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) 1-4, 6-8, 10-13,and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 20160367419 issued to Bhai.
Regarding claim 1,
Bhai discloses a leveling infant bed system (Bhai: FIG. 1) comprising: a frame; (Bhai: [0034] see FIGS. 1, 2, 6 (101, 102)) support surface attached to the frame; (Bhai: [0034], [0036] FIGS. 1, 6, 7A (104)) a level indicator attached to the frame and configured to indicate whether the support surface is horizontal; (Bhai: [0039]-[0040], [0049] see FIGS. 2-3, 6, 8 (inclinometer I, potentiometers P1/Pe, head angle indicator 24L “For example, the LUT may contain an array of angular orientations (in degrees))(° of the upper frame 102 with respect to the base frame 101 that are indexed according to the value of the signals output by the potentiometers operatively associated with each of the foot actuator 111 and the head actuator 113.”) and an adjustment mechanism configured to adjust the frame so that the support surface is horizontal. (Bhai: [0038], [0046], [0062]-[0063]; See FIGS. 1,2, 6, 8-9 (111, 113, 24, 200, 300) “As depicted in FIG. 2, the person support apparatus 10 also includes actuators 111, 113 (i.e., foot actuator 111 and head actuator 113) which raise and/or lower the upper frame 102 with respect to the base frame 101 when actuated by an electronic control unit communicatively coupled to the actuators 111, 113, such as the control box 24.”)
Regarding claim 2,
Bhai discloses the leveling infant bed system of Claim 1, wherein the level indicator is one of a mechanical level and an electronic level. (Bhai: FIGS. 2, 6 (inclinometer I) [0040] and [0039 (potentiometers P1, P2)]
Regarding claim 3,
Bhai discloses the leveling infant bed of Claim 1, wherein the level indicator is operative to indicate whether the support surface is horizontal within +/- 1° with respect to parallel. (Bhai: [0062] “Embodiments of the methods and control systems described herein allow the relative orientation of the upper frame 102 to be maintained within a range of +/−0.5° of a predetermined, nominal reference orientation as the upper frame 102 is raised and/or lowered relative to the base frame 101.”)
Regarding claim 4,
Bhai discloses the leveling infant bed of Claim 1, wherein the adjustment mechanism is one of a manual mechanism and an automatic mechanism. (Bhai: [0038], [0046] FIGS. 1, 2, 6 (111) and (113) are controlled by (24))
Regarding claim 6,
Bhai discloses the leveling infant bed of Claim 1, wherein the adjustment mechanism is an automatic mechanism comprising one or more adjustment screws driven by motors. (Bhai: [0038] FIGS. 1-2 (linear actuators 111, 113 actuated by (24) examiner notes that linear actuators use lead-screws or ball-screw drives)
Regarding claim 7,
Bhai discloses the leveling infant bed of Claim 6, wherein the level indicator is an electronic level and wherein the motors are responsive to a controller configured to receive a signal from the electronic level, the signal indicating that the support surface is not horizontal. (Bhai: [0040], [0066]-[0070] see also FIG. 8 (200, 300) P1, P2 are connected to the control box (24) which send signals to the actuators (111), (113) “In embodiments, and referring to FIG. 8, the actuators 111, 113, associated potentiometers P1, P2 and/or inclinometer I are communicatively coupled to the control box 24 and the various components of upper frame 102 work in conjunction with one another to control angular orientations of the upper frame 102 of the person support apparatus 10, 100, as described in more detail below.”)
Regarding claim 8,
Bhai discloses the leveling infant bed of Claim 1, wherein the level indicator is an electronic level with a lighted display to indicate horizontal. (Bhai: [0049] “Further, the GUI of the control box 24 may graphically provide a head angle alert status indicator 24K, a head angle orientation indicator 24L showing an angle of the torso frame 109 with respect to the upper frame 102 (shown as 58° in the example of FIG. 3), a bed height status indicator 24M, and a screen lock control option 24N.”)
Regarding claim 10,
Bhai discloses a method for maintaining a horizontal support surface in a leveling infant bed system, the method comprising: providing an infant bed system according to Claim 1. (See claim 1 mapping)
Regarding claim 11,
Bhai discloses the method of Claim 10, wherein the level indicator is one of a mechanical level and an electronic level. (Bhai: FIGS. 2, 6 (inclinometer I) [0040] and [0039 (potentiometers P1, P2)]
Regarding claim 12,
Bhai discloses the method of Claim 10, wherein the level indicator is operative to indicate whether the support surface is horizontal within +/- 1' with respect to parallel. (Bhai: [0062] “Embodiments of the methods and control systems described herein allow the relative orientation of the upper frame 102 to be maintained within a range of +/−0.5° of a predetermined, nominal reference orientation as the upper frame 102 is raised and/or lowered relative to the base frame 101.”)
Regarding claim 13,
Bhai discloses the method of Claim 10, wherein the adjustment mechanism is one of a manual mechanism and an automatic mechanism. (Bhai: [0038], [0046] FIGS. 1, 2, 6 (111) and (113) are controlled by (24))
Regarding claim 15,
Bhai discloses the method of Claim 10, wherein the adjustment mechanism is an automatic mechanism comprising one or more adjustment screws driven by motors. (Bhai: [0038] FIGS. 1-2 (linear actuators 111, 113 actuated by (24) examiner notes that linear actuators use lead-screws or ball-screw drives)
Regarding claim 16,
Bhai discloses the method of Claim 15, wherein the level indicator is an electronic level and wherein the motors are responsive to a controller configured to receive a signal from the electronic level, the signal indicating that the support surface is not horizontal. (Bhai: [0040], [0066]-[0070] see also FIG. 8 (200, 300) P1, P2 are connected to the control box (24) which send signals to the actuators (111), (113) “In embodiments, and referring to FIG. 8, the actuators 111, 113, associated potentiometers P1, P2 and/or inclinometer I are communicatively coupled to the control box 24 and the various components of upper frame 102 work in conjunction with one another to control angular orientations of the upper frame 102 of the person support apparatus 10, 100, as described in more detail below.”)
Regarding claim 17,
Bhai discloses the method of Claim 10, wherein the level indicator is an electronic level with a lighted display to indicate horizontal. (Bhai: [0049] “Further, the GUI of the control box 24 may graphically provide a head angle alert status indicator 24K, a head angle orientation indicator 24L showing an angle of the torso frame 109 with respect to the upper frame 102 (shown as 58° in the example of FIG. 3), a bed height status indicator 24M, and a screen lock control option 24N.”)
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20160367419 issued to Bhai.
Regarding claim 9,
Bhai discloses the leveling infant bed of Claim 1.
Bhai does not appear to disclose wherein the frame is one of a bassinet frame, a crib frame, and a play yard frame.
However, applicant admits in the background of the present application that “traditional infant beds, such as cribs, bassinets, and play yards” were well known in the art. Applicant further admits the same horizontally problem exists in these infant beds “the flatness can be held to a reasonable horizontal level but not without some degree of variation caused by manufacturing processes and clearances needed for consumer assembly.”
The examiner takes official notice that bassinets, cribs, and play yards are notoriously well known as evident by the applicant’s specification and were commercially available long before the applicants effective filing date.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20160367419 issued to Bhai in view of U.S. Patent No. 4398313 issued to Mitchell.
Regarding claim 5,
Bhai discloses the leveling infant bed of Claim 1.
Bhai does not appear to disclose wherein the adjustment mechanism is a manual mechanism comprising one or more adjustment screws.
However, Mitchell discloses wherein the adjustment mechanism is a manual mechanism comprising one or more adjustment screws. (Mitchell: col. 2 lines 60-67 col. 2 lines 1-5; FIG. 3, FIG. 5 (63) and (62) each “independently rotatable” to adjust the height of the respective ends of the upper frame.” See also col. 7l ines 23-46; FIGS. 6, 8-11 (111-114 manually engage clutches 56-59, and a hand crank engages through opening 116 and tube 117 with shaft 118 coupled to driving gear 51, so that “by hand cranking shaft 118, gear 51 may be rotated to in turn rotate gears 52-55” an drive the screws.)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhai’s adjustment mechanism to be implemented with a manual mechanism comprising adjustment screws as taught by Mitches since doing so would preserve leveling function during power loss.
Regarding claim 14,
Bhai discloses the method of Claim 10.
Bhai does not appear to disclose wherein the adjustment mechanism is a manual mechanism comprising one or more adjustment screws.
However, Mitchell discloses wherein the adjustment mechanism is a manual mechanism comprising one or more adjustment screws. (Mitchell: col. 2 lines 60-67 col. 2 lines 1-5; FIG. 3, FIG. 5 (63) and (62) each “independently rotatable” to adjust the height of the respective ends of the upper frame.” See also col. 7l ines 23-46; FIGS. 6, 8-11 (111-114 manually engage clutches 56-59, and a hand crank engages through opening 116 and tube 117 with shaft 118 coupled to driving gear 51, so that “by hand cranking shaft 118, gear 51 may be rotated to in turn rotate gears 52-55” an drive the screws.)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhai’s adjustment mechanism to be implemented with a manual mechanism comprising adjustment screws as taught by Mitches since doing so would preserve leveling function during power loss.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C ORTIZ whose telephone number is (303)297-4378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-3:30 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 C. 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.
/ADAM C ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights