DETAILED ACTION
Final 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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-12 are rejected below.
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
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)(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) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by Rawls-Meehan (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0120740), herein Rawls.
As to claim 11, Rawls teaches a smart furniture assembly, comprising: a furniture item including a functional unit configured to initiate one or more of a position adjustment function[0028], a massage function[0043], and a heat function of the furniture item[0312]; a control box provided on the furniture item, the control box comprising: a receptacle configured to receive and retain a remote control device(fig. 41), a first control circuit including a first control button configured to control the functional unit of the furniture item [0270], and a first wireless communication assembly (fig. 18 for example) ; and a remote control device, the remote control device comprising: a massage component provided on the remote control device[0043], a second control circuit including a second control button configured to control at least one of the functional unit of the furniture item and the massage component[0043], and a second wireless communication assembly, wherein the first wireless communication assembly is configured to send a control signal to the remote control device and the second wireless communication assembly is configured to send a control signal to the control box[0043, 0093 (fig. 17b)].
As to claim 12, Rawls teaches further comprising: an alarm connected to the second control circuit, wherein the second wireless communication assembly is configured to receive a control signal from the control box to initiate the alarm upon receipt of the control signal[0050].
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Monaghan (U.S. PG Pub. 20230017775) as follows:
As to claim 1, Monaghan teaches a smart furniture controller, comprising: a remote control device (element 104); a control box (element 102) comprising a receptacle configured to receive and retain the remote control device[0054]; a first magnet provided within the receptacle [0054], wherein the first magnet is provided on an inner wall of the control box[0054]; and a second magnet provided in the remote control device, wherein the first magnet and the second magnet are configured to magnetically connect when the remote control device is positioned in the receptacle[0054] and at least one control button on the receptacle, wherein the at least on control button is accessible when the remote control device is not positioned in the receptacle[0045 710 for example].
As to claim 2, Monaghan teaches wherein the control box further comprises: a first control circuit [0025]; a first wireless communication assembly[0025]; and an external wireless receiver configured to receive a control signal from the first control circuit[0025], wherein the wireless receiver comprises an integrated alarm, wherein the first control circuit is connected to the at least one control button the at least one conrol button being configured to send a control signal through the first wireless communication assembly to the wireless receiver[0047], and after receiving the control signal from the control button, the wireless receiver is configured to initiate the integrated alarm[0047, 0068, 0069].
As to claim 3, Monaghan teaches further comprising: a search button provided on the control box and connected to the first wireless communication assembly, wherein the search button is configured to send a search prompt signal to the remote control device through the first wireless communication assembly[0047]; and an alarm provided on the remote control device, wherein the remote control device is configured to initiate the alarm after receiving the search prompt signal[0047].
As to claim 4, Monaghan teaches wherein the control box further comprises: an upper box body; a lower box body; and a first power supply circuit, wherein the first power supply circuit comprises: a charging interface provided in the lower box body, and a first electrical connector provided adjacent the receptacle in the lower box body, wherein the first electrical connector is connected to the first control circuit [0054, 0068].
As to claim 5, Monaghan teaches further comprising: a second electrical connector provided on the remote control device[0054], wherein the first electrical connector and the second electrical connector are electrically connected when the remote control device is positioned in the receptacle[0068].
As to claim 10, Monaghan teaches wherein the control box is installed in a furniture item [0024].
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.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monaghan (U.S. PG Pub. 20230017775) in view of Rawls-Meehan (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0120740), herein Rawls.
Monaghan teaches most of the claimed invention, but does not explicitly teach all of the limitations of claim 6-9, however these are an obvious variation and are taught by Rawls as follows:
As to claim 6, Rawls teaches wherein: the upper box body of the control box further comprises a plurality of upper side walls; the lower box body of the control box further comprises a plurality of lower side walls; and the control box further comprises two or more elastic components provided on more than one of the upper side walls or more than one of the lower side walls, wherein the two or more elastic components are made of rubber, plastic, resin, or metal, a cross-section of the two or more elastic components is triangular or bowed [0208, 0540](fig. 41), and at least a part of each surface of the two or more elastic components is flat, saw-toothed, or wavy (fig. 41) [Monaghan also teaches portions of this in 0054 – pocket shaped].
Monaghan teaches claim 7 wherein: the control box is a three-dimensional structure comprising one of a rectangular shape, a cube shape, a cylindrical shape, an elliptic shape, a pocket shape, a pistol shape, and an axe shape[0054]; and the relative position of the upper box body to the lower box body is one of the upper box body being superimposed above the lower box body, the upper box body being superimposed below the lower box body, the upper box body being nested within the lower box body, or the lower box body being nested within the upper box body (element 102 can be seen to have multiple pieces, as such any of these can be considered lower or upper box parts since parts, from the claims, seem to attach to each other as can be seen in the figs. 1-7 for instance. This is also taught in Rawls [0540](fig. 41).
As to claim 8, Monaghan teaches wherein: the control box comprises a pocket shape; and the receptacle comprises an inclined surface extending away from the upper box body, against which the remote control device is positioned when the remote control device is positioned in the receptacle, such that an angle of the remote control device positioned against the inclined surface is more than 5 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to an upper surface of the upper box body [0054 describes a pocket which would have these angles by design, however, Rawls also shows this in fig. 41.
As to claim 9, Rawls teaches further comprising: a removal access portion provided at a position adjacent to the receptacle [0105]. Examiner also notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the device of Monaghan would have access to device 102 via some panel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 allowed.
The reasons for allowance are that the closest prior art of record (Monaghan) does not alone, or in combination, a remote control device, comprising: a device body sized and shaped to be positioned in a receptacle provided in a smart furniture item; a massage component coupled to the device body, wherein the massage component is electrically connected to the control circuit; a first control button connected to the control circuit and configured to send a control signal to control a functional unit of the furniture item through the wireless communication assembly; and a second control button connected to the control circuit and configured to send a control signal to control the massage component, with other elements within the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1-2-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that a massage component is provided on the remote device is not in Rawls-Meehan. This is not accurate. Rawls-Meehan teaches that the remote has a massage button which clearly reads on the broad term “component”. The limitations are not so specific that the massaging motor is in the remote as argued. Examiner has included new citations to show that the previously used references still teach the amended claims.
Since claims 1-12 are still rejected it is the Examiner suggestion that these claim canceled and applicant move forward with the already allowed claims 13-20.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119