DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Claim(s) 101, 105, 107, 112-115, 119, 121, 126-128, and 159-164 are pending and are rejected.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 08/04/2025.
Claims 101, 105, 107, 112-115, 119, 121, and 126-128 are amended. Claims 163-164 are new. Accordingly, the amended claims and the new claims are being fully considered by the examiner.
In response to applicant’s amendments to claims 105, 107, 112-114, 119, 121, and 126-128, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of these claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 101, 114, 115, 128 and 163-164 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zail (US10577788B1) [hereinafter Zail] and further in view of Underwood et al. (US5309686A) [hereinafter Underwood].
Claim 101 (amended):
Regarding claim 101, Zail discloses, A system for moving architectural elements, the system comprising: [(col. 4, lines 34-39) “FIG. 2 further shows a bed 140, cabinet 144 and storage and support containers 148. Each of those may be moved within room 102 depending on the configuration of room 102” … (col. 7, lines 57-59) “a motor and control switch may be provided for automated movement of the bed between the deployed and stowed positions.”];
a first architectural element movable along a first track defining a first axis, wherein the first architectural element comprises at least one of a wall and a first furniture item; [(col. 4, lines 25-33) “there may be multiple wall panels” “120 b (or more). Each panel 120 may be mounted in distinct planes within track 112 d so that the panels may retract behind each other (as shown in FIG. 2) or extend to cover the side of room 102 as explained below. Track 112 d may in turn be mounted to longitudinal tracks 110 at the ceiling of room 102 to move longitudinally from an extended position shown in FIG. 2 to a compacted position explained below.”
Zail teaches, first architectural element such as wall 120 moves along a first track 112a/112b];
a second furniture item movable along a second track [(col. 4, lines 23-25) “The wall panels 122 may be affixed at their upper end to transverse track 112 d so as to move transversely within the track 112 d.”
Zail teaches, second furniture item 122a movable along a second track 112c/112d (e.g.; fig. 2)], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, a second furniture item movable along a second track defining a second axis, the second track being attached to and fixed on the first architectural element, wherein the second furniture item comprises at least one of a bed, a desk, a couch, a closet, and a shelf, and wherein the second axis is the same as the first axis.
However, Underwood discloses, a second furniture item movable along a second track defining a second axis, [(col. 4, lines 35-38) “FIG. 1 shows a work surface bracket 40 attached to lower track 32. A work surface 42 may be attached by screws (not shown) to work surface bracket 40 creating a desk top in the office environment.”
Underwood teaches, as shown in figure 1, second furniture item, work surface 42/desktop can move along second track 32 that defines a second axis (note: first track 30, in the first axis)];
the second track being attached to and fixed on the first architectural element, [(col. 4, lines 35-38) “FIG. 1 shows a work surface bracket 40 attached to lower track 32. A work surface 42 may be attached by screws (not shown) to work surface bracket 40 creating a desk top in the office environment.”… (col. 4, lines 47-49) “A panel unit 60 is shown attached to the work space management system 20 by tracks” “32.”
Examiner notes that, in light of the broadest reasonable interpretation provided in the response to arguments section, Underwood teaches, as shown in figure 1, second track 32 affixed on a first architectural element, panel/wall element 60];
wherein the second furniture item comprises at least one of a bed, a desk, a couch, a closet, and a shelf, and [(col. 4, lines 35-38) “FIG. 1 shows a work surface bracket 40 attached to lower track 32. A work surface 42 may be attached by screws (not shown) to work surface bracket 40 creating a desk top in the office environment.”
Underwood teaches, second furniture item, work surface 42 is a desk];
wherein the second axis is the same as the first axis. [(col. 4, lines 35-38) “FIG. 1 shows a work surface bracket 40 attached to lower track 32. A work surface 42 may be attached by screws (not shown) to work surface bracket 40 creating a desk top in the office environment.”
Examiner notes that the tracks are being in the same axis is given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification such that the lines are at the same x or y or z axis.
Underwood teaches, as shown in figure 1, the tracks 30 and 32 are at the same axis (e.g.; both are at x axis for example)];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined a second furniture item such as a desktop that can move along a second track in a second axis, where the second track is affixed to and attached to the first architectural element, wherein the second axis is the same as the first axis to have the advantage of changing the layout simply and easily at any time taught by Underwood with the system taught by Zail as discussed above in order to have a reasonable expectation of success such as be able to change the layout simply and easily at any time [Underwood: (col. 2, lines 39-41) “the physical layout of an office, either private or open, may be changed simply and easily at any time”].
Claim 114 (amended):
Regarding claim 114, Zail and Underwood disclose all the elements of claim 101, but Zail does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first architectural element and the second furniture item are arranged in a configuration selected from a group consisting of horizontally adjacent, vertically adjacent, and nested.
However, Underwood discloses, wherein the first architectural element and the furniture item are arranged in a configuration selected from a group consisting of horizontally adjacent, vertically adjacent, and nested [Examiner notes that claim requires the first architectural element and the second architectural element are arranged in a configuration selected from only one of horizontally adjacent, vertically adjacent, and nested.
Underwood teaches, as shown in Fig. 1; panel unit 60 and work surface 42 are in a vertically adjacent configuration].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the above described teachings of Underwood with the system taught by Zail and Underwood as discussed above for the same reasons as described above in claim 101.
Claim 115 (amended):
Regarding claim 115, Zail discloses, A method of moving architectural elements, the method comprising: [(col. 4, lines 34-39) “FIG. 2 further shows a bed 140, cabinet 144 and storage and support containers 148. Each of those may be moved within room 102 depending on the configuration of room 102” … (col. 7, lines 57-59) “a motor and control switch may be provided for automated movement of the bed between the deployed and stowed positions.”];
moving a first architectural element along a first track defining a first axis, wherein the first architectural element comprises at least one of a wall and a first furniture item; [(col. 4, lines 25-33) “there may be multiple wall panels” “120 b (or more). Each panel 120 may be mounted in distinct planes within track 112 d so that the panels may retract behind each other (as shown in FIG. 2) or extend to cover the side of room 102 as explained below. Track 112 d may in turn be mounted to longitudinal tracks 110 at the ceiling of room 102 to move longitudinally from an extended position shown in FIG. 2 to a compacted position explained below.”
Zail teaches, first architectural element such as wall 120 moves along a first track 112a/112b];
moving a second furniture item along a second track [(col. 4, lines 23-25) “The wall panels 122 may be affixed at their upper end to transverse track 112 d so as to move transversely within the track 112 d.”
Zail teaches, second furniture item 122a movable along a second track 112c/112d (e.g.; fig. 2)], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, moving a second furniture item along a second track defining a second axis, the second track being attached to and fixed on the first architectural element, wherein the second furniture item comprises at least one of a bed, a desk, a couch, a closet, and a shelf wherein the second axis is the same as the first axis.
However, Underwood discloses, moving a second furniture item along a second track defining a second axis, [(col. 4, lines 35-38) “FIG. 1 shows a work surface bracket 40 attached to lower track 32. A work surface 42 may be attached by screws (not shown) to work surface bracket 40 creating a desk top in the office environment.”
Underwood teaches, as shown in figure 1, second furniture item, work surface 42/desktop can move along second track 32 that defines a second axis (note: first track 30, in the first axis)];
the second track being attached to and fixed on the first architectural element, [(col. 4, lines 35-38) “FIG. 1 shows a work surface bracket 40 attached to lower track 32. A work surface 42 may be attached by screws (not shown) to work surface bracket 40 creating a desk top in the office environment.”… (col. 4, lines 47-49) “A panel unit 60 is shown attached to the work space management system 20 by tracks” “32.”
Examiner notes that, in light of the broadest reasonable interpretation provided in the response to arguments section, Underwood teaches, as shown in figure 1, second track 32 affixed on a first architectural element, panel/wall element 60];
wherein the second furniture item comprises at least one of a bed, a desk, a couch, a closet, and a shelf [(col. 4, lines 35-38) “FIG. 1 shows a work surface bracket 40 attached to lower track 32. A work surface 42 may be attached by screws (not shown) to work surface bracket 40 creating a desk top in the office environment.”
Underwood teaches, second furniture item, work surface 42 is a desk];
wherein the second axis is the same as the first axis. [(col. 4, lines 35-38) “FIG. 1 shows a work surface bracket 40 attached to lower track 32. A work surface 42 may be attached by screws (not shown) to work surface bracket 40 creating a desk top in the office environment.”
Examiner notes that the tracks are being in the same axis is given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification such that the lines are at the same x or y or z axis.
Underwood teaches, as shown in figure 1, the tracks 30 and 32 are at the same axis (e.g.; both are at x axis for example)];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined a second furniture item such as a desktop that can move along a second track in a second axis, where the second track is affixed to and attached to the first architectural element, wherein the second axis is the same as the first axis to have the advantage of changing the layout simply and easily at any time taught by Underwood with the method taught by Zail as discussed above in order to have a reasonable expectation of success such as be able to change the layout simply and easily at any time [Underwood: (col. 2, lines 39-41) “the physical layout of an office, either private or open, may be changed simply and easily at any time”].
Claim 128 (amended):
Regarding claim 128, Zail and Underwood disclose all the elements of claim 115, but Zail does not explicitly disclose, the first architectural element and the second furniture item are arranged in a configuration selected from a group consisting of horizontally adjacent, vertically adjacent, and nested.
However, Underwood discloses, the first architectural element and the second furniture item are arranged in a configuration selected from a group consisting of horizontally adjacent, vertically adjacent, and nested. [Examiner notes that claim requires the first architectural element and the second architectural element are arranged in a configuration selected from only one of horizontally adjacent, vertically adjacent, and nested.
Underwood teaches, as shown in Fig. 1; panel unit 60 and work surface 42 are in a vertically adjacent configuration].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the above described teachings of Underwood with the method taught by Zail and Underwood as discussed above for the same reasons as described above in claim 115.
Claim 163 (new):
Regarding claim 163, Zail and Underwood disclose all the elements of claim 101, but Zail does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first architectural element and the second furniture item are arranged in a configuration selected from a group consisting of vertically adjacent and nested.
However, Underwood discloses, wherein the first architectural element and the second furniture item are arranged in a configuration selected from a group consisting of vertically adjacent and nested. [Examiner notes that claim requires the first architectural element and the second architectural element are arranged in a configuration selected from only one of vertically adjacent and nested.
Underwood teaches, as shown in Fig. 1; panel unit 60 and work surface 42 are in a vertically adjacent configuration].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the above described teachings of Underwood with the system taught by Zail and Underwood as discussed above for the same reasons as described above in claim 101.
Claim 164 (new):
Regarding claim 164, Zail and Underwood disclose all the elements of claim 115, but Zail does not explicitly disclose, the first architectural element and the second
However, Underwood discloses, the first architectural element and the second [Examiner notes that claim requires the first architectural element and the second architectural element are arranged in a configuration selected from only one of vertically adjacent and nested.
Underwood teaches, as shown in Fig. 1; panel unit 60 and work surface 42 are in a vertically adjacent configuration].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the above described teachings of Underwood with the method taught by Zail and Underwood as discussed above for the same reasons as described above in claim 115.
Claim(s) 105, 107, 112, 119, 121, 126, and 161-162 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zail and Underwood and further in view of Parker et al. (US20110068663A1) [hereinafter Parker].
Claim 105 (amended):
Regarding claim 105, Zail and Underwood disclose all the elements of claim 101,
Zail further discloses, the second furniture item is moved by a second actuator that operates without electrical power. [(col. 4, lines 66-67 to col. 5, lines 1-2) “FIGS. 4 and 5 are similar to FIGS. 2 and 3, with the change that a wall panel 122 b has been moved transversely along track 112 d so that now wall panels 122 a and 122 b completely cover the side of room 102.”
Zail teaches, as shown in fig. 2; wall 122 actuated to move on tracks 112c/112d without any electrical power such as manual push movement], but Zail and Underwood do not explicitly disclose, wherein the first architectural element is moved by a first actuator that receives electrical power from a power source.
However, Parker discloses, wherein the first architectural element is moved by a first actuator that receives electrical power from a power source. [(¶27) “three shelf units 10, 12, and 14 with shelves 16. The shelf units are mounted to tracks 18 via wheels 20.”… (¶9) “the body has a plurality of load bearing track engaging wheels that allow the body to move back and forth along a track,” “an electric drive mechanism for a body, wherein the body has a plurality of load bearing track engaging wheels that allow the body to move back and forth along a track, the electric drive mechanism including an electric motor, a non-load bearing drive wheel that is attached with respect to the body so that it engages a stationary surface adjacent the body, a drive coupling means between the electric motor and the drive wheel wherein actuation of the electric motor causes rotation of the drive wheel which moves the body along the track,”
Parker disclose, electrical motor actuates the first shelf 10 to move along the tracks].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the moving architectural elements on the tracks using the electrical drive mechanism using electrical power to have the ability of retro-fitting (docked) electrical drive mechanism for track mounted bodies such as shelf units to existing mechanically hand operable shelf units taught by Parker with the system taught by Zail and Underwood as discussed above in order to have a reasonable expectation of success such as to have the ability of retro-fitting (docked) electrical drive mechanism for track mounted bodies such as shelf units to existing mechanically hand operable shelf units [Parker: (¶38) “unique means of providing an electrical drive mechanism for track mounted bodies such as shelf units that can be installed on new systems or retro-fitted (docked) to existing mechanically hand operable shelf units”].
Claim 107 (amended):
Regarding claim 107, Zail and Underwood disclose all the elements of claim 101, but they do not explicitly disclose, wherein the first architectural element and the second furniture item are moved by actuators that receive electrical power from a power source.
However, Parker discloses, wherein the first architectural element and the second furniture item are moved by actuators that receive electrical power from a power source. [(¶27) “three shelf units 10, 12, and 14 with shelves 16. The shelf units are mounted to tracks 18 via wheels 20.” … (¶9) “the body has a plurality of load bearing track engaging wheels that allow the body to move back and forth along a track,” … “an electric drive mechanism for a body, wherein the body has a plurality of load bearing track engaging wheels that allow the body to move back and forth along a track, the electric drive mechanism including an electric motor, a non-load bearing drive wheel that is attached with respect to the body so that it engages a stationary surface adjacent the body, a drive coupling means between the electric motor and the drive wheel wherein actuation of the electric motor causes rotation of the drive wheel which moves the body along the track,”
Parker teaches, electrical motor actuates the first shelf 10 and second shelf 12 to move along the tracks].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the above described teachings of Parker with the system taught by Zail and Underwood as discussed above for the same reasons as described above in claim 105.
Claim 112 (amended):
Regarding claim 112, Zail and Underwood disclose all the elements of claim 101, but they do not explicitly disclose, wherein the first architectural element and the second furniture item move independently of each other.
However, Parker discloses, wherein the first architectural element and the second furniture item move independently of each other. [(¶35) “Thus as illustrated in FIG. 3 each of the shelf units includes an electrical driving means and each operable independent of one another.” …(¶27) “three shelf units 10, 12, and 14 with shelves 16. The shelf units are mounted to tracks 18 via wheels 20.” … (¶9) “the body has a plurality of load bearing track engaging wheels that allow the body to move back and forth along a track,” … (¶10) “a first controller that causes the body to move along the track in one direction and a second controller that causes the body to move along the track in the opposite direction.”
Parker teaches, electrical motor actuates the first shelf 10 and second shelf 12 to move along the tracks independently].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the above described teachings of Parker with the system taught by Zail and Underwood as discussed above for the same reasons as described above in claim 105.
Claim 119 (amended):
Regarding claim 119, Zail and Underwood disclose all the elements of claim 115,
Zail further discloses, the second furniture item is moved by a second actuator that operates without electrical power. [(col. 4, lines 66-67 to col. 5, lines 1-2) “FIGS. 4 and 5 are similar to FIGS. 2 and 3, with the change that a wall panel 122 b has been moved transversely along track 112 d so that now wall panels 122 a and 122 b completely cover the side of room 102.”
Zail teaches, as shown in fig. 2; wall 122 actuated to move on tracks 112c/112d without any electrical power such as manual push movement], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, the first architectural element is moved by a first actuator that receives electrical power from a power source.
However, Parker discloses, the first architectural element is moved by a first actuator that receives electrical power from a power source [(¶27) “three shelf units 10, 12, and 14 with shelves 16. The shelf units are mounted to tracks 18 via wheels 20.”… (¶9) “the body has a plurality of load bearing track engaging wheels that allow the body to move back and forth along a track,” “an electric drive mechanism for a body, wherein the body has a plurality of load bearing track engaging wheels that allow the body to move back and forth along a track, the electric drive mechanism including an electric motor, a non-load bearing drive wheel that is attached with respect to the body so that it engages a stationary surface adjacent the body, a drive coupling means between the electric motor and the drive wheel wherein actuation of the electric motor causes rotation of the drive wheel which moves the body along the track,”
Parker disclose, electrical motor actuates the first shelf 10 to move along the tracks].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the moving architectural elements on the tracks using the electrical drive mechanism using electrical power to have the ability of retro-fitting (docked) electrical drive mechanism for track mounted bodies such as shelf units to existing mechanically hand operable shelf units taught by Parker with the method taught by Zail and Underwood as discussed above in order to have a reasonable expectation of success such as to have the ability of retro-fitting (docked) electrical drive mechanism for track mounted bodies such as shelf units to existing mechanically hand operable shelf units [Parker: (¶38) “unique means of providing an electrical drive mechanism for track mounted bodies such as shelf units that can be installed on new systems or retro-fitted (docked) to existing mechanically hand operable shelf units”].
Claim 121 (amended):
Regarding claim 121, Zail and Underwood disclose all the elements of claim 115, but they do not explicitly disclose, wherein the first architectural element and the second furniture item are moved by actuators configured to receive electrical power from a power source.
However, Parker discloses, wherein the first architectural element and the second furniture item are moved by actuators that receive electrical power from a power source. [(¶27) “three shelf units 10, 12, and 14 with shelves 16. The shelf units are mounted to tracks 18 via wheels 20.” … (¶9) “the body has a plurality of load bearing track engaging wheels that allow the body to move back and forth along a track,” … “an electric drive mechanism for a body, wherein the body has a plurality of load bearing track engaging wheels that allow the body to move back and forth along a track, the electric drive mechanism including an electric motor, a non-load bearing drive wheel that is attached with respect to the body so that it engages a stationary surface adjacent the body, a drive coupling means between the electric motor and the drive wheel wherein actuation of the electric motor causes rotation of the drive wheel which moves the body along the track,”
Parker teaches, electrical motor actuates the first shelf 10 and second shelf 12 to move along the tracks].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the above described teachings of Parker with the method taught by Zail and Underwood as discussed above for the same reasons as described above in claim 115.
Claim 126 (amended):
Regarding claim 126, Zail and Underwood disclose all the elements of claim 115, but they do not explicitly disclose, wherein moving the first architectural element and moving the second furniture item occur independently of each other.
However, Parker discloses, wherein moving the first architectural element and moving the second furniture item occur independently of each other. [(¶35) “Thus as illustrated in FIG. 3 each of the shelf units includes an electrical driving means and each operable independent of one another.” …(¶27) “three shelf units 10, 12, and 14 with shelves 16. The shelf units are mounted to tracks 18 via wheels 20.” … (¶9) “the body has a plurality of load bearing track engaging wheels that allow the body to move back and forth along a track,” … (¶10) “a first controller that causes the body to move along the track in one direction and a second controller that causes the body to move along the track in the opposite direction.”
Parker teaches, electrical motor actuates the first shelf 10 and second shelf 12 to move along the tracks independently].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the above described teachings of Parker with the method taught by Zail and Underwood as discussed above for the same reasons as described above in claim 105.
Claim 161:
Regarding claim 161, Zail, Underwood and Parker disclose all the elements of claim 105, but Zail doesn’t explicitly disclose, wherein the second furniture item further comprises at least one of the bed, the desk, and the couch.
However, Underwood discloses, wherein the second furniture item further comprises at least one of the bed, the desk, and the couch [(col. 4, lines 35-38) “FIG. 1 shows a work surface bracket 40 attached to lower track 32. A work surface 42 may be attached by screws (not shown) to work surface bracket 40 creating a desk top in the office environment.”
Examiner notes that claim requires second furniture item further comprises only one of the bed, the desk, and the couch
Underwood teaches, second furniture item, work surface 42 is a desk];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the above described teachings of Underwood with the system taught by Zail, Underwood and Parker as discussed above for the same reasons as described above in claim 105.
Claim 162:
Regarding claim 162, Zail, Underwood and Parker disclose all the elements of claim 119, but Zail does not explicitly disclose, wherein the second furniture item further comprises at least one of the bed, the desk, and the couch.
However, Underwood discloses, wherein the second furniture item further comprises at least one of the bed, the desk, and the couch [(col. 4, lines 35-38) “FIG. 1 shows a work surface bracket 40 attached to lower track 32. A work surface 42 may be attached by screws (not shown) to work surface bracket 40 creating a desk top in the office environment.”
Examiner notes that claim requires second furniture item further comprises only one of the bed, the desk, and the couch
Underwood teaches, second furniture item, work surface 42 is a desk];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the above described teachings of Underwood with the method taught by Zail, Underwood and Parker as discussed above for the same reasons as described above in claim 119.
Claim(s) 113 and 127 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zail and Underwood, and further in view of Johnson et al. (US20150033642A1) [hereinafter Johnson].
Claim 113 (amended):
Regarding claim 113, Zail and Underwood disclose all the elements of claim 101, but they do not explicitly disclose, wherein the first architectural element and the second furniture item move in unison.
However, Johnson discloses, wherein the first architectural element and the second furniture item move in unison. [(¶51) “Modular units 12 can be a variety of different types of shelving, cabinets, storage units, work units including fold out work or support surfaces 13 and the like.” … (¶66) “In FIG. 2,” “mobile wall 10 has been pushed back against the adjacent permanent standing wall of living space 1.”… (¶68) “In FIG. 4, mobile wall 10 has been moved into position closer to bed 15, thus making the sleeping area somewhat smaller.”
Examiner notes that the limitation “unison” is broad such that, in broadest reasonable interpretation it means that the first architectural element and the second furniture item can move in agreement or together)
Johnson teaches, as shown in fig 2. two modular units 12 are moving together in unison such that they are pushed back against the adjacent permanent standing wall and in figs. 4-5 the two modular units 12 are moving together in unison such that they are moved into position closer to bed 15].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the capability of moving the first architectural element and the second furniture item in unison to have a highly configurable space that can be configured as needed and to have a larger useful area by moving the movable furniture/architectures when needed taught by Johnson with the system taught by Zail and Underwood as discussed above in order to have a reasonable expectation of success such as to have a highly configurable space that can be configured as needed and to have a larger useful area by moving the movable furniture/architectures when needed [Johnson: (¶66) “This creates a larger entertainment area, and also allows one to expand mobile island 50 into a dining table and move it into a better position for use as a dining table for entertaining guests, as has been shown in FIG. 2.”].
Claim 127 (amended):
Regarding claim 127, Zail and Underwood disclose all the elements of claim 115, but they do not explicitly disclose, moving the first architectural element and moving the second furniture item occur in unison.
However, Johnson discloses, moving the first architectural element and moving the second furniture item occur in unison. [(¶51) “Modular units 12 can be a variety of different types of shelving, cabinets, storage units, work units including fold out work or support surfaces 13 and the like.” … (¶66) “In FIG. 2,” “mobile wall 10 has been pushed back against the adjacent permanent standing wall of living space 1.”… (¶68) “In FIG. 4, mobile wall 10 has been moved into position closer to bed 15, thus making the sleeping area somewhat smaller.”
Examiner notes that the limitation “unison” is broad such that, in broadest reasonable interpretation it means that the first architectural element and the second furniture item can move in agreement or together)
Johnson teaches, as shown in fig 2. two modular units 12 are moving together in unison such that they are pushed back against the adjacent permanent standing wall and in figs. 4-5 the two modular units 12 are moving together in unison such that they are moved into position closer to bed 15].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the capability of moving the first architectural element and the second furniture item in unison taught by Johnson with the method taught by Zail and Underwood for the same reasons as described above in claim 113.
Claim(s) 159-160 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zail, Underwood and Parker, and further in view of Stansfield et al. (US5228820A) [hereinafter Stansfield].
Claim 159:
Regarding claim 159, Zail, Underwood and Parker disclose all the elements of claim 105, but Zail does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first actuator comprises a motor and the second actuator comprises a friction drive.
However, Parker discloses, the first actuator comprises a motor [ (¶9) “an electric drive mechanism for a body, wherein the body has a plurality of load bearing track engaging wheels that allow the body to move back and forth along a track, the electric drive mechanism including an electric motor, a non-load bearing drive wheel that is attached with respect to the body so that it engages a stationary surface adjacent the body, a drive coupling means between the electric motor and the drive wheel wherein actuation of the electric motor causes rotation of the drive wheel which moves the body along the track,”
Parker teaches, electrical motor actuates the first shelf 10 to move along the tracks], but does not explicitly disclose, the second actuator comprises a friction drive.
However, Stansfield discloses, the second actuator comprises a friction drive. [(col. 10, lines 37-43) “The carrier is provided with a retaining shoe 216 which interlocks with a bracket that is mounted on the buffer station so as to hold the carrier in position with respect to the buffer station. The shoe 216 supports the carrier against lateral forces exerted by the contact of the friction drive wheels extending from the interface shelf of the buffer station.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the actuating mechanism with friction drive that is used for a furniture item such as a shelf movement to have a moving mechanism that is relatively simple and requires reduced maintenance taught by Stansfield with the system taught by Zail, Underwood and Parker as discussed above to have a reasonable expectation of success such as to have a moving mechanism that is relatively simple and requires reduced maintenance [Stansfield: (col. 10, lines 59-60) “relatively simple and requires reduced maintenance”].
Claim 160:
Regarding claim 160, Zail, Underwood and Parker disclose all the elements of claim 119, but Zail does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first actuator comprises a motor and the second actuator comprises a friction drive.
However, Parker discloses, the first actuator comprises a motor [ (¶9) “an electric drive mechanism for a body, wherein the body has a plurality of load bearing track engaging wheels that allow the body to move back and forth along a track, the electric drive mechanism including an electric motor, a non-load bearing drive wheel that is attached with respect to the body so that it engages a stationary surface adjacent the body, a drive coupling means between the electric motor and the drive wheel wherein actuation of the electric motor causes rotation of the drive wheel which moves the body along the track,”
Parker teaches, electrical motor actuates the first shelf 10 to move along the tracks], but does not explicitly disclose, the second actuator comprises a friction drive.
However, Stansfield discloses, the second actuator comprises a friction drive. [(col. 10, lines 37-43) “The carrier is provided with a retaining shoe 216 which interlocks with a bracket that is mounted on the buffer station so as to hold the carrier in position with respect to the buffer station. The shoe 216 supports the carrier against lateral forces exerted by the contact of the friction drive wheels extending from the interface shelf of the buffer station.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the actuating mechanism with friction drive that is used for a furniture item such as a shelf movement to have a moving mechanism that is relatively simple and requires reduced maintenance taught by Stansfield with the method taught by Zail, Underwood and Parker as discussed above to have a reasonable expectation of success such as to have a moving mechanism that is relatively simple and requires reduced maintenance [Stansfield: (col. 10, lines 59-60) “relatively simple and requires reduced maintenance”].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 101 and 115 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant responds
(a) Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to claim 101, the Office Action admits that Zail "doesn't explicitly ... disclose the second track being attached to the first architectural element."4 Instead, the Office Action references Parker as teaching this limitation..
However, Applicant respectfully submits that Parker fails to describe, teach, or suggest at least "the second track being attached to and fixed on the first architectural element" as presently recited in amended independent claim 101.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Zail and Parker, individually or in proper combination, does not teach or suggest all of the limitations of amended independent claim 101. Independent claim 115 has been amended to include limitations similar to independent claim 101 and is also patentable over Zail and Parker for at least the same reasons.
Applicant respectfully submits that Johnson and Stansfield each fail to remedy the deficiencies of Zail and Parker, as the references, individually or in proper combination, fail to describe, teach, or suggest each and every limitation recited in amended claims 101 and 115.
(Page(s): 6-7)
With respect to (a) above, Examiner appreciates the interpretative description given by Applicant in response.
Examiner notes that, considering the applicant’s arguments for this amended features, the ¶28-¶31 ¶114-¶117 doesn’t provide any description of meaning of the second track being fixed to the first architectural element. ¶117 describes an optional feature, one of the moveable elements 100a, 100b remains stationary and only the other moveable element moves; however, it doesn’t provide any description of meaning of the second track being fixed to the first architectural element. Fig. 13 describes, the second track 108 b is attached to the first moveable element 100 a. Fig. 14A and 14B only shows the schematics, but doesn’t provide any additional description of the meaning of “fixed” in the limitation “second track being attached to and fixed on the first architectural element.”
Therefore, examiner gave the broadest reasonable interpretation to this limitation in light of the specification, and according to the plain meaning of this limitation “fixed to the second architectural element,” it is interpreted that the second track is affixed to and is in contact with the first architectural element.
In response to applicant’s amendments to the claims 101 and 115, a new grounds of rejections in view of Underwood has been introduced as described in the current office action.
Combination of Zail and Underwood teach all the limitations of claims 101 and 115 as described in the current office action.
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but for the above described reasons, the arguments are moot; therefore, the pending claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of the references as set forth in the current office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited document mailed on 07/10/2024.
Zipp et al. (US20090140620A1) - Furniture comprising at least one second furniture part which can be motor-driven in relation to a first furniture part:
The moveable and/or driven furniture parts can be drawers, doors and/or flaps. The moveable furniture parts may be assigned to a joint first furniture part, in particular a body, or may be assigned, separated from each other, to a plurality of furniture parts and/or bodies (¶21).
Chance (US20060073713A1) - Patient flatwall system:
A patient flatwall system may comprise a generally horizontal track extending generally parallel and adjacent to a wall of a hospital room, and at least one patient flatwall coupled to the track for movement therealong and for rotational movement relative thereto about a generally vertical axis. At least one flatwall may have a plurality of service connectors. The wall of the hospital room may comprise a wall located adjacent a head end of a patient support, such as a hospital bed (¶05).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MOHAMMED SHAFAYET whose telephone number is (571)272-8239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571)272-2279. 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.
/M.S./
Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 2116
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116