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 .
Application Status
Claims 20-39 are pending in this application. This is the first communication on its merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 201 (headboard portion), 122a (dock), 124A (reading light), 126A (remote), 120A and 120B (plates). 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. 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.
Claims 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito (JP 2005137461 A).
Regarding Claim 20, Ito discloses a bed system (bed 1) comprising: a foundation configured to support a mattress (mattress 4 on frame 5); and a pair of side rails on opposite sides of the foundation (See Fig. 6, side rails 6 and 7 on both sides of bed 1), the pair of side rails comprising a pocket in at least one side rail of the pair of side rails (See Fig. 6, side rail 6 having storage portions 16 and 17), the pocket configured to extend from within the at least one side rail relative to an exterior side of the at least one side rail (See Fig. 6, portions 16 and 17 extending relative to the exterior of side rail 6).
Regarding Claim 24, Ito discloses the bed system of claim 20, wherein side edges of the pocket are flush aligned with the exterior side of the at least one side rail (See Fig. 6, side edges of portions 16 and 17 flush with side rail 6).
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.
Claims 21-23, 25, 31, and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP 2005137461 A) in view of Fittin (US 20130125308 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Ito discloses the bed system of claim 20.
Ito fails to explicitly disclose wherein the pocket is configured to extend relative to the exterior side of the at least one side rail responsive to placement of an object within the pocket and retract relative to the exterior side of the at least one side rail responsive to removal of the object from within the pocket.
However, Fittin teaches wherein the pocket is configured to extend relative to the exterior side of the at least one side rail responsive to placement of an object within the pocket and retract relative to the exterior side of the at least one side rail responsive to removal of the object from within the pocket (See Fig. 3, pockets 1, 2, and 3 tops made of elastic and/or stretchable material and the pockets can include percale, satin, silk or cotton which allows for the extension and retraction of the pockets in response to the placement and removal of an object).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ito by adding the stretchable material as taught by Fittin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “the user stores any number of personal items”; (Fittin, [0019]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 22, Ito, as modified, teaches the bed system of claim 20.
Ito fails to explicitly teach wherein a top surface of the pocket is spaced from a top surface of the at least one side rail by a same dimension as a depth of the pocket. However, it has been held in In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, there is no unexpected or significant result to having the distance between the top surface of the pock and the top surface of the at least one side rail the same dimension as the depth of the pocket.
Regarding Claim 23, Ito, as modified, teaches the bed system of claim 20.
Ito fails to explicitly teach wherein a top surface of the pocket is spaced from a top surface of the at least one side rail by between 10-150 mm and a depth of the pocket is between 50-200 mm. However, it has been held in In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, there is no unexpected or significant result to having the a top surface of the pocket is spaced from a top surface of the at least one side rail by between 10-150 mm and a depth of the pocket is between 50-200 mm.
Regarding Claim 25, Ito, as modified, teaches the bed system of claim 20.
Ito fails to explicitly teach wherein the pocket is a large pocket, the bed system further comprising a small pocket positioned within the large pocket, wherein overall dimensions of the small pocket are less than overall dimensions of the large pocket.
However, Fittin teaches wherein the pocket is a large pocket, the bed system further comprising a small pocket positioned within the large pocket, wherein overall dimensions of the small pocket are less than overall dimensions of the large pocket (See Fig. 3, pocket 2 is positioned within pocket 3 and is smaller than pocket 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ito by adding the smaller pocket as taught by Fittin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “receive one or more items including a cell phone, remote, or similarly sized item”; (Fittin, [0020]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 31, Ito, as modified, teaches the bed system of claim 25.
Ito fails to explicitly teach wherein the small pocket comprises a fabric having a stretch tolerance of approximately 1/8 inch in each of a length, a width, and a height dimension.
However, Fittin teaches wherein the small pocket comprises a fabric having a stretch tolerance of approximately 1/8 inch in each of a length, a width, and a height dimension (with the dimensions of pocket 2 detailed in para. [0020] and pocket 2 made of percale, satin, silk or cotton, the stretch tolerance limitation is taught).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ito by adding the material as taught by Fittin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “the user stores any number of personal items”; (Fittin, [0019]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 37, Ito discloses a bed system configured for use with a mattress (bed 1 and mattress 4), the bed system comprising: a first side rail and a second side rail each covered in a side rail material (See Fig. 6, side rails 6 and 7 covered by protection portions 11 and 12); a first pocket comprising a pocket material positioned on an exterior side of the first side rail (See Fig. 6, storage portions 16-18), wherein the pocket material is a same material as the side rail material (portions 16-18 are sewn with a fabric to portions 11 and 12 which are also sewn with a fabric).
Ito fails to explicitly disclose a second pocket positioned on the exterior side of the first side rail and positioned inside the first pocket.
However, Fittin teaches a second pocket positioned on the exterior side of the first side rail and positioned inside the first pocket (See Fig. 3, pocket 2 is positioned within pocket 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ito by adding the smaller pocket as taught by Fittin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “receive one or more items including a cell phone, remote, or similarly sized item”; (Fittin, [0020]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 38, Ito discloses a bed system comprising: a first side rail and a second side rail configured to be positioned under and/or around a mattress (See Fig. 6, side rails 6 and 7 positioned around mattress 4); a first pocket in an exterior side of the first side rail (See Fig. 6, storage portion 16); and a second pocket in the exterior side of the first side rail (See Fig. 6, storage portion 17).
Ito fails to explicitly disclose the second pocket positioned inside the first pocket.
However, Fittin teaches the second pocket positioned inside the first pocket (See Fig. 3, pocket 2 is positioned within pocket 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ito by adding the smaller pocket as taught by Fittin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “receive one or more items including a cell phone, remote, or similarly sized item”; (Fittin, [0020]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 26, 32, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP 2005137461 A) in view of Fittin (US 20130125308 A1), further in view of Jeong (KR 20190086309 A).
Regarding Claim 26, Ito, as modified, teaches the bed system of claim 25.
Ito in view of Fittin fails to explicitly teach wherein a top edge of the small pocket is colinear with a top edge of the large pocket.
However, Jeong teaches teach wherein a top edge of the small pocket is colinear with a top edge of the large pocket (See Fig. 2, top edges of auxiliary plate 123 and storage plate 121 colinear).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ito in view of Fittin by adding the colinear pockets as taught by Jeong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “so that the user can freely use frequently used items such as cellular phones on the upper surface”; (Jeong). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 32, Ito, as modified, teaches the bed system of claim 25.
Ito in view of Fittin fails to explicitly teach wherein a side edge of the small pocket is proximate a midpoint of the large pocket.
However, Jeong teaches wherein a side edge of the small pocket is proximate a midpoint of the large pocket (See Fig. 2, side edge of auxiliary plate 123 proximate a midpoint of storage plate 121 colinear).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ito in view of Fittin by orientating the pockets as taught by Jeong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “so that the user can freely use frequently used items such as cellular phones on the upper surface”; (Jeong). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 39, Ito, as modified, teaches the bed system of claim 38.
Ito fails to explicitly teach wherein the second pocket is smaller than the first pocket.
However, Fittin teaches wherein the second pocket is smaller than the first pocket (See Fig. 3, pocket 2 is smaller than pocket 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ito by adding the smaller pocket as taught by Fittin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “receive one or more items including a cell phone, remote, or similarly sized item”; (Fittin, [0020]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Ito in view of Fittin fails to explicitly teach the second pocket being positioned at a lateral edge of the first pocket and extending a distance towards a midpoint of the first pocket.
However, Jeong teaches the second pocket being positioned at a lateral edge of the first pocket and extending a distance towards a midpoint of the first pocket (See Fig. 2, plate 123 positioned at a lateral edge of plate 121 and extending towards the midpoint).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ito in view of Fittin by orientating the pockets as taught by Jeong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “so that the user can freely use frequently used items such as cellular phones on the upper surface”; (Jeong). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP 2005137461 A) in view of Fittin (US 20130125308 A1), further in view of Kinchen (US 20030097713 A1).
Regarding Claim 27, Ito, as modified, teaches the bed system of claim 25, wherein, the at least one side rail and the large pocket comprise a flexible material (“a fabric such as cotton or silk or a knit is preferable…storage portions 16 to 18 are sewn with a fabric that can be repeatedly washed, similarly to the protection portions 11 and 12”).
Ito in view of Fittin fails to explicitly teach wherein the small pocket comprises a different material than at least one of the at least one side rail and the large pocket, and the small pocket comprises a rigid material.
However, Kinchen teaches wherein the small pocket comprises a different material than at least one of the at least one side rail and the large pocket, and the small pocket comprises a rigid material (“Pockets 54, 56, 58 comprise fabric, vinyl, plastic, denim, or leather and may or may not be made of the same material as cushion 10”; [0054]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ito in view of Fittin by adding rigid leather as taught by Kinchen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to store accessories”; (Kinchen; [0054]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 28, Ito, as modified, teaches the bed system of claim 25, wherein the large pocket comprises a flexible upholstery fabric (“a fabric such as cotton or silk or a knit is preferable…storage portions 16 to 18 are sewn with a fabric that can be repeatedly washed, similarly to the protection portions 11 and 12”).
Ito in view of Fittin fails to explicitly teach wherein the small pocket comprises a leather or a leather-like material.
However, Kinchen teaches wherein the small pocket comprises a leather or a leather-like material (“Pockets 54, 56, 58 comprise fabric, vinyl, plastic, denim, or leather and may or may not be made of the same material as cushion 10”; [0054]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ito in view of Fittin by adding rigid leather as taught by Kinchen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to store accessories”; (Kinchen; [0054]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 29, Ito, as modified, teaches the bed system of claim 28, further comprising a portion of the flexible upholstery fabric covering the pair of side rails (protection parts 11 and 12 are sewn with a fabric that can be repeatedly washed. As such a fabric, a fabric such as cotton or silk or a knit is preferable”).
Regarding Claim 30, Ito, as modified, teaches the bed system of claim 25, a fabric covering the pair of side rails, and the large pocket are made of a same material (“a fabric such as cotton or silk or a knit is preferable…storage portions 16 to 18 are sewn with a fabric that can be repeatedly washed, similarly to the protection portions 11 and 12”).
Ito fails to teach wherein the small pocket is made of the same material.
However, Fittin teaches wherein the small pocket is made of the same material (pocket 2 made of percale, satin, silk or cotton).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ito by adding the material as taught by Fittin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “the user stores any number of personal items”; (Fittin, [0019]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP 2005137461 A) in view of Fittin (US 20130125308 A1), further in view of Kennedy (US 20210330526 A1).
Regarding Claim 33, Ito, as modified, teaches the bed system of claim 25.
Ito in view of Fittin fails to explicitly teach a charging port extending through the at least one side rail into the small pocket, the charging port positioned adjacent to a lateral side edge of the small pocket.
However, Kennedy teaches a charging port extending through the at least one side rail into the small pocket, the charging port positioned adjacent to a lateral side edge of the small pocket (See Fig. 25, tether 192 of charging interface 162 extended through accessory slot 262 to charge device 168B, adjacent to side edge of caddy 170).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ito in view of Fittin by adding the charging port as taught by Kennedy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for electrically coupling with, and facilitating charging of, different types of portable electronic devices”; (Kennedy; [0093]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 34, Ito, as modified, teaches the bed system of claim 25.
Ito in view of Fitten fails to explicitly teach an induction charger mounted in a padded cavity within the at least one side rail within outer dimensions of the small pocket.
However, Kennedy teaches an induction charger mounted in a padded cavity within the at least one side rail within outer dimensions of the small pocket (See Fig. 26A, inductive charging interface 276 within caddy 170).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ito in view of Fittin by adding the induction charger as taught by Kennedy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for electrically coupling with, and facilitating charging of, different types of portable electronic devices”; (Kennedy; [0093]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP 2005137461 A) in view of Kinchen (US 20030097713 A1).
Regarding Claim 35, Ito discloses the bed system of claim 20.
Ito fails to explicitly disclose wherein the pocket comprises a lining such that a thickness of the pocket and the lining is greater than a thickness of an upholstery fabric covering the pair of side rails, the pocket and the lining having a rigidity greater than the upholstery fabric.
However, Kinchen teaches wherein the pocket comprises a lining such that a thickness of the pocket and the lining is greater than a thickness of an upholstery fabric covering the pair of side rails, the pocket and the lining having a rigidity greater than the upholstery fabric (“Pockets 54, 56, 58 comprise fabric, vinyl, plastic, denim, or leather and may or may not be made of the same material as cushion 10”; [0054], a pocket made of leather applied to the sewn fabric of Ito would result in a rigid pocket thicker than the fabric).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ito in view of Fittin by adding rigid leather as taught by Kinchen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to store accessories”; (Kinchen; [0054]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP 2005137461 A) in view of ASAF (US 20130305451 A1).
Regarding Claim 36, Ito discloses the bed system of claim 20, further comprising a removable plate covering a portion of the at least one side rail between the pocket and a top surface of the at least one side rail (See Fig. 6, protection portions 11 and 12).
Ito fails to explicitly disclose the removable plate having a same horizontal dimension as the pocket.
However, ASAF teaches the removable plate having a same horizontal dimension as the pocket (See Fig. 1, backplate 2 same dimensions as flexible panel 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Ito in view of Fittin by adding the same size plate as taught by ASAF. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it “acts as a backing”; (ASAF; [0026]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20140274204 A1: Williams discloses a bag comprising an interior pocket, a plurality of external pockets and a plurality of charging ports adjacent to the pockets.
US 5370246 A: Traynor discloses a patient caddy suspended from a railing of a patient support apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, 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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights