one or more articulation positions up to a third maximum articulation angle from the horizontal”
In review of the specification, paragraph [0016] disclose a remote control as the structure correspondent to the “ means for articulating the first sleep area and the second sleep area”
Claim 28 provide structure top the means therefore is not interpret under 112(f)
Claims 29-32 further limit the means for controlling but does not provide structure hence they are interpret under 112(f)
Claims 33 is also interpret under 112(f) in view of its dependency to claim 27
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 20-39 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Howell et al. (US 2008/0262657) in view of Huang (US 2010/0325799)
Regarding claim 20: Howell disclose a sleep system, comprising:
a bed including a first sleep area sized to support a first sleeper (left side) and a second sleep area sized to support a second sleeper (right side) (Fig. 3A, ¶0032-0033); and
a first controller configured to control articulation of the first sleep area along a first set of one or more articulation (Fig. 3A: item 34 and 40, ¶0032-0033), the first controller further configured to control articulation of the second sleep area (¶0032-0033).
Howell does not explicitly disclose the articulation of the first sleep area positions up to a first maximum articulation angle from a horizontal articulation angle and the second area up to a second maximum articulation angle from the horizontal, and wherein the first maximum articulation angle is greater than the second maximum articulation angle.
In analogous at regarding bed systems, Huang disclose a bed systems wherein the articulation of the first sleep area positions up to a first maximum articulation angle from a horizontal articulation angle and the second area up to a second maximum articulation angle from the horizontal, and wherein the first maximum articulation angle is greater than the second maximum articulation angle (¶0077-0078).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the articulation of the first sleep area positions up to a first maximum articulation angle from a horizontal articulation angle and the second area up to a second maximum articulation angle from the horizontal, and wherein the first maximum articulation angle is greater than the second maximum articulation angle, as disclose by Huang, to the system of Howell. The motivation is to provide independent control of the articulation in order to allow the sleeper to personalize and customized the articulation of each sleeper.
Regarding claim 21: The combination of Howell and Huang disclose the sleep system of claim 20, further comprising means for articulating the first sleep area and the second sleep area (Howell: ¶0032-0033, ¶0058: VNH3SP30 full-bridge motor driver produced by STMicroelectronics of Carrollton, Tex. In alternate embodiments, each elevation unit module 108 includes two full-bridge motor drivers to provide energy to two elevation units.).
Regarding claim 22: The combination of Howell and Huang disclose the sleep system of claim 21, wherein the means for articulating comprises an articulation system configured to independently articulate the first sleep area and the second sleep area in response to receiving at least one articulation command from the first controller. (Howell: ¶0032-0033, ¶0058: VNH3SP30 full-bridge motor driver produced by STMicroelectronics of Carrollton, Tex. In alternate embodiments, each elevation unit module 108 includes two full-bridge motor drivers to provide energy to two elevation units.).
Regarding claim 23: The combination of Howell and Huang disclose the sleep system of claim 20, further comprising a second controller configured to control articulation of the second sleep area independent from the first controller (Howell: Fig. 3B, ICPMM 34l and ICPMM 34r, ¶0041).
Regarding claim 24: The combination of Howell and Huang disclose the sleep system of claim 20, wherein the first maximum articulation angle is in the range of 10° to 90° (Huang: ¶0077) but does not explicitly disclose and the second maximum articulation angle is in the range of 5° to 30°. However it does disclose a maximum second articulation angle (Huang: ¶0005).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to modified the second maximum articulation angle is in the range of 5° to 30° in view of the teachings of the combination of Howell and Huang, since having a limited universe of potential options (a maximum second articulation angle), the selection of any particular option (range of 5° to 30°) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPO 224 (COPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of (articulate the area to a desired maximum articulation angle), either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 25: The combination of Howell and Huang disclose the sleep system of claim 20, wherein the first sleep area comprises a first section (Howell: head left section) and a second section (Howell: leg left section) and the second sleep area comprises a third section (Howell: Head right section) and a fourth section (Howell: leg right section), wherein the first controller is further configured to independently control articulation of at least one of the first section and the second section up to the first maximum articulation angle, and wherein the first controller is further configured to independently control articulation of at least one of the third section and the fourth section up to the second maximum articulation angle (Howell: 0032-0033).
Regarding claim 26: The combination of Howell and Huang disclose the sleep system of claim 20, wherein the first controller comprises at least one first button for controlling articulation of the first sleep area along the first set of one or more articulation positions (Howell: Fig. 3A: items 42,43), and wherein the first controller comprises at least one second button for controlling articulation of the second sleep area up to the second maximum articulation angle (Howell: ¶0028, ¶0032).
Regarding claim 27: Howell disclose a sleep system, comprising:
a bed including a first sleep area sized to support a first sleeper (left side) and a second sleep area sized to support a second sleeper (right side) (Fig. 3A, ¶0032-0033);
first means for controlling articulation of the first sleep area along a first set of one or more articulation positions (Fig. 3B: item 34l and 40, ¶0032-0033), the first means for controlling further configured to control articulation of the second sleep area (¶0032-0033); and
second means for controlling articulation of the second sleep area along a second set of one or more articulation positions (Fig. 3B: item 34r and 40, ¶0032-0033).
Howell does not explicitly disclose wherein the articulation of the first sleep area positions up to a first maximum articulation angle from a horizontal articulation angle and the second area up to a second maximum articulation angle from the horizontal, and wherein the first maximum articulation angle is greater than the second maximum articulation angle, second means for controlling articulation of the second sleep area along a second set of one or more articulation positions up to a third maximum articulation angle from the horizontal and wherein the first maximum articulation angle and the third maximum articulation angle are the same and are each greater than the second maximum articulation angle. However, it does disclose that the first and second sleep area have each two subsection, the head section of each sleeper area and the foot section area of each sleeper area, totaling for sections and each section are independently control to adjust the elevation of each area (¶0025).
In analogous at regarding bed systems, Huang disclose a bed systems wherein the articulation of the first sleep area positions up to a first maximum articulation angle from a horizontal articulation angle and the second area up to a second maximum articulation angle from the horizontal, and wherein the first maximum articulation angle is greater than the second maximum articulation angle, second means for controlling articulation of the second sleep area along a second set of one or more articulation positions up to a third maximum articulation angle from the horizontal and wherein the first maximum articulation angle and the third maximum articulation angle are the same and are each greater than the second maximum articulation angle. (¶0077-0078: the foot section maximum articulation angle (59°) is greater than the head/back section maximum articulation angle (58°)).
Since Howell disclose at least four section that can be independently controlled and Huang disclose different articulation maximum angles and if we define first and second angle as the foot section of each sleeper area of Howell, and the third maximum articulation angle as at least one of the head section of Howell, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the articulation of the first sleep area positions up to a first maximum articulation angle from a horizontal articulation angle and the second area up to a second maximum articulation angle from the horizontal, and wherein the first maximum articulation angle is greater than the second maximum articulation angle, second means for controlling articulation of the second sleep area along a second set of one or more articulation positions up to a third maximum articulation angle from the horizontal and wherein the first maximum articulation angle and the third maximum articulation angle are the same and are each greater than the second maximum articulation angle, as disclose by Huang, to the system of Howell. The motivation is to provide independent control of the articulation in order to allow the sleeper to personalize and customized the articulation of each sleeper.
Regarding claim 28: The combination of Howell and Huang disclose the sleep system of claim 27, wherein the first means for controlling comprises a first wireless controller and the second means for controlling comprises a second wireless controller.(Howell: ¶0031)
Regarding claim 29: The combination of Howell and Huang disclose the sleep system of claim 27, further comprising means for articulating the first sleep area and the second sleep area in response to receiving at least one articulation command from the first means for controlling, wherein the means for articulating is further configured to articulate the second sleep area in response to receiving at least one articulation command from the second means for controlling (Howell: ¶0041).
Regarding claim 30: The combination of Howell and Huang disclose the sleep system of claim 27, further comprising an articulation system configured to independently articulate the first sleep area and the second sleep area in response to receiving at least one articulation command from the first means for controlling, wherein the articulation system is further configured to independently articulate the second sleep area in response to receiving at least one articulation command from the second means for controlling. (Howell: ¶0041).
Regarding claim 31: The combination of Howell and Huang disclose the sleep system of claim 27, wherein the first sleep area comprises a first head section (Howell: Fig. 3B, left head section) and a first leg section (Howell: Fig. 3B, left foot section) and the second sleep area comprises a second head section (Howell: Fig. 3B, right head section) and a second leg section (Howell: Fig. 3B, right foot section), wherein the first means for controlling is further configured to independently control articulation of at least one of the first head section and the first leg section up to the first maximum articulation angle, and wherein the first means for controlling is further configured to independently control articulation of at least one of the second head section and the second leg section up to the second maximum articulation angle (Howell: ¶0041).
Regarding claim 32: The combination of Howell and Huang disclose the sleep system of claim 27, wherein the second means for controlling is further configured to independently control articulation of at least one of the second head section and the second leg section (Howell: ¶0041) but does not explicitly disclose up to the third maximum articulation angle.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to control articulation of at least one of the second head section and the second leg section in view of the teachings of the combination of Howell and Huang, since having a limited universe of potential options (a maximum articulation angle), the selection of any particular option (third maximum articulation angle) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPO 224 (COPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of (articulate the area to a desired maximum articulation angle), either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 33: The combination of Howell and Huang disclose the sleep system of claim 27, wherein the first maximum articulation angle and the third maximum articulation angle are each in the range of 10° to 90° (Huang: ¶0077) but does not explicitly disclose and the second maximum articulation angle is in the range of 5° to 30°. However it does disclose a maximum second articulation angle (Huang: ¶0005).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to modified the second maximum articulation angle is in the range of 5° to 30° in view of the teachings of the combination of Howell and Huang, since having a limited universe of potential options (a maximum second articulation angle), the selection of any particular option (range of 5° to 30°) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPO 224 (COPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of (articulate the area to a desired maximum articulation angle), either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 34: Howell disclose a sleep system, comprising:
a bed including a first sleep area sized to support a first sleeper (left side) and a second sleep area sized to support a second sleeper (right side) (Fig. 3B, ¶0032-0033, ¶0041);
an articulation system configured to independently articulate the first sleep area and the second sleep area(Fig. 3B, ¶0041)
a first controller configured to control articulation of the first sleep area, wherein the first controller is further configured to communicate with the articulation system to cause the first sleep area to articulate along a first plurality of positions (Fig. 3B: item 34l and 40, ¶0032-0033, ¶0041), the first means for controlling further configured to control articulation of the second sleep area (¶0032-0033); and
wherein the first controller is further configured to communicate with the articulation system to cause the second sleep area to articulate (Fig. 3B: item 34r and 40, ¶0032-0033, ¶0041),
a second controller configured to control articulation of the second sleep area, wherein the second controller is further configured to communicate with the articulation system to cause the second sleep area to articulate along a second plurality of positions(Fig. 3B: item 34r and 40, ¶0032-0033, ¶0041),
Howell does not explicitly disclose wherein the articulation of the first sleep area positions up to a first maximum articulation angle from a horizontal articulation angle and the second area up to a second maximum articulation angle from the horizontal, and wherein the first maximum articulation angle is greater than the second maximum articulation angle, second means for controlling articulation of the second sleep area along a second set of one or more articulation positions up to a third maximum articulation angle from the horizontal and wherein the first maximum articulation angle and the third maximum articulation angle are the same and are each greater than the second maximum articulation angle. However, it does disclose that the first and second sleep area have each two subsection, the head section of each sleeper area and the foot section area of each sleeper area, totaling for sections and each section are independently control to adjust the elevation of each area (¶0025).
In analogous at regarding bed systems, Huang disclose a bed systems wherein the articulation of the first sleep area positions up to a first maximum articulation angle from a horizontal articulation angle and the second area up to a second maximum articulation angle from the horizontal, and wherein the first maximum articulation angle is greater than the second maximum articulation angle, second means for controlling articulation of the second sleep area along a second set of one or more articulation positions up to a third maximum articulation angle from the horizontal and wherein the first maximum articulation angle and the third maximum articulation angle are the same and are each greater than the second maximum articulation angle. (¶0077-0078: the foot section maximum articulation angle (59°) is greater than the head/back section maximum articulation angle (58°)).
Since Howell disclose at least four section that can be independently controlled and Huang disclose different articulation maximum angles and if we define first and second angle as the foot section of each sleeper area of Howell, and the third maximum articulation angle as at least one of the head section of Howell, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the articulation of the first sleep area positions up to a first maximum articulation angle from a horizontal articulation angle and the second area up to a second maximum articulation angle from the horizontal, and wherein the first maximum articulation angle is greater than the second maximum articulation angle, second means for controlling articulation of the second sleep area along a second set of one or more articulation positions up to a third maximum articulation angle from the horizontal and wherein the first maximum articulation angle and the third maximum articulation angle are the same and are each greater than the second maximum articulation angle, as disclose by Huang, to the system of Howell. The motivation is to provide independent control of the articulation in order to allow the sleeper to personalize and customized the articulation of each sleeper.
Regarding claim 35: The combination of Howell and Huang disclose the sleep system of claim 34, wherein the articulation system comprises at least one first motor for articulating the first sleep area and at least one second motor for articulating the second sleep area (Howell: ¶0032-0033, ¶0041 ¶0058: VNH3SP30 full-bridge motor driver produced by STMicroelectronics of Carrollton, Tex. In alternate embodiments, each elevation unit module 108 includes two full-bridge motor drivers to provide energy to two elevation units.).
Regarding claim 36: The combination of Howell and Huang disclose the sleep system of claim 34, wherein the first sleep area comprises a first head section and a first leg section and the second sleep area comprises a second head section and a second leg section, wherein the articulation system comprises a first head motor and a first leg motor for articulating, respectively, the first head section and the first leg section, and wherein the articulation system further comprises a second head motor and a second leg motor for articulating, respectively, the second head section and the second leg section. (Howell: ¶0032-0033, ¶0041 ¶0058)
Regarding claim 37: The combination of Howell and Huang disclose the sleep system of claim 34, wherein at least one position of the first plurality of positions has an articulation angle from the horizontal that is greater than the second maximum articulation angle (Huang: ¶0077-0078: the foot section maximum articulation angle (59°) is greater than the head/back section maximum articulation angle (58°))
Regarding claim 38: The combination of Howell and Huang disclose the sleep system of claim 34, wherein at least one position of the second plurality of positions has an articulation angle from the horizontal that is greater than the second maximum articulation angle (Huang: ¶0077-0078: the foot section maximum articulation angle (59°) is greater than the head/back section maximum articulation angle (58°))
Regarding claim 39: The combination of Howell and Huang disclose the sleep system of claim 34, wherein the first plurality of positions comprises at least one position different from the second plurality of positions. (Huang: ¶0077-0078: the foot section maximum articulation angle (59°) is greater than the head/back section maximum articulation angle (58°))
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights