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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-13 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites: “displace each positioning pins” which should likely be “positioning pin” (singular) for improved grammatical expression. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 recites: “internal liner (endcap)”. The examiner suggests avoiding the use of parenthesis unless used for reference numerals as it can obscure which term is required of the invention. Suggest amendment to: “internal liner or endcap.” Appropriate correction is required.
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. See claim 3 which states: “first end 111”
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1 and thus includes all the limitations therefrom, however, claim 1 requires that “each glide slot structure comprises a longitudinal movement slot extending along an axial direction of the outer tube body, a plurality of positioning slots distributed along the axial direction of the outer tube body on one side of the longitudinal movement slot, and a plurality of transverse connection slots respectively connecting the plurality of positioning slots to the longitudinal movement slot” (emphasis added). Claim 10 then restricts the glide slot structure to be singular and is “a row of longitudinally aligned through-holes.”
Essentially, how can the structure described in claim 10 still include a longitudinal movement slot that connects the plurality of positioning slots (from claim 1, shown in Fig. 1) when the positioning slots of claim 10 are a row of aligned [spaced-apart] through-holes? (Application - Fig. 7). The Examiner believes these embodiments are likely mutually exclusive and the invention described in claim 10 being dependent on claim 1 is 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. Further clarification is requested.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 raises the issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in that the claim appears to be a single claim which claims both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus. See MPEP 2173.05(p), Section II: A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Specifically, Claim 2 recites several steps of using the apparatus including: “manipulating, sliding, and re-engaging.” There is a lack of clarity as to whether the claim is directed to an apparatus or methods of using the apparatus and whether infringement occurs when a system is provided capable/configured to facilitate such a feature or whether infringement occurs when the system is actively utilized.
For the purposes of examination, the limitations are construed as functional language or in other words, the structural elements are configured to or have a capability to perform the recited steps.
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) 1-2, 4-6, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0283715 to Sevadjian.
Regarding claim 1, Sevadijian teaches: An adjustable bed post (see Fig. 1, telescoping legs 35, and paras [0019-0021]. Use of the legs 35 connected with a massage table is contemplated in para [0021] which may be considered a type of “bed”), comprising:
an outer tube (see Fig. 1-2, outer tube 30) comprising a hollow cylindrical outer tube body (see Fig. 1-2, tubes 30 are hollow and cylindrical as shown), and a guide mechanism (see Fig. 1-3, longitudinal channel 70 and pockets 80) formed on the outer tube body, the guide mechanism comprising one or more guide slot structures (see Fig. 1-3, pockets 80), wherein each guide slot structure comprises a longitudinal movement slot extending along an axial direction of the outer tube body (see Fig. 1-3, generally channel 70), a plurality of positioning slots (see Fig. 1-3, pockets 80) distributed along the axial direction of the outer tube body on one side of the longitudinal movement slot (see Fig. 2-3, as shown), and a plurality of transverse connection slots respectively connecting the plurality of positioning slots to the longitudinal movement slot (see Fig. 2-3, narrower portions of channel between longitudinal channel 70 and each pocket 80); and
an inner tube (see Fig. 1-2, inner tube 40) slidably received within the outer tube (see Fig. 1 as shown), the inner tube comprising a cylindrical inner body (see Fig. 1, inner tube is cylindrical as shown), and one or more positioning pins (see Fig. 1-3, pin 90) axially extending out from the inner body and respectively engaged with the one or more guide slot structures (see Fig. 2), wherein each positioning pin is configured to be moveably received in a selected positioning slot of the corresponding guide slot structure, and is slidable within the corresponding guide slot structure between the longitudinal movement slot and the positioning slots for height adjustment of the inner tube relative to the outer tube (see para [0029-30] and Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 2 (as best understood), Sevadijian teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein when adjusting the height, manipulating the inner tube to displace each positioning pins from the selected positioning slot to the longitudinal movement slot; sliding the inner tube axially to a desired height, and re-engaging each positioning pin into a different positioning slot to secure the desired height (see para [0029-30] and Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 4, Sevadijian teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein each positioning slot is an oblong-shaped slot elongated in the axial direction of the outer tube body (see Fig. 1-3, pockets 80 are oblong and elongated in the axial direction).
Regarding claim 5, Sevadijian teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 4, and additionally teaches: wherein each connection slot connects to a central region of the corresponding oblong positioning slot (see Fig. 2-3, as shown).
Regarding claim 6, Sevadijian teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 5, and additionally teaches: wherein each positioning slot has a height that is higher than that of each transverse connection slot (see Fig. 2-3, as shown each pocket 80 has a greater height than the connection portion to the channel 70).
Regarding claim 13, Sevadijian teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: further comprising a foot pad mounted on a bottom end of the inner tube for protection and wear resistance (see Fig. 1, extension bolt 100 may be considered a ‘foot pad’).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0283715 to Sevadjian in view of U.S. Patent 9,451,833 to Rawls-Meehan.
Regarding claim 3, Sevadijian teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however, does not explicitly teach the following: wherein the outer tube further comprises an internal liner (endcap) formed on the outer tube body at the first end 111, and a connecting bolt formed on the endcap and axially extending out of the outer tube body, wherein the connecting bolt is configured to secure the adjustable bed post to a bed frame.
Rawls-Meehan teaches: wherein the outer tube further comprises an internal liner (endcap) formed on the outer tube body at the first end 111 (see annotated Fig. 58A below), and a connecting bolt formed on the endcap and axially extending out of the outer tube body (see annotated Fig. 58A below), wherein the connecting bolt is configured to secure the adjustable bed post to a bed frame (see Fig. 40A-B and abstract: “The leg members may each have a threaded connecting element extending therefrom for connecting the leg member to another leg member or to the support frame”).
Sevadijian and Rawls-Meehan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of height adjustable legs for beds or other horizontal planar structures. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Sevadijian with these aforementioned teachings of Rawls-Meehan in order to provide an internal liner and connecting bolt as taught by Rawls-Meehan on the upper end of the outer tube of Sevadijian with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an easier means (threaded screw) of connecting a height adjustable leg structure to a bed support frame (see Rawls-Meehan, Abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
629
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0283715 to Sevadjian in view of U.S. Patent 3,469,870 to Barkus.
Regarding claim 7, Sevadijian teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however, does not explicitly teach the following: wherein the guide mechanism comprises two guide slot structures symmetrically formed on opposing sides of the outer tube body, and the one or more positioning pins includes two positioning pins configured to engage with the two guide slot structures respectively.
Barkus teaches: wherein the guide mechanism comprises two guide slot structures symmetrically formed on opposing sides of the outer tube body (see Fig. 2, two diametrically opposed slots 26 in sleeve 20), and the one or more positioning pins includes two positioning pins configured to engage with the two guide slot structures respectively (see Fig. 2, pin 24 projects from both sides of shaft 22).
Sevadijian and Barkus are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of height adjustable legs for beds or other horizontal planar structures. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Sevadijian with these aforementioned teachings of Barkus in order to provide two guide slot structures and two positioning pins as taught by Barkus on the inner and outer tubes of Sevadijian, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success to double the load carrying capacity of the pin (see Barkus, col. 2, lines [26-31]).
Regarding claim 8, Sevadijian as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 7, however Sevadijian does not teach: wherein the two positioning pins are defined by opposite ends of a horizontal cross pin that traverses through the inner tube body.
Barkus teaches: wherein the two positioning pins are defined by opposite ends of a horizontal cross pin that traverses through the inner tube body (see Fig. 2, pin 24 is singular with two ends to extend into slots 26).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0283715 to Sevadjian in view of U.S. Patent 2,935,813 to Berman et al. (hereinafter Berman).
Regarding claim 10 (as best understood – see 112b rejection above), Sevadijian teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however does not explicitly teach the following: wherein the guide mechanism comprises a single guide slot structure and a row of longitudinally aligned through-holes formed on opposing sides of the outer tube body, each through-holes being corresponding to each positioning slot of the single guide slot structure one by one, wherein as assembled, a screw passes through a through-hole aligned with a selected positioning slot and threadably engages with the inner tube body to lock the height of the adjustable bed post.
Berman teaches: wherein the guide mechanism comprises a single guide slot structure and a row of longitudinally aligned through-holes (see Fig. 2, 4, spaced openings 46) formed on opposing sides of the outer tube body (see Fig. 2, openings 46 align with opening 60 on opposite sides of tubes 14/16 when bolt 66 is connected with screw 66), each through-holes being corresponding to each positioning slot of the single guide slot structure one by one (see Fig. 2 and 4), wherein as assembled, a screw passes (see Fig. 2, 4, threaded bolt 66) through a through-hole aligned with a selected positioning slot (see Fig. 2 and 4) and threadably engages with the inner tube body to lock the height of the adjustable bed post (see Fig. 2 as shown, bolt 66 mates with sleeve 62).
Sevadijian and Berman are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of height adjustable legs for beds or other horizontal planar structures. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Sevadijian with these aforementioned teachings of Berman in order to provide a screw/bolt fastener and row of aligned through holes as taught by Berman on the outer tube of Sevadijian, with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an improved means of locking the leg with respect to the outer sections (see Berman, col. 2, lines [34-49]).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0283715 to Sevadjian in view of U.S. Patent 5,586,830 to Wanek et al. (hereinafter Wanek).
Regarding claim 11, Sevadijian teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however does not explicitly teach the following: wherein the inner tube further comprises a retaining sleeve attached on the inner tube body at an insertion end, the retaining sleeve comprising: an insertion segment configured to fit within the inner tube body; and a retention segment extending from the insertion segment and comprising a plurality of radially outwardly extending tooth-shaped structures configured to engage with an inner wall of the outer tube body.
Wanek teaches: wherein the inner tube further comprises a retaining sleeve (see Fig. 2-4, bushing 50) attached on the inner tube body at an insertion end (see Fig. 4, bushing interfaces adjustment cone 88 at an inner circumference 58), the retaining sleeve comprising: an insertion segment configured to fit within the inner tube body (see Fig. 4, flexible fingers 92); and a retention segment extending from the insertion segment and comprising a plurality of radially outwardly extending tooth-shaped structures (see Fig. 4, circumferentially spaced lugs 64) configured to engage with an inner wall of the outer tube body (see Fig. 4, lugs 64 interface with inner wall of tube 18).
Sevadijian and Wanek are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of height adjustable legs for beds or other horizontal planar structures. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Sevadijian with these aforementioned teachings of Wanek in order to provide a bushing with spaced lugs as taught by Wanek between the inner and outer tubes of Sevadijian, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success to limit unwanted axial movement of the tubes with respect to one another (see Wanek, col. 4, lines [45-46]).
Regarding claim 12, Sevadijian as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 11, however Sevadijian does not teach: wherein each tooth-shaped structure comprises a sloped guide surface at an upper end to facilitate insertion of the inner tube into the outer tube.
Wanek teaches: wherein each tooth-shaped structure comprises a sloped guide surface (see Fig. 5, see hashed portion at ends of 64) at an upper end to facilitate insertion of the inner tube into the outer tube (see col. 3, lines [12-14]: “Lugs 64 have a size, shape, and position for slideable receipt in cavities 44 in the most preferred form with a close tolerance fit”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding dependent claim 9, the closest prior art of Sevadijian and Barkus do not further teach or fairly suggest wherein the two positioning pins (of claim 7) are further defined by two ends of a U-shaped elastic spring positioned inside the inner tube body and biased outwardly to engage with the two guide slot structures. The closest prior art that defined this structure was JP H0910050A to Kawahara et al. (see Fig. 4-5, leaf spring 9 with fixing pin 7). However, Kawarhara’s U-shaped spring has only a single pin that extends through one side of its outer tube. The end of the spring (9a) only engages the inner tube (3) at (3a). The claimed invention requires both ends/pins extend into the two guide slot structures of the outer tube.
It is therefore the examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the prior art references to have achieved the currently claimed combination of features in the designed configuration of claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited patents show height adjustable legs for beds or other horizontal planar structures with similar properties to the claimed invention. They show the general state of the art and are of general relevance with respect to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R HARE whose telephone number is (571)272-4420. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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.
Sincerely,
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
5/14/2026
Prosecution Insights