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 .
This office action is a response to an amendment filed 12/29/2025, with a request for continued examination filed 12/29/2025.
Claims 1-10 and 12-30 are pending.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 20, and 21 are amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are primarily focused on that the applied prior art does not teach “”in an assembly operator area, at least one digital data set is stored relating to at least one static parameter, and in an end user region, at least one digital data set is stored in relation to at least one dynamic parameter, and that the at least one static parameter includes a reference parameter, a synchronization parameter, a coupling parameter, a state parameter, or a collision parameter“ (see pgs. 10-11, Args.).
In support of said argument, Applicant states on pages 9-11 of the arguments that:
PNG
media_image1.png
176
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
787
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
227
689
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant is still giving more weight to the claim language than it merits. Applicant seems to argue that the claims provide a distinction of the “assembly operator area” and the “end user region” that can be more than the interpretation by way of the person which uses the mechanism or by the time of usage of the mechanism. Applicant states that “according to claim 1, if the user is an installer, an assembly operator area is provided, and if the subsequent user is an end user, an end user region is provided - regardless of the type of areas available within the app.” However, the claims are not nearly so specific. The claims don’t specify how the system determines who is who (e.g. an end user or installer), nor do the claims specify that an application or interface that is provided has to be different in any specific way (e.g. separate and different application, although it is noted that Henderson would make this obvious). Applicant seems to argue that there is a difference in the area and region because of the type of parameters provided (e.g. static or dynamic parameters) in the different areas. However, these so-called parameters are also broader than Applicant argues. For example, what actually constitutes a “reference parameter” or “state parameter” as a so-called “static” parameter, or a state of what? Or what makes a so-called “dynamic parameter” different for a locking parameter that cannot specify a state of a lock or time related to the system? In other words, all these broad limitations and terms can be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., what constitutes separate operator area and end user region, and what constitutes specific static or dynamic parameters) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, for the operator area and end user region, the interpretation of Hepkeskin in the rejection can still apply. Although Henderson makes it obvious that a different interface can be provided depending on role as well. As for the static and dynamic parameters, nothing in the instant claims prohibit the state and reference parameters (i.e. so-called “static parameters) from being interpreted as an parameters provided during an initial installation to provide an initial state (such a locked state for actuators or cabinets) or that a reference parameter can be an initial setting requiring authorization to open or access furniture components. Similarly, nothing in the claims prohibit an interpretation of so-called “dynamic parameters” to be parameters used for controlling or changing a settings in a normal operation time (i.e. not during installation) of a furniture system. Nothing in the claims excludes, for example, that a dynamic lock parameter can be a command that unlocks or locks a cabinet doors, or that a time parameter (i.e. another dynamic parameter) can be an input of a predetermined period of time signaling an amount of time a release can be maintained until a blocking condition is engaged. All of these examples are cited in the rejection that follows, and Hepkeskin discloses that inputs are stored. Nothing in the claims even prohibits so-called “static parameters” and “dynamic parameter” from being related or from even being the same parameter, but under different contextual use, other than by terminology being used. As such, even though Applicant argues that “[a]s claim 1 further defines the types of parameters which qualify as the at least one static parameter and the at least one dynamic parameter, Applicant notes that these underlying parameters differ from each other and do not merely concern access rights (or use times), but rather are linked to the concrete need of a specific person in connection to the furniture or use of the furniture,” the claims are not nearly so specific. Further, much more specific limitations would be required to specify such differences, as noted earlier.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 12-15, 17-20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent Publication No. DE102014110867A1 to Hepkeskin (hereinafter Hepkeskin. English translation of DE102014110867A1 is included and cited in this office action), in view of US Patent Publication No. 2016/0328198 to Henderson et al., (hereinafter Henderson)
Regarding claim 1, Hepkeskin teaches a method for setting up a first furniture drive via at least one electronic device, wherein the at first furniture drive comprises at least one memory unit (During a programming phase (i.e. setting up) of a cabinet system that uses actuators (i.e. furniture drive) with stored states (i.e. comprising memory) using a control unit (computer), thus p31, 18, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin), the method comprising:
in an assembly operator area of the at least one electronic device (Programming during an installation phase, using a control unit electronic device touchscreen, is being interpreted as an assembly operator area, such as by an installer operator, see P31, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin), storing at least one digital data set relating to at least one static parameter (Data, such as programming done in an installation role, for a parameter, such as a state for an actuator or an reference authorization and state of a furniture component, are interpreted as a digital set relating to at least one at least one static parameter, with stored states, see p7, p18, p13, p36, 31, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin), in the at least one memory unit via the at least one electronic device (Stored in control unit electronic device, see P18, P31, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin), and in an end user region of the at least one electronic device (Programming and control during any other time other than installation period using a control unit electronic device touchscreen, is being interpreted as an end user region, see P31, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin), storing at least one digital data set in relation to at least one dynamic parameter (Data, such as programming at some other time, for changing a parameter, such as a state, is interpreted as a digital set relating to at least one at least one dynamic parameter, see P31, p33-34, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin) in the at least one memory unit via the at least one electronic device (Stored in control unit electronic device, see P18, P31, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin), wherein the assembly operator area and the end user region are separate areas of the at least one electronic device (Device area used during an installation phase (i.e. operator area) and a device region used during another time (i.e. end user region), are separate areas, where installation would come before normal end user use and changes, see P31-32, 18, Fig. 1Hepkeskin), wherein the at least one static parameter includes a reference parameter, a synchronization parameter, a coupling parameter, a state parameter, or a collision parameter (States, where the states change based on a lock position operation, and programming reference authorization parameters, such as voice parameters, see P18, P36, P34, Hepkeskin), and wherein the at least one dynamic parameter includes a time parameter, a locking parameter, or a storage space parameter (Locking commands and a time parameter, such as a period of time, see P33, P36, P18, Hepkeskin).
While Hepkeskin teaches wherein an assembly operator area and an end user region are separate areas of at least one electronic device, in a sense of a device using areas for different purposes at different times, Henderson from the same or similar field of user devices associated with products including furniture, teaches also teaches an assembly operator area and an end user region are separate areas of at least one electronic device, in another sense of application areas separated by roles or features (A device with application area regions, such as specified features, functions, capabilities, etc., can be separated by having separate access credentials (logins) for different user’s roles, see P146-149, Henderson).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the furniture control as described by the combination including Hepkeskin and incorporating separate area regions, as taught by Henderson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better tailor and administer aspects of an application by restricting credentials to users in different roles and/or tailoring and restricting functionalities (see P146-149, Henderson).
Regarding claim 2, Hepkeskin teaches a method for setting up a furniture arrangement via at least one electronic device, wherein the furniture arrangement comprises at least one furniture part positioned in a moveable manner on a furniture carcass, and a first furniture drive with at least one memory unit (During a programming phase (i.e. setting up) of a cabinet system with a body (i.e. carcass) that accepts drawers that use actuators to open and close (i.e. furniture drive and part with movable manner on a carcass) with stored states (i.e. comprising memory) using a control unit (computer), thus p31, 18, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin), wherein the first furniture part can be arranged by the at least one furniture drive in at least two operating positions relative to the furniture carcass (Drawer and/or door parts of furniture in at least open and closed states relative to cabinet body, see P31-32, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin), the method comprising:
in an assembly operator area of the at least one electronic device (Programming during an installation phase, using a control unit electronic device touchscreen, is being interpreted as an assembly operator area, such as by an installer operator, see P31, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin), storing at least one digital data set in relation to at least one static parameter (Data, such as programming done in an installation role, for a parameter, such as a state for an actuator or an reference authorization and state of a furniture component, are interpreted as a digital set relating to at least one at least one static parameter, with stored states, see p7, p18, p13, p36, 31, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin) Stored in control unit electronic device, see P18, P31, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin) and in an end user region of the at least one electronic device (Programming during at any other time other than installation period using a control unit electronic device touchscreen, is being interpreted as an end user region, see P31, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin), storing at least one digital data set in relation to at least one dynamic parameter (Data, such as programming at some other time, for changing a parameter, such as a state, is interpreted as a digital set relating to at least one at least one dynamic parameter, see P31, p33-34, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin) in the at least one memory unit via the at least one electronic device (Stored in control unit electronic device, see P18, P31, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin) wherein the assembly operator area and the end user region are separate areas of the at least one electronic device (Device area used during an installation phase (i.e. operator area) and a device region used during another time (i.e. end user region), are separate areas, where installation would come before normal end user use and changes, see P31-32, 18, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin), wherein the at least one static parameter includes a reference parameter, a synchronization parameter, a coupling parameter, a state parameter, or a collision parameter (States, where the states change based on a lock position operation, and programming reference authorization parameters, such as voice parameters, see P18, P36, P34, Hepkeskin), and wherein the at least one dynamic parameter includes a time parameter, a locking parameter, or a storage space parameter (Locking commands and a time parameter, such as a period of time, see P33, P36, P18, Hepkeskin), and wherein the at least one furniture part is a furniture flap or a drawer (Cabinet doors (i.e. flaps ) and drawers, see Fig. 1, p15, p6-7, Hepkeskin).
While Hepkeskin teaches wherein an assembly operator area and an end user region are separate areas of at least one electronic device, in a sense of a device using areas for different purposes at different times, Henderson from the same or similar field of user devices associated with products including furniture, teaches also teaches an assembly operator area and an end user region are separate areas of at least one electronic device, in another sense of application areas separated by roles or features (A device with application area regions, such as specified features, functions, capabilities, etc., can be separated by having separate access credentials (logins) for different user’s roles, see P146-149, Henderson).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the furniture control as described by the combination including Hepkeskin and incorporating separate area regions, as taught by Henderson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better tailor and administer aspects of an application by restricting credentials to users in different roles and/or tailoring and restricting functionalities (see P146-149, Henderson).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hepkeskin and Henderson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepkeskin further teaches wherein the at least one electronic device and the first furniture drive are arranged spatially separate from each other (Control unit and furniture have some space between them, see Fig. 1, P31, Hepkeskin).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hepkeskin and Henderson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Henderson further teaches (claim 4) wherein an at least one electronic device includes a first electronic device, wherein an assembly operator area and an end user region are both installed on the first electronic device and are separated from each separate logins or separate apps on the first electronic device (A device with application area regions, such as specified features, functions, capabilities, etc., can be separated by having separate access credentials (logins) for different user’s roles, see P146-149, Henderson).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the furniture control as described by the combination including Hepkeskin and incorporating separate area regions, as taught by Henderson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better tailor and administer aspects of an application by restricting credentials to users in different roles and/or tailoring and restricting functionalities (see P146-149, Henderson).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hepkeskin and Henderson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepkeskin further teaches further comprising operating an assembly operator area or an end user region based on a verbal voice command given by a user or based on a command given in a tactile manner (Voice commands and touchscreen (tactile) can be used, see P33, P31, Hepkeskin).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hepkeskin and Henderson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepkeskin further teaches wherein at least one static parameter is a state parameter, and wherein the method further comprises changing the state parameter depending on at least one operating position (States, where the states change based on a lock position operation, and programming reference voice parameters, see P18, P36, P34, Hepkeskin).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hepkeskin and Henderson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepkeskin further teaches wherein in an assembly operator area: the first furniture drive is coupled to a second furniture drive or is synchronized via a reference drive to be carried out by a user (Programming of additional actuators coupled to furniture, see P36, p31, Hepkeskin); the first furniture drive is initialized via a reference drive to be carried out by a user, the first furniture drive is coupled to at least one command transmitter, a collision avoidance is stored in the at least one memory unit via a reference drive to be carried out by a user, or the first furniture drive, at least one command transmitter or at least one data transmission device are added to a network (At least an input that is interpreted as a command transmitter is assigned (added) to the network encompassing the furniture system and its control during an installation programming, see P7, Hepkeskin).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Hepkeskin and Henderson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepkeskin wherein in an assembly operator area: at least one network address, at least one link key or at least one naming is assigned or allocated (Fingerprints can be linked to authorized users in a programming phase, and is interpreted as a link key assigned or allocated,, see p36, Hepkeskin); at least one current state, at least one piece of log information or at least one piece of operating information of a first furniture drive is read out, or at least one command transmitter or data transmission device is read out (At least a naming of authorized users are assigned, or state a current state, see P31, p11, Hepkeskin), at least one additional furniture drive, at least one data transmission device or at least one command transmitter is added to form a network; a first furniture drive, at least one data transmission device or at least one command transmitter is reset, unlocked or locked or set active or inactive, at least one update of the at least one electronic device, of the first furniture drive, of a command transmitter or of a data transmission device is updated or at least one operating manual or help dialog for configuration is displayed (At least locked and unlocked data, see P12, P11, Hepkeskin ).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hepkeskin and Henderson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepkeskin further teaches wherein in an end user region: at least one current state of a first furniture drive is read out; the first furniture drive, at least one data transmission device or at least one command transmitter is set active or inactive or is unlocked or locked; at least one support access is made possible, or at least one update of the at least one electronic device, first furniture drive, a command transmitter or a data transmission device is updated; or at least one operating manual or help dialog for configuration is displayed (At least current state must be read out, and lock unlock, see P11-12, P31, Hepkeskin).
Henderson further teaches displaying at least help or support (Help and support on a user device, see p99, Henderson)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the furniture control as described by the combination including Hepkeskin and incorporating help and support, as taught by Henderson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better convey to aa user needed information that may help resolve an encountered issue (see P99, Henderson).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Hepkeskin and Henderson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepkeskin wherein the first furniture drive comprises at least one fixing device for fixing the first furniture drive to a furniture carcass, at least one positioning device, with which at least one moveable furniture part is moveable relative to the furniture carcass, and at least one drive unit, with which the at least one positioning device can be driven (A connection device fixes doors and drawers actuator drives to a cupboard and positions these in an open or closed position by control unit, see p1, Fig. 1, p27, Hepkeskin).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Hepkeskin and Henderson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepkeskin further teaches further comprising configuring an entire furniture arrangement in an assembly operator area or in an end user region (A cabinet furniture assembly can be programmed in an installation or at any time, thus this is interpreted as an entire arrangement being configured, see P31, Hepkeskin).
Regarding claim 18, Hepkeskin teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having a program stored thereon for causing a (Program, see P31, Hepkeskin) computing unit (control unit (computing unit), see p31, 18, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin) to execute the method according to claim 1 (rejected on the same grounds of at least claim 1) using a memory unit which is or can be brought into a data connection with the computing unit (stored states (i.e. comprising memory), thus a memory unit, see P18, P31, Hepkeskin).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Hepkeskin and Henderson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepkeskin further teaches wherein an assembly operator area evoked computing unit can be displayed on a first electronic device, and an end user region evoked by computing unit can be displayed on a second electronic device that is spatially separate from the first electronic device, or the assembly operator area and the end user region can be displayed on the same electronic device (An electronic device control unit with touchscreen display used during an installation of a furniture system and for making changes and control at any other time, thus an operator area and end user region installed in the same electronic device, see P31-32, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin)
Regarding claim 20, Hepkeskin teaches a furniture arrangement comprising a furniture carcass (A cabinet system with a body (i.e. carcass), see p31, 18, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin); a furniture drive having at least one memory unit and at least one furniture part movably positioned on the furniture carcass, wherein the at least one furniture part can be arranged in at least two operating positions relative to the furniture carcass by the furniture drive and at least one electronic device, (A cabinet system with a body (i.e. carcass) that accepts drawers that use actuators to open and close (i.e. furniture drive and part with movable manner on a carcass) with stored states (i.e. comprising memory) using a control unit (computer), thus p31, 18, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin), wherein the at least one memory unit (Stored in control unit electronic device, see P18, P31, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin) configured such that: in an assembly operator area of the at least one electronic device (Programming during an installation phase, using a control unit electronic device touchscreen, is being interpreted as an assembly operator area, such as by an installer operator, see P31, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin), at least one digital data set relating to at least one static parameter (Data, such as programming done in an installation role, for a parameter, such as a state for an actuator or an reference authorization and state of a furniture component, are interpreted as a digital set relating to at least one at least one static parameter, with stored states, see p7, p18, p13, p36, 31, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin) the at least one memory unit via the at least one electronic device(Programming during an installation period, using a control unit electronic device touchscreen, is being interpreted as an assembly operator area, such as by an installer operator, see P31, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin); and in an end user region of the at least one electronic device (Programming during at any other time other than installation period using a control unit electronic device touchscreen, is being interpreted as an end user region, see P31, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin), at least one digital data set relating to at least one dynamic parameter (Data, such as programming at some other time, for changing a parameter, such as a state, is interpreted as a digital set relating to at least one at least one dynamic parameter, see P31, p33-34, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin) is stored in the at least one memory unit (Stored in control unit electronic device, see P18, P31, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin) via the at least one electronic device (Data, such as programming at some other time, for changing a parameter, such as a state, is interpreted as a digital set relating to at least one at least one dynamic parameter, see P31, 18, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin), wherein the assembly operator area and the end user region are separate areas of the at least one electronic device (Device area used during an installation phase (i.e. operator area) and a device region used during another time (i.e. end user region), are separate areas, where installation would come before normal end user use and changes, see P31-32, 18, Fig. 1Hepkeskin), wherein the at least one static parameter includes a reference parameter, a synchronization parameter, a coupling parameter, a state parameter, or a collision parameter (States, where the states change based on a lock position operation, and programming reference authorization parameters, such as voice parameters, see P18, P36, P34, Hepkeskin), and wherein the at least one dynamic parameter includes a time parameter, a locking parameter, or a storage space parameter (Locking commands and a time parameter, such as a period of time, see P33, P36, P18, Hepkeskin).
While Hepkeskin teaches wherein an assembly operator area and an end user region are separate areas of at least one electronic device, in a sense of a device using areas for different purposes at different times, Henderson from the same or similar field of user devices associated with products including furniture, teaches also teaches an assembly operator area and an end user region are separate areas of at least one electronic device, in another sense of application areas separated by roles or features (A device with application area regions, such as specified features, functions, capabilities, etc., can be separated by having separate access credentials (logins) for different user’s roles, see P146-149, Henderson).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the furniture control as described by the combination including Hepkeskin and incorporating separate area regions, as taught by Henderson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better tailor and administer aspects of an application by restricting credentials to users in different roles and/or tailoring and restricting functionalities (see P146-149, Henderson).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Hepkeskin and Henderson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepkeskin further teaches wherein the furniture drive comprises: at least one fixing device for fixing the furniture drive to a furniture carcass (A cabinet system with a body (i.e. carcass) that has doors and drawers, thus fixed to the cabinet body, see Fig. 1, p31, 18, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin); at least one positioning device, with which at least one moveable furniture part can be moved relative to the furniture carcass (A cabinet system with a body (i.e. carcass) that accepts drawers that use actuators to open and close (i.e. furniture drive and part with movable manner on a carcass) with stored states (i.e. comprising memory) using a control unit (computer), thus p31, 18, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin); at least one drive unit , by means of which the at least one positioning device can be at least one computing unit or at least one data forwarding device actuators (i.e. furniture drive) with stored states (i.e. comprising memory) using a control unit (computer), thus p31, 18, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin and at least one memory unit, wherein the at least one memory unit is configured such that at least one digital data set relating to at least one static parameter or the at least one dynamic parameter can be stored in the at least one memory unit (Data, such as programming, for a parameter, such as a state, is interpreted as a digital set relating to at least one at least one dynamic parameter, with stored states see P31, 18, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin) via at least one electronic device (At least a connection device fixes doors and drawers actuator drives to a cupboard and positions these in an open or closed position by control unit, see p1, Fig. 1, p27, Hepkeskin).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepkeskin, in view of Henderson, and in further view of German Patent Publication No. DE202004016265U1 to Blum (hereinafter Blum. English translation of DE202004016265U1 is included and cited in this office action).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hepkeskin and Hille all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepskin further teaches an assembly operator area and the end user region (Device area used during an installation phase and device region used during another time, see P31, Hepkeskin)
Hepkeskin does not explicitly teach wherein a storing of the at least one digital data set is performed via at least one data transmission device spatially separate from the at least one electronic
However, Blum from the same or similar field of devices and furniture control, teaches wherein a storing of the at least one digital data set is performed via at least one data transmission device spatially separate from the at least one electronic (Data stored in memory in a separate device receiving data transmitted to it and separate from an input electronic device, for example memory 12 on transmission receiving device 7 storing added dataset from an input electronic device such as 15, see P23, Fig. 1, P14, Blum).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the furniture control as described by the combination including Hepkeskin and incorporating memory on a device separate from an electronic, as taught by Blum.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better maintain a needed data near a device that uses the data in an system (see Fig. 1, P14, Blum).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hepkeskin and Henderson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepkeskin does not explicitly teach wherein a data communication between at least one electronic device and first furniture drive is bidirectional.
However, Blum from the same or similar field of devices and furniture control, teaches wherein a data communication between at least one electronic device and first furniture drive is bidirectional (Bidirectional between a device 16 and control driving furniture, see P21, 20, Fig. 1, Blum).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the furniture control as described by the combination including Hepkeskin and incorporating bidirectional communication, as taught by Blum.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better transmit and receive data between devices as needed, such as for issuing commands and receiving information or feedback (see Fig. 1, 21, Blum).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepkeskin, in view of Henderson, and in further view of US Patent Publication No 2019/0355077 to Ahmed, (hereinafter Ahmed)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hepkeskin and Henderson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Henderson further implies wherein an at least one electronic device includes a first electronic device and a second electronic device, an assembly operator area is installed on the first electronic device, and an end user region is installed on the second electronic device which is spatially separate from the first electronic device (Different users with different accesses to functionalities accessing an app with the implication of users, such as an assembler or user, employing their devices to access the app, see Fig. 10-11, Fig. 14, p3, P146-149, Henderson).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the furniture control as described by the combination including Hepkeskin and incorporating separate devices for different roles, as suggested by Henderson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more conveniently access an application without having to share a device, while tailoring and administering aspects of an application by restricting credentials to users in different roles and/or tailoring and restricting functionalities (see p3, P146-149, Henderson).
However, Ahmed from the same or similar field of service applications, more explicitly teaches wherein an at least one electronic device includes a first electronic device and a second electronic device, an area is installed on the first electronic device, and a region is installed on the second electronic device which is spatially separate from the first electronic device (A first device with a first app area for a first user and a second device for a app region, thus deices are spatially separate, see Fig. 1, p65-66, p14-15, 40, Ahmed)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the furniture control as described by the combination including Hepkeskin and incorporating separate devices, as suggested by Ahmed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more conveniently access an application without having to share a device (see Fig. 1, p65-66, p29, p14-15, 40, Ahmed; p3, P146-149, Henderson).
Claims 8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepkeskin, in view of Henderson, and in further view of US Patent Publication No 2020/0221863 to Laing, (hereinafter Laing)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hepkeskin and Henderson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepkeskin further teaches wherein at least one electronic device communicates with a first furniture drive (Control unit device controls cabinet actuators, thus there is communication, see Fig. 1, P31).
Hepkeskin does not explicitly teach communicating with a furniture device via Bluetooth Low Energy
However, Laing from the same or similar field of controlled furniture teaches communicating with a furniture device via Bluetooth Low Energy (A device can communicate for control with a furniture device via Bluetooth BLE, see P32, Laing)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the furniture control as described by the combination including Hepkeskin and incorporating communicating using bluetooth ble, as taught by Laing.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more conveniently interact with a system without needing to be tethered by a cable of a wired communications, and by using a known communications protocol that is readily available (see P32, Laing).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Hepkeskin and Hendrson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepkeskin further teaches wherein at least one electronic device communicates with a first furniture drive (Control unit device controls cabinet actuators, thus there is communication, see Fig. 1, P31).
Hepkeskin does not explicitly teach wherein at least one data forwarding device comprises at least one Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) module for data communication with at least one device via BLE or at least one ESB module for data communication with at least one command transmitter, at least one data transmission device or at least one additional furniture drive via ESB.
However, Laing from the same or similar field of controlled furniture teaches wherein at least one data forwarding device comprises at least one Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) module for data communication with at least one device via BLE or at least one ESB module for data communication with at least one command transmitter, at least one data transmission device or at least one additional furniture drive via ESB (A device can communicate for forwarding control with a furniture device via Bluetooth BLE, see P32, Laing)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the furniture control as described by the combination including Hepkeskin and incorporating communicating using bluetooth ble, as taught by Laing.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more conveniently interact with a system without needing to be tethered by a cable of a wired communications, and by using a known communications protocol that is readily available (see P32, Laing).
Claims 16, 21, 22, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepkeskin, in view of Henderson, in further view of Laing, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2021/0035555 to Hille (hereinafter Hille)
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hepkeskin and Henderson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepkeskin does not explicitly teach wherein a first furniture drive comprises at least one data forwarding device, wherein the method further comprises determining or storing in the at least one memory unit at least one static parameter of a second furniture drive, at least one dynamic parameter of the second furniture drive or at least one piece of information relating to a network in which the first furniture drive is located.
However, Hille from the same or similar field of furniture control and operation, teaches wherein a first furniture drive comprises at least one data forwarding device, wherein the method further comprises determining or storing in the at least one memory unit at least one static parameter of a second furniture drive, at least one dynamic parameter of the second furniture drive or at least one piece of information relating to a network in which the first furniture drive is located (A forwarding device, such as an access point/router, used in a system with a drive and an additional drive, with sending data set commands to furniture determined, see P60, P73, Hille).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the furniture control as described by the combination including Hepkeskin and incorporating a forwarding device, as taught by Hille.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more conveniently interact with a system through a routing device without needing to be tethered by a cable of a wired communications transmission using transmission less susceptible to noise interference (see P58, Fig. 1, P60, Hille).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Hepkeskin and Henderson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepkeskin does not explicitly teach wherein a further comprising at least one data transmission device or at least one command transmitter for transmitting at least one digital data set or at least one digital command.
However, Hille from the same or similar field of furniture control and operation, teaches wherein a further comprising at least one data transmission device or at least one command transmitter for transmitting at least one digital data set or at least one digital command (A device, such as an access point/router, used in a system with a drive, in sending data set commands to furniture, thus at least a command transmitter and/or data transmission device, see P60, P73, Hille).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the furniture control as described by the combination including Hepkeskin and incorporating a transmission device, as taught by Hille.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more conveniently interact with a system through a routing device that is able to route signals from ne device to another in a network of connected devices (see P58, Fig. 1, P60, Hille).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Hepkeskin, Henderson, and Hille teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepkeskin wherein the at least one command transmitter comprises the at least one electronic device, a remote switch element, a data transmission device, a furniture lock, a household appliance or an additional furniture drive (A control unit electronic device is used for at least a command setting transmitter and furniture lock as in for locking furniture, see P31,P7, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Hepkeskin, Henderson, and Hille teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hille further teaches wherein the determining and storing is performed via a data forwarding device of the second furniture drive, or wherein the at least one piece of information relating to the network in which the first furniture drive is located includes at least one digital data set (Transmission of, digital data, control, etc., between an electronic device via access point to furniture can be via wireless signal, see P60, Fig. 1, 73, Abs., Hille)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the furniture control as described by the combination including Hepkeskin and incorporating wireless transmitting and comparison for operation determination, as taught by Hille.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more conveniently interact with a system without needing to be tethered by a cable of a wired communications transmission using transmission less susceptible to noise interference, and to provide a more simplified, less computationally heavy means of recognizing a control desired to be implemented (see P2, P74, P58, Fig. 1, P60, Hille).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Hepkeskin and Henderson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepkeskin further teaches wherein at least one electronic device includes a mobile terminal, a smartphone or a computer (Cabinet system that uses actuators using a control unit (computer), thus p31, 18, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin), and is spatially separate from the furniture drive (Control unit and furniture have some space between them, see Fig. 1, P31, Hepkeskin)
Hepkeskin does not explicitly teach wherein the furniture drive and the at least one electronic device each comprise at least one data forwarding device.
However, Hille from the same or similar field of furniture control and operation, teaches wherein the furniture drive and the at least one electronic device each comprise at least one data forwarding device. (A forwarding device, such as an access point/router, used in a system with a drive and an additional drive, with sending data set commands to furniture determined, see P60, P73, Hille,
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the furniture control as described by Hepkeskin and incorporating wireless transmitting and a forwarding device, as taught by Hille.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more conveniently interact with a system without needing to be tethered by a cable of a wired communications transmission using transmission less susceptible to noise interference, and to more conveniently interact with a system through a routing device without needing to be tethered by a cable of a wired communications transmission using transmission less susceptible to noise interference (see P58, Fig. 1, P60, Hille).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepkeskin, in view of Henderson, in further view of Laing, and in further view of Hille.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Hepkeskin, Henderson, and Laing all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepkeskin further teaches data set stored in at least one memory unit (Stored in control unit electronic device, see P18, P31, Fig. 1, Hepkeskin)
Hepkeskin does not explicitly teach wherein at least one digital command of the at least one command transmitter or of the at least one data transmission device can be transmitted to the at least one data forwarding device of the furniture drive (Transmission of, digital data, control, etc., between an electronic device via access point to furniture can be via wireless signal, see P60, Fig. 1, 73, Abs., Hille), wherein at least one computing unit is configured to compare at least one digital command with at least one digital data set, and the at least one computing unit is configured to make a selection for executing the at least one digital command depending on a result of the comparison
However, Hille from the same or similar field of furniture control and operation, teaches wherein at least one digital command of the at least one command transmitter or of the at least one data transmission device can be transmitted to the at least one data forwarding device of the furniture drive (Transmission of, digital data, control, etc., between an electronic device via access point to furniture can be via wireless signal, see P60, Fig. 1, 73, Abs., Hille), wherein at least one computing unit is configured to compare at least one digital command with at least one digital data set, and the at least one computing unit is configured to make a selection for executing the at least one digital command depending on a result of the comparison (A comparison of an input command with a reference can be the basis of operating control, see P2, p76, Hille).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the furniture control as described by the combination including Hepkeskin and incorporating wireless transmitting and comparison for operation determination, as taught by Hille.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more conveniently interact with a system without needing to be tethered by a cable of a wired communications transmission using transmission less susceptible to noise interference, and to provide a more simplified, less computationally heavy means of recognizing a control desired to be implemented (see P2, P74, P58, Fig. 1, P60, Hille).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepkeskin, in view of Henderson, and in further view of US Patent Publication No 2014/0211973 to Wang et al., (hereinafter Wang)
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Hepkeskin and Henderson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepskin further teaches an assembly operator area and the end user region (Device area used
during an installation phase and device region used during another time, see P31, Hepkeskin)
Hepkeskin does not explicitly teach a data communication between at least one electronic device and at least one furniture drive is enabled in encrypted form and/or during defined time windows.
However, Wang from the same or similar field of user devices, teaches a data communication between at least one electronic device and at least one furniture drive is enabled in encrypted form and/or during defined time windows (Communications between devices use encryption, see P18-19, Wang).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the furniture control as described by the combination including Hepkeskin and incorporating communication encryption, as taught by Wang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better provide a secured communications channel that can help prevent unwanted intrusion that can compromise a communication or its transmitted data (see P117-18, Wang).
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepkeskin, in view of Henderson, in view of Blum, and in further view of Hille.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Hepkeskin and Henderson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepkensin does not explicitly teach *wherein at least one electronic device communicates with an at least one data transmission device via WiFi or WAN, or the at least one data transmission device communicates with a first furniture drive via ESB.
However, Hille from the same or similar field of furniture control and operation teaches wherein wherein at least one electronic device communicates with an at least one data transmission device via WiFi or WAN, or the at least one data transmission device communicates with a first furniture drive via ESB (An electronic device, such as mobile device, communicates digital data with at least one data transmission device, such as an access point, via wlan where wan is being interpreted as a wireless area network, Bluetooth, etc., see P60, 93, Fig. 1, Hille).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the furniture control as described by the combination including Hepkeskin and incorporating wireless transmitting, as taught by Hille.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more conveniently interact with a system through a routing device without needing to be tethered by a cable of a wired communications transmission using transmission less susceptible to noise interference (see P58, Fig. 1, P60, Hille).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Hepkeskin and Henderson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hepleskin does not explicitly teach comprising determining with at least one electronic device information of a second furniture drive, or information of a network in which the first furniture drive is mapped, by connecting with a first furniture drive or a data transmission device.
However, Hille from the same or similar field of furniture control and operation teaches comprising determining with at least one electronic device information of a second furniture drive, or information of a network in which the first furniture drive is mapped, by connecting with a first furniture drive or a data transmission device (An electronic control device determines a set of data for control of a drive and an additional drive in a network, see P31, P81, P73, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Hille).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the furniture control as described by the combination including Hepkeskin and incorporating determining a data set, as taught by Hille.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better control a system by use of pertinent data or data analysis (see P31, P81, P73, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Hille).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gehrke et al., US Patent Publication No. 2021/0106138, teaches control system for an electromotive drive of an item of furniture that can include provided functionality through a mobile device that has a corresponding app program.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (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, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117