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 14-26 are pending in this application. This communication is the first action on its merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 10/27/2025 has been considered by the office.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites, “act as the backrest of said sofa”. Examiner suggests amending this to recite, “act as a . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 22 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 22 recites the limitation "the headboard of said backrest" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to the examiner, and it was not previously mentioned that the first bed frame and/or the backrest comprises a headboard. The examiner suggests introducing “a headboard” prior to the recitation of this claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 14-15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greaves (GB 442453 A) in view of Horenkamp (US 4672696 A).
Regarding Claim 14, Greaves discloses a sofa bed (See Fig. 1-3, sofa figuration in fig. 1, bed configuration in fig. 3) comprising: a load-bearing frame constituted by a rear side and by two lateral members which are mutually coplanar so as to define for said sofa bed a resting base which is open on the opposite side with respect to said rear side (See Fig. 1-3, base portion 1); a first bed frame which is hinged to said load-bearing frame proximate to said rear side (See Fig. 1-3, back 4 is supported by base 1 and pivotably connected at rear side of base 1, point 20) and is movable by means of rotation between a sofa configuration of said sofa bed, in which said first bed frame is arranged substantially in a position perpendicular to the plane of extension of said load-bearing frame so as to act as the backrest of said sofa (See Fig. 1, back 4 in a sofa configuration), and a bed configuration, in which said first bed frame is arranged substantially in a position parallel to and superimposed on said load-bearing frame (See Fig. 3, back 4 is rotated to the bed configuration where back is parallel to and superimposed on base 1); and a second bed frame which is associated by way of kinematic means with said load-bearing frame (See Fig. 1-3, seat 2 connected to plate 6 of base 1 by two sets of levers 7 and 8) and is movable by way of combined rotation and translation between said sofa configuration, in which said second bed frame is arranged substantially in a position parallel to and superimposed on said load-bearing frame so as to act as the seat of said sofa (See Fig. 1, seat 2 in sofa configuration, parallel to and superimposed on base 1), and said bed configuration, in which said second bed frame is arranged substantially in a position parallel to and outside said load-bearing frame so as to contribute, together with said first bed frame, to the definition of the bedding surface of said bed (See Fig. 3, seat 2 in bed configuration parallel to and outside base 1); wherein the hinge axis defined between said first bed frame and said load-bearing frame is eccentric with respect to the plane defined by said load-bearing frame on the opposite side with respect to said resting base (See Fig. 1-3, hinge axis of base 1, (either point 20, pivots 22, 23) above lateral members of base 1), and in that said kinematic means comprise a pair of actuation levers which are joined together by a crossbar (See Fig. 1-3, levers 7 and 8 connected by rod 7a) and are hinged, at one end, to the free ends of said lateral members (See Fig. 1-3, levers 7 and 8 hinged to plate 6 at open end of base 1)
Greaves fails to explicitly disclose at the other end, eccentrically with respect to the plane defined by said second bed frame, to a complementary frame which is integral with said second bed frame.
However, Horenkamp teaches levers hinged at the other end, eccentrically with respect to the plane defined by said second bed frame, to a complementary frame which is integral with said second bed frame (See Fig. 8-9, link 23 hinged to pivot 24 indirectly connected it to element 12).
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 Greaves by adding a link to connect indirectly to the bed element as taught by Horenkamp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for stabilizing the kinematic linkage”; (Horenkamp, [Col. 4, Lines 55-56]). 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 15, Greaves, as modified, teaches the sofa bed according to claim 14, wherein said kinematic means comprise, for each one of said actuation levers, two traction elements (See Fig. 1-3, springs 13 and 14) which are associated, at a first end thereof, with an extension of the respective one of said actuation levers (See Fig. 1-3, springs 13 and 14 connected to plate 12 at a one end of lever 7) and, at a second end thereof, with the mutually opposite sides of said second bed frame (See Fig. 1-3, springs 13 and 14 at opposite ends of the base 1 and therefore at opposite ends of seat 2).
Regarding Claim 24, Greaves, as modified, teaches the sofa bed according to claim 14, wherein said complementary frame comprises at least two supporting feet designed to come into contact with the ground both in said sofa configuration and in said bed configuration (See Fig. 1-3, leg structures 3 contacting ground in both configurations).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greaves (GB 442453 A) in view of Horenkamp (US 4672696 A), further in view of Gosling (US 20170226754 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Greaves, as modified, teaches the sofa bed according to claim 14.
Greaves in view of Horenkamp fails to explicitly teach two gas springs interposed between said first bed frame and said load-bearing frame proximate to said hinge axis.
However, Gosling teaches two gas springs interposed between said first bed frame and said load-bearing frame proximate to said hinge axis (See Fig. 5B, gas piston element 23).
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 Greaves in view of Horenkamp by adding the gas piston element as taught by Gosling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “provide a mechanical advantage for moving the furniture element”; (Gosling, [0047]). 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 17-19, 21-22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greaves (GB 442453 A) in view of Horenkamp (US 4672696 A), further in view of Cunningham (GB 2570986 A).
Regarding Claim 17, Greaves, as modified, teaches the sofa bed according to claim 14.
Greaves in view of Horenkamp fails to explicitly teach a pair of first supporting legs which protrude downward from said first bed frame in the direction of said load-bearing frame and are designed to rest on said lateral members in said bed configuration.
However, Cunningham teaches a pair of first supporting legs which protrude downward from said first bed frame in the direction of said load-bearing frame (See Fig. 3, front edge projection and middle projection of seat cushion 10) and are designed to rest on said lateral members in said bed configuration (See Fig. 3, front edge rests on top surface 30 of front panel 22 and middle projection rests on cross beam 32).
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 Greaves in view of Horenkamp by adding the projection edges as taught by Cunningham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “provide support for the seat cushion”; (Cunnigham, [Page 6, Line 11]). 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 18, Greaves, as modified, teaches the sofa bed according to claim 17.
Greaves in view of Horenkamp fails to explicitly teach a pair of spacers arranged on said lateral members at the resting point of said first supporting legs.
However, Cunningham teaches a pair of spacers arranged on said lateral members at the resting point of said first supporting legs (See Fig. 3, top surface of front panel 32 and cross-beam 32).
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 Greaves in view of Horenkamp by adding the spacers as taught by Cunningham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “provide support for the seat cushion”; (Cunnigham, [Page 6, Line 11]). 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 19, Greaves, as modified, teaches the sofa bed according to claim 17, further comprising a first padding which is associated with the underside of said first bed frame and is designed to act as padding of the backrest of said sofa (See Fig. 1-3, back 4 having a backrest padding that is on the underside of said back 4).
Greaves in view of Horenkamp fails to explicitly teach said first padding having a thickness that is less than or equal to the height of said first supporting legs.
However, Cunningham teaches said first padding having a thickness that is less than or equal to the height of said first supporting legs (See Fig. 3, seat cushion 10 of equal thickness to front and middle projections.
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 Greaves in view of Horenkamp by adding the projection edges as taught by Cunningham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “provide support for the seat cushion”; (Cunnigham, [Page 6, Line 11]). 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 21, Greaves, as modified, teaches the sofa bed according to claim 19, further comprising a second padding which is associated with the upper side of said first bed frame and is designed to act as the mattress of said bed (See Fig. 1-3, back 4 having upholstery).
Regarding Claim 22, Greaves, as modified, teaches the sofa bed according to claim 21, wherein said first padding and said second padding are monolithic so as to wrap around said first bed frame at the headboard of said backrest (See Fig. 1-3, upholstery wraps around frame 5).
Regarding Claim 25, Greaves, as modified, teaches the sofa bed according to claim 21, further comprising a third padding which is associated with the upper side of said second bed frame and is designed to act as the mattress of said bed (See Fig. 1-3, seat 2 having upholstery on the upper side); said third padding having a thickness equal to that of said second padding (See Fig. 1-3, seat 2 and back 4 having equal thickness upholstery).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greaves (GB 442453 A) in view of Horenkamp (US 4672696 A), in view of Cunningham (GB 2570986 A), further in view of Yang (US 20140033427 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Greaves, as modified, teaches the sofa bed according to claim 17.
Greaves in view of Horenkamp in view of Cunningam fails to explicitly teach a pair of second supporting legs which protrude laterally from said first bed frame in the direction of said load- bearing frame and are designed to rest on said rear side in said sofa configuration.
However, Yang teaches a pair of second supporting legs which protrude laterally from said first bed frame in the direction of said load- bearing frame and are designed to rest on said rear side in said sofa configuration (See Fig. 6A-6B, leg member 322 on a rear side parallel to frame 20 and rests on the ground when extended).
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 Greaves in view of Horenkamp in view of Cunningham by adding the leg member as taught by Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “be selective folded and unfolded to support the back frame 20 to operate in either the sitting mode or the bedding mode”; (Yang, [0034]). 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 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greaves (GB 442453 A) in view of Horenkamp (US 4672696 A), further in view of Rodriquez (US 20160135605 A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Greaves, as modified, teaches the sofa bed according to claim 14.
Greaves in view of Horenkamp fails to explicitly teach two wheels which are associated laterally with said complementary frame and are designed to slide along said lateral members during the combined rotation and translation of said second bed frame from said sofa configuration to said bed configuration and vice versa.
Rodriquez teaches two wheels which are associated laterally with said complementary frame and are designed to slide along said lateral members during the combined rotation and translation of said second bed frame from said sofa configuration to said bed configuration and vice versa (See 5-7, guide wheels 29 translate through guide slots 56 from the retracted to the extended position and vice versa).
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 Greaves in view of Horenkamp by adding the leg member as taught by Rodriquez. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “the raising/lowering of the end portion”; (Rodriquez, [0042]). 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 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greaves (GB 442453 A) in view of Horenkamp (US 4672696 A), further in view of Dick (US 20020130535 A1).
`Regarding Claim 26, Greaves, as modified, teaches the sofa bed according to claim 14.
Greaves in view of Horenkamp fails to explicitly teach wherein each of said lateral members comprises a metal plate fixed thereto so as to vertically protrude upwardly from the respective lateral member; wherein two brackets are fixed to the first bed frame so as to protrude from the underside of the first bed frame; and wherein said brackets are respectively hinged to said metal plates at said hinge axis.
However, Dick teaches wherein each of said lateral members comprises a metal plate fixed thereto so as to vertically protrude upwardly from the respective lateral member (See Fig. 3-6, hinge assembly 41 having bracket 45 attached to frame assembly 80); wherein two brackets are fixed to the first bed frame so as to protrude from the underside of the first bed frame; and wherein said brackets are respectively hinged to said metal plates at said hinge axis (See Fig. 11 and 13, seat back hinge assembly 141 having brackets 143 and 145 attached to seat back frame assembly 180 and hinged to hinge assembly 41).
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 Greaves in view of Horenkamp by substituting the hinge assembly for the hinge assembly taught by Dick. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification which “allows access to a storage area underneath the seat bottom while retaining the ability to be used as a sofa and a bed”; (Dick, [Abstract]). 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 11096499 B1: Hojfeldt discloses an assembly to assist in rotating and translating a couch frame from a sofa to a bed configuration.
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