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 10/14/2025.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 2 and 17 are amended.
Claim 19 is added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 07/28/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are primarily focused on that the applied prior art does not teach “at least one second receiving device, with which at least one digital operating command transmitted according to a second transmission protocol, which is different from the first transmission protocol, is receivable.” In the arguments, Applicant labels said limitation as “F5.”
In support of said argument, Applicant states in pages 13-14 of the arguments that:
PNG
media_image1.png
849
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
751
631
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant is giving more weight to the claim limitations than they merit.
First, it is noted that Applicant argues with regards to the cited primary reference by Hille that the Examiner has interpreted “the furniture drive (3) includes two different receiving devices for the transmission links (7) and (9).” This attributed interpretation is incorrect, as can be seen by the Examiner provided explanations with the citations in the previous Office Action rejection. Perhaps to further clarify, the Examiner notes that the furniture system of Hille that is partly represented by Fig. 2 (reproduced with Applicant’s arguments above), includes device 5, which receives a signal 6 from device 4, and then transmits signal 7 to component 3 of the system. Therefore, the device 5 must have a receiver and a transmitter, and the device can be interpreted as a control device, for example by controlling translation of control signal toward device 3. As such, this control device of the furniture system of Hille comprises at least one of two receivers of the system. The second receiver is in component 3, denoted by number 8a. These two receivers operate with different formats, and both form part of the furniture system of Hille, as noted in paragraphs 62-65 of Hille. The instant claims, can be interpreted as a system with a furniture element, a control device with at least one transmitter with which at least one control command is transmittable to a furniture element, and two receivers that can receive respective digital control commands in different protocols. Hille meets the claim language, thus reads on the claim limitations in question.
With regards to Wilson, Applicant states in page 14 that Wilson “that Wilson does not directly and unambiguously disclose that a control command issued by the system (10) is transmitted wirelessly to a bed (14, 16). Because Wilson does not teach wireless transmission of a control command from the system (10) to a bed (14, 16), Applicant respectfully submits that Wilson does not cure the Examiner's admitted deficiency of Hille.” However, as seen in at least paragraphs 86, 51, and 52 of Wilson, the system can include wireless transmission to furniture components such as beds. The instant claims are directed to a system, meaning that as with Hille, the entire system of Wilson that includes furniture components, such as beds, can be considered. Wilson includes various components that are transmission and receiving devices, and which can be of many different transmission protocols. As is generally known in the art, there can be components in a communications systems that serve to bridge different protocols as needed in a system (see e.g. p126, p52, Wilson).
Regarding claim 15 and newly added claim 19, Applicant argues on pages 15 to 16 of the arguments that:
PNG
media_image3.png
929
619
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Given Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner must respectfully disagree. As stated by Applicant on page 15 of the arguments, Nixon teaches control execution of an applied control. For example, this can be actuation control of a component within a network environment (see P80, 92, Nixon). Furthermore, paragraphs 89, 90, and 92 teach that control activities and transmission can be performed within a specified time, such as less than 100ms, as needed. This means that a control execution that can be an actuation of a control component can be activated to perform in a specified time from when control is communicated. In response to applicant' s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, any person of ordinary skill in the art of control systems in general is motivated to tailor control speeds to desired control activity, as is obvious for design of any control system, and as suggested by paragraphs 93, 89. 90, and 92 pf Nixon, and as also implied by Sato et al., cited in the relevant prior art section further below, in relation to a storage cabinet with lock.
Applicant’s amendment overcame the 35 USC § 101 made in the previous Office action.
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, 2, 4, 7-10, 13, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 2015/0130595 to Hille (hereinafter Hille), in view of US Patent Publication No. 2011/0205061 to Wilson et al., (hereinafter Wilson)
Regarding claim 1, Hille discloses a system comprising a furniture element (Furniture, see abs., Hille), preferably a furniture drive or a furniture lock (Drive, see abs., Hille), with which at least one part of an item of furniture is drivable or activatable (Drive can activate/drive movement of at least a head part item of bed furniture, see p53, Hille), and a control device for actuating the at least one furniture element with a control command through an operating command (A control device, such as at least an adaptation control device 5, can be used to actuate a drive based on a communicated commands, see p102-103, Fig. 2, 83, Hille), wherein the at least one control device comprises at least one transmitting device, with which at least one control command is wirelessly transmissible to the at least one furniture element (Device, such as 5, can transmit commands to furniture via communication link, such as 7, thus there is a transmitting device, see p102-103, Fig. 2, 83, Fig. 4, 65, Hille), and at least one second receiving device, with which at least one operating command transmitted according to a second transmission protocol, which is different from another transmission protocol, is receivable (A command, such as a command from a device 5, is transmitted to device 3 via a second communication link such as 7. Therefore, there is a second receiving device at least in device 3, wherein the link can have a second/different standard/protocol from a different device receiving commands, such as from a device 4 transmitted to device 5 via a communication link such as 6, see p65-66, p22, p56-58, 63-64,39, 25, Fig. 2, P15, p56-58, 63-64, Hille).
Hille does not explicitly teach a digital transmission.
However, Wilson from the same or similar field of controllable devices including furniture type devices, teaches a digital transmission (Data, that can include commands, is transmitted via communication links with protocols that include known digital based protocol standards (e.g., ieee 802.11x, Bluetooth, Zigbee, etc.,), see P52, p48-53, Fig. 1, Wilson).
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 control and transmission as described by Hille and incorporating digital transmission, as taught by Wilson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to comply with a desired chosen known protocol standard used in transmitting data within a network environment (see P52, p48-53, Fig. 1, Wilson).
Furthermore, while Hille discloses at least two receiving devices, Wilson teaches many more receivers within a management and control environment and protocols, such that Wilson can teach at least one first receiving device, with which at least one digital operating command transmitted according to a first transmission protocol is receivable (Data, including commands, can be transmitted through system from components and routed to appropriate components via a communication links, for example from a device 24 to devices such as 30, 40, etc., via links 58, 60, etc. Therefore, there is a first receiving device at least in device (e.g. in device 38), wherein the links can have a first standard/protocol, see P48, 42, 50-53, Fig. 1, Wilson)
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 control and transmission as described by the combination including Hille and incorporating numerous receiving devices, as taught by Wilson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better send and route desired data to desired components when there are numerous components that can each receive routed respective data (see P48, P52, p48-53, Fig. 1, Wilson).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hille and Wilson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Wilson further teaches wherein a digital operating command is generatable by a user via at least one user interface, wherein the user interface is formed by: - a touchscreen of an input device, and/or - a voice input into a speech-recognition device, and/or - an operating element of an input device operable by a user by hand or foot, and/or - gesture control of an input device that can be performed by a user (A user interface that can issue commands within an environment including to a bed furniture, can include a touchscreen, voice input, etc., see 71, 100-101, Fig. 1, 48-53, Wilson)
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 control and transmission as described by the combination including Hille and incorporating specified types of interface inputs, as taught by Wilson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better provide convenient or desired forms of input, such as touch or voice inputs that may provide for quicker or less convoluted input over other forms such as text input (see P125, p48-53, Fig. 1, Wilson)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hille and Wilson 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 a control device and a furniture element are formed structurally separate from each other and are arrangeable or arranged spatially separate from each other (A control device such as 5 or 4 are structurally and spatially separate from furniture and element such as 3, 14, see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Hille).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hille and Wilson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Wilson further teaches wherein a control device has at least one user operating mode and one configuration operating mode (A control device can be used to send commands or it can be configured, thus there is at least an operating mode and a configuration mode, see p16, Fig. 14, fig. 13, P225, 24, 46, Wilson ), wherein: - in the user operating mode a digital operating command for actuating at least one furniture element is receivable by a first and/or second receiving device of the at least one control device (A control device can be used to send commands to control a device, thus to a receiving device, see p16, 24, 48-53, Fig. 2, 4, Wilson), and/or - in the configuration operating mode a digital operating command for configuring the control device is receivable by a first and/or second receiving device of the at least one control device (A control device can be used receive inputs, thus a receiving device, so as to configure/set settings in a control device, such as silencing tones, hiding details, configure alerts/alarms, etc., see Fig. 14, fig. 13, P225-227, 46, Wilson).
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 control and transmission as described by the combination including Hille and incorporating an operating and/or configuration operating mode, as taught by Wilson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better permit access to adjust a desired component in terms of physical adjustment and settings by sending commands to the appropriate device (see p6-53, p16, Fig. 14, fig. 13, P225, 24, 46, Wilson).
Regarding claim 2, Hille discloses a system comprising a furniture element (Furniture, see abs., Hille), preferably a furniture drive or a furniture lock (Drive, see abs., Hille), with which at least one part of an item of furniture is drivable or activatable (Drive can activate/drive movement of at least a head part item of bed furniture, see p53, Hille), and a control device for actuating the at least one furniture element with a control command through an operating command (A control device, such as at least an adaptation control device 5, can be used to actuate a drive based on a communicated commands, see p102-103, Fig. 2, 83, Hille), wherein the at least one control device comprises at least one transmitting device, with which at least one control command is wirelessly transmissible to the at least one furniture element (Device, such as 5, can transmit commands to furniture via communication link, such as 7, thus there is a transmitting device, see p102-103, Fig. 2, 83, Fig. 4, 65, Hille), at least one first receiving device, with which at least one digital operating command transmitted according to a first transmission protocol is receivable (A command, such as a command from a device 4, is transmitted to device 5 via a communication link such as 6. Therefore, there is a first receiving device at least in device 5, wherein the link can have a first standard/protocol, see p56-58, 63-64, p22, 25, Fig. 2, P15, Hille), and at least one second receiving device, with which at least one operating command transmitted according to a second transmission protocol, which is different from the first another transmission protocol, is receivable (A command, such as a command from a device 5, is transmitted to device 3 via a second communication link such as 7. Therefore, there is a second receiving device at least in device 3, wherein the link can have a second/different standard/protocol from a different device receiving commands, such as from a device 4 transmitted to device 5 via a communication link such as 6, see p65-66, p22, p56-58, 63-64,39, 25, Fig. 2, P15, p56-58, 63-64, Hille).
Hille does not explicitly teach a digital transmission.
Hille does not explicitly teach a digital transmission; wherein at least one transmitting device, with which at least one digital control command is wirelessly transmissible to at least one furniture element, transmits the at least one digital operating command according to a third transmission protocol, which is different from a first and second transmission protocols
However, Wilson from the same or similar field of controllable devices including furniture type devices, teaches a digital transmission (Data, that can include commands, is transmitted via communication links with protocols that include known digital based protocol standards (e.g., ieee 802.11x, Bluetooth, Zigbee, etc.,), see P52, p48-53, Fig. 1, Wilson); Wilson further teaches wherein at least one transmitting device, with which at least one digital control command is wirelessly transmissible to at least one furniture element, transmits the at least one digital operating command according to a third transmission protocol, which is different from a first and second transmission protocols (Data, including commands, can be transmitted from respective components and routed to appropriate components via various communication links that can have differing protocols, and that can include know digital protocols. For example, in one route, transmitting device 24 transmits to a furniture such as 14 via comms link 58 that can be considered a third protocol, and different from another (that can be designated a first) protocol such as link 60, and different from yet another (that can be designated a second) protocol such as link 66, where a mixture of protocols can be used in the communications network, see P48-53, Fig, 1, 125, Wilson)
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 control and transmission as described by Hille and incorporating digital transmission and incorporating numerous receiving devices, as taught by Wilson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to comply with a desired chosen known protocol standard used in transmitting data within a network environment, and to better send and route desired data to desired components when there are numerous components that can each receive routed respective data (see P48, P52, p48-53, Fig. 1, Wilson).
Furthermore, while Hille discloses at least two receiving devices, Wilson teaches many more receivers within a management and control environment and protocols, such that Wilson can teach at least one first receiving device, with which at least one digital operating command transmitted according to a first transmission protocol is receivable (Data, including commands, can be transmitted through system from components and routed to appropriate components via a communication links, for example from a device 24 to devices such as 30, 40, etc., via links 58, 60, etc. Therefore, there is a first receiving device at least in device (e.g. in device 38), wherein the links can have a first standard/protocol, see P48, 42, 50-53, Fig. 1, Wilson)
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 control and transmission as described by the combination including Hille and incorporating numerous receiving devices, as taught by Wilson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better send and route desired data to desired components when there are numerous components that can each receive routed respective data (see P48, P52, p48-53, Fig. 1, Wilson).
Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hille and Wilson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Wilson further teaches wherein, depending on an operating command received in a receiving method step: - different digital control commands are generated in a second generating method step, and/or - different digital control commands are transmitted in a transmitting method step (Depending on a command being received in a specified standard, a different command with a different standard can be generated in a subsequent transmission and reception step in a communication link, see P48-53, Fig, 1, 125, Wilson).
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 control and transmission as described by the combination including Hille and incorporating different commands, as taught by Wilson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better generate commands in a different protocol so as to provide a mixture of protocols that enables a network to communicate with appropriate components and protocols, including known digital protocols, to permit devices to communicate with a number of different components by translating and converting commands in the different standards (see p61, P125, p48-53, Fig. 1, Wilson; p39, Hille)
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hille, in view of Wilson, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2020/0287905 to Milburn et al., (hereinafter Milburn)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hille and Wilson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Wilson further teaches wherein: - a first transmission protocol is a radio transmission protocol according to the IEEE 802.11 standard and/or a wired transmission protocol according to the Ethernet standard (A communication link among numerous links that can be a mixture of protocols, can include ieee 802.11 protocol, etc., see P51-52, Wilson), and/or - a second transmission protocol is a radio transmission protocol according to the Bluetooth standard (Another communication link among numerous links that can be a mixture of protocols, can include bluetooth, etc., see P51-52, Wilson), and/or - the digital control command is transmissible according to a third transmission protocol, which is different from the first and second transmission protocols (Yet another communication link among numerous links that can be a mixture of protocols, see P51-52, Wilson)
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 control and transmission as described by the combination including Hille and incorporating different specified protocols, as taught by Wilson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better provide a mixture of protocols that enables a network to communicate with appropriate components and protocols to permit devices to communicate with a number of components using different known and established protocol standards that may have different merits including lower energy usage, wider area coverage, larger bandwidth, etc., as the case may require (see P125, p48-53, Fig. 1, Wilson)
Hille does not explicitly teach wherein a transmission protocol is a radio transmission protocol according to a ShockBurstTM or Enhanced ShockBurstTM standard.
However, Milburn from the same or similar field of controllable devices, teaches wherein a transmission protocol is a radio transmission protocol according to a ShockBurstTM or Enhanced ShockBurstTM standard (Communications be done using shockburst, see p65, Milburn).
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 control and transmission as described by the combination including Hille and incorporating shockburst, as taught by Milburn.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better use a desired communications protocol by enables communication on a known format and can have benefits such as faster transmission, or by trying or substituting a known equivalent communications protocol from among a finite known number of known protocols (see 65, Milburn; p53, Raj)
Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hille, in view of Wilson, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2021/0035555 to Hille, (hereinafter Hille ‘555)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hille and Wilson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hille does not explicitly teach wherein a system comprises at least one speech-recognition device for generating a digital operating command, wherein the speech-recognition device comprises: - at least one microphone for detecting a voice command of a user, - at least one conversion device for generating a digital operating command from the voice command, - at least one transmitting device for transmitting a digital operating command to the control device.
However, Hille ‘555 from the same or similar field of controllable devices including furniture type devices, teaches wherein a system comprises at least one speech-recognition device for generating a digital operating command (Voice input device can be used for control, see Abs., Hell ‘555), wherein the speech-recognition device comprises: - at least one microphone for detecting a voice command of a user (microphone, see p35, Hille ‘555), - at least one conversion device for generating a digital operating command from the voice command (Voice commands are digitized and analyzed, see p73, p35, Hille ‘555), - at least one transmitting device for transmitting a digital operating command to a control device (Voice commands are converted and transmitted to control a device, see p61, 60-61, Figs. 4-6, fig. 2, p73, 76, p35, Hille ‘555).
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 control and transmission as described by the combination including Hille and incorporating voice control structures including microphone, conversion, and transmission, as taught by Hille ‘555.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to properly receive sound input, in order to analyze the received sound input by converting the sound to an electrically digitized form that can be analyzed to produce instructions that can be sent to a control unit for implementation (see p61, 60-61, abs., Figs. 4-6, fig. 2, p73, 76, p35, Hille ‘555)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hille and Wilson teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hille does not explicitly teach wherein a system has at least one internet- compatible communication device for connecting the system, in particular a control device, to the internet.
However, Hille ‘555 from the same or similar field of controllable devices including furniture type devices, teaches wherein a system has at least one internet- compatible communication device for connecting the system, in particular a control device, to the internet (At least a device, such as an access point, is connected to the internet, see Fig. 1, 74, p61, 60-61, Figs. 4-6, fig. 2, p73, 76, p35, Hille ‘555).
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 control and transmission as described by the combination including Hille and incorporating voice control structures including an internet compatible device, as taught by Hille ‘555.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better permit a system to access services or systems via internet that can provide needed or desired services to a system (see p74, p61, 60-61, Figs. 4-6, fig. 1, p73, 76, p35, Hille ‘555)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hille, in view of Wilson, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2022/0203410 to Scherer et al., (hereinafter Sherer)
Hille further teaches in a transmitting method step a transmission of at least one control command to a receiving device of an at least one furniture element (A control device can be used to actuate a drive based on a communicated commands, see p102-103, Fig. 2, 83, Hille).
Wilson further teaches a digital transmission (Data, that can include commands, is transmitted via communication links with protocols that include known digital based protocol standards (e.g., ieee 802.11x, Bluetooth, Zigbee, etc.,), see P52, p48-53, Fig. 1, Wilson).
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 control and transmission as described by Hille and incorporating digital transmission, as taught by Wilson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to comply with a desired chosen known protocol standard used in transmitting data within a network environment (see P52, p48-53, Fig. 1, Wilson).
Hille does not explicitly teach wherein in a transmitting method step a transmission of at least one command to a receiving device: - is effected unidirectionally between a control device and a receiving device, and/or - is addressed directly to the receiving device, and/or - is effected by a transmitting device without a confirmation of receipt, preferably without an unsolicited confirmation of receipt, and/or - is effected without checking the readiness to receive of the receiving device, and/or - is effected with a fixedly predefined or predefinable routing of the at least one command.
However, Scherer from the same or similar field of controllable devices including furniture type devices, teaches wherein in a transmitting method step a transmission of at least one command to a receiving device: - is effected unidirectionally between a control device and a receiving device, and/or - is addressed directly to the receiving device, and/or - is effected by a transmitting device without a confirmation of receipt, preferably without an unsolicited confirmation of receipt, and/or - is effected without checking the readiness to receive of the receiving device, and/or - is effected with a fixedly predefined or predefinable routing of the at least one command (A command from a controller sent to a receiving device can be done unidirectionlly, see p90, Scherer).
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 control and transmission as described by the combination including Hille and incorporating unidirectional trcommunications, as taught by Scherer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more optimally send information when an exchange of data in not needed or required in sending a command (see p90, Scherer)
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hille, in view of Wilson, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2018/0321662 to Nixon et al., (hereinafter Nixon)
Hille further teaches an activating method step, an activation of the furniture element, in particular a drive or an activation of at least one part of an item of furniture by the furniture element, wirelessly received by the receiving device of the at least one furniture element (Drive can activate/drive movement of at least a head part item of bed furniture, via wireless, see p53, p48-53, Fig. 2, Hille)
Hille does not explicitly teach wherein in an method step, an element, in particular a drive or an activation of at least one part of an item, is effected through at least one control command received, wherein an activation of the at least one element with the control command is effected by a control device within a period of less than 100 ms, preferably less than 50 ms, from the transmission of the digital control command.
However, Nixon from the same or similar field of controllable devices, teaches wherein in an method step, an element, in particular a drive or an activation of at least one part of an item, is effected through at least one control command received, wherein an activation of the at least one element with the control command is effected by a control device within a period of less than 100 ms, preferably less than 50 ms, from the transmission of the digital control command (A command from a controller can be made at a speed between 50ms-100ms, see p89, p90, Nixon).
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 control and transmission as described by the combination including Hille and incorporating a specified period of control, as taught by Nixon.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better perform control at a desired rate of speed for a desired purpose and within the capabilities of a processor (see p89-90, Nixon)
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 9 and 15.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 2015/0130595 to Hille (hereinafter Hille), in view of US Patent Publication No. 2011/0205061 to Wilson et al., (hereinafter Wilson)
Regarding claim 1, Hille discloses a system comprising a furniture element (Furniture, see abs., Hille), preferably a furniture drive or a furniture lock (Drive, see abs., Hille), with which at least one part of an item of furniture is drivable or activatable (Drive can activate/drive movement of at least a head part item of bed furniture, see p53, Hille), and a control device for actuating the at least one furniture element with a control command through an operating command (A control device, such as at least an adaptation control device 5, can be used to actuate a drive based on a communicated commands, see p102-103, Fig. 2, 83, Hille), wherein the at least one control device comprises at least one transmitting device, with which at least one control command is wirelessly transmissible to the at least one furniture element (Device, such as 5, can transmit commands to furniture via communication link, such as 7, thus there is a transmitting device, see p102-103, Fig. 2, 83, Fig. 4, 65, Hille), at least one first receiving device, with which at least one digital operating command transmitted according to a first transmission protocol is receivable (A command, such as a command from a device 4, is transmitted to device 5 via a communication link such as 6. Therefore, there is a first receiving device at least in device 5, wherein the link can have a first standard/protocol, see p56-58, 63-64, p22, 25, Fig. 2, P15, Hille), and at least one second receiving device, with which at least one operating command transmitted according to a second transmission protocol, which is different from the first another transmission protocol, is receivable (A command, such as a command from a device 5, is transmitted to device 3 via a second communication link such as 7. Therefore, there is a second receiving device at least in device 3, wherein the link can have a second/different standard/protocol from a different device receiving commands, such as from a device 4 transmitted to device 5 via a communication link such as 6, see p65-66, p22, p56-58, 63-64,39, 25, Fig. 2, P15, p56-58, 63-64, Hille).
Hille does not explicitly teach a digital transmission.
However, Wilson from the same or similar field of controllable devices including furniture type devices, teaches a digital transmission (Data, that can include commands, is transmitted via communication links with protocols that include known digital based protocol standards (e.g., ieee 802.11x, Bluetooth, Zigbee, etc.,), see P52, p48-53, Fig. 1, Wilson).
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 control and transmission as described by Hille and incorporating digital transmission, as taught by Wilson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to comply with a desired chosen known protocol standard used in transmitting data within a network environment (see P52, p48-53, Fig. 1, Wilson).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sato et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2010/0283361 teaches a storage cabinet with lock, and a key and electronic key, and where after a lapse of a predetermined amount of time of several milliseconds, a lock control means outputs a control signal to switch circuits to bring contacts into other contacts. P129-P133
Warren et al., US. Patent No. 5,158,347 teaches a subcabinet movement initiator that includes a supervisory chip that contains internal timers that supply reset pulse signals at 50 and 100 millisecond.
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 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