Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klaus et al. (DE 102006044410 B4).
Regarding Claim 1, Klaus teaches a vehicle, comprising: an interior defined by a floor, ceiling, and a plurality of walls (Shown in Fig. 9); a first (Fig. 9 element 8) and second sleeping unit (Fig. 9 elements 16 and 17) positioned in the interior, the first and second sleeping units each configured to move between a deployed position and a stowed position (Shown in transition between Fig. 8 and Fig. 9); a first lower supporting member coupled to one or more of the plurality of walls, the first lower supporting member configured to support the second sleeping unit in the deployed position (Fig. 9 element 22); wherein, when the first sleeping unit moves from the deployed position to the stowed position, the first sleeping unit moves towards the ceiling (Shown in Fig. 8); wherein, when the second sleeping unit moves from the deployed position to the stowed position, the second sleeping unit is folded against one of the plurality of walls (Fig. 8 shows elements 16 and 17 folded in a stowed position with a surface against a wall).
Regarding Claim 2, Klaus teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses a second lower supporting member coupled to one of the plurality of walls opposite the first lower supporting member (Fig. 9 element 1a).
Regarding Claim 3, Klaus teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 2 and further discloses one of the first or second lower supporting members comprises a work surface (Fig. 8 element 22).
Regarding Claim 5, Klaus teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses a lock, wherein at least one of the first and second sleeping units are configured to lock in the stowed position via the lock (“In the folded state, the lying surface or the bed is locked by a simple stop on the wall, this stop - when the bed is used as a partition - can be arranged on the frame or in the interior ceiling area and / or on another inner wall. This prevents involuntary unfolding of the folding bed” Highlighted in attached PE2E English translation).
Regarding Claim 6, Klaus teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the first sleeping unit is positioned over the second sleeping unit such that the first sleeping unit and the second sleeping unit occupy the same floor space when the first and second sleeping units are deployed (Shown in Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 7, Klaus teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the first sleeping unit is positioned above the second sleeping unit (Shown in Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 8, Klaus teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the first unit moves between the deployed and stowed positions independently relative to the second sleeping unit, and the second sleeping unit moves between the deployed and stowed positions independently relative to the first sleeping unit (Shown in Fig. 8/9 to have independent deployment possibilities).
Regarding Claim 9, Klaus teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the first and second sleeping units each comprise a platform and a mattress (Shown in Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 10-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klaus et al. (DE 102006044410 B4).
Regarding Claim 10, Klaus teaches a reconfigurable compartment, comprising: two opposed walls and a ceiling (Shown in Figs. 8-9); a work surface (Fig. 9 element 22) positioned between the two opposed walls; an upper sleeping unit configured to move between a deployed position and an elevated stowed position (Figs 8-9 element 8); and a lower sleeping unit configured to move between a deployed position supported by the work surface and a stowed position (Figs. 8-9 elements 16 and 17).
Regarding Claim 11, Klaus teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 10 and further discloses the upper sleeping unit is positioned against the ceiling in the stowed position (Shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 12, Klaus teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 10 and further discloses the lower sleeping unit is folded in the stowed position (Shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 13, Klaus teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 10 and further discloses a supporting member coupled to one of the two opposed walls opposite the work surface and at the same height as the work surface (Fig. 9 element 1a).
Regarding Claim 15, Klaus teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 10 and further discloses a lock, wherein at least one of the upper and lower sleeping units are configured to lock in the stowed position via the lock (“In the folded state, the lying surface or the bed is locked by a simple stop on the wall, this stop - when the bed is used as a partition - can be arranged on the frame or in the interior ceiling area and / or on another inner wall. This prevents involuntary unfolding of the folding bed” Highlighted in attached PE2E English translation).
Regarding Claim 16, Klaus teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 10 and further discloses the upper sleeping unit is positioned over the lower sleeping unit such that the upper sleeping unit and the lower sleeping unit occupy the same floor space when the upper and lower sleeping units are deployed (Shown in Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 17, Klaus teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 10 and further discloses the upper sleeping unit moves between the deployed and stowed positions independently relative to the lower sleeping unit, and the lower sleeping unit moves between the deployed and stowed positions independently relative to the upper sleeping unit (Shown in Fig. 8/9 to have independent deployment possibilities).
Regarding Claim 18, Klaus teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 10 and further discloses the upper and lower sleeping units each comprise a platform and a mattress (Shown in Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 19, Klaus teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 10 and further discloses the work surface has an L-configuration, whereby a first portion of the work surface is positioned against one of the two opposed walls and a second portion of the work surface is positioned against a back wall extending between the two opposed walls (Shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 20, Klaus teaches the limitations set forth in claim 19 and further discloses the lower sleeping unit is folded against the back wall in the stowed position (Shown in Fig. 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaus et al. (DE 102006044410 B4) in view of Bailey (US 20030041377 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Klaus teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses first and second upper supporting members configured to support the first sleeping unit (Vertical attachment elements shown in Fig. 3).
Klaus fails to explicitly teach the upper supporting members include one or more dampers configured to move between an extended position and a compressed position.
However, Bailey teaches the upper supporting members include one or more dampers configured to move between an extended position and a compressed position (Fig. 1 elements 36 and 38).
Klaus and Bailey are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of deployable vehicle sleeping structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the support structures of Klaus to be dampers as disclosed by Bailey. Doing so would allow for controlled deployment to the usable configurations while making it easier to move to the stowed configuration.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaus et al. (DE 102006044410 B4) in view of Bailey (US 20030041377 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Klaus teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 10 and further discloses first and second upper supporting members configured to support the upper sleeping unit (Vertical attachment elements shown in Fig. 3).
Klaus fails to explicitly teach the upper supporting members include one or more dampers configured to move between an extended position and a compressed position when the upper sleeping unit is moved from the stowed position to the deployed position (Fig. 1 elements 36 and 38).
Klaus and Bailey are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of deployable vehicle sleeping structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the support structures of Klaus to be dampers as disclosed by Bailey. Doing so would allow for controlled deployment to the usable configurations while making it easier to move to the stowed configuration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
