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 12/09/2025.
Claims 1-28 are pending.
Claims 1, 12, 13, 16, 26, and 27 are amended.
Claim 28 is added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 02/04/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Rejections based on newly cited references(s) and interpretations of the previously cited prior art follow.
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, 6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No 2020/0237104 to Schramm et al., (hereinafter Schramm), in view of US Patent Publication No 2017/0143566 to Elku et al., (hereinafter Elku).
Regarding claim 1, Schramm teaches a smart furniture motion control system for controlling movement of one or more movable parts of a first furniture member (Control of a furniture, see p2-3, p14-15, 21-22, Schramm), the system comprising: one or more actuators configured to control movement of the one or more movable parts of the first furniture member (Actuators used in control and movement of furniture components, see p33, p2-3, p14-15, 21-22, Schramm); a Wi-Fi circuit configured to send and receive wireless signals (Wi-fi used in sending and receiving control of a furniture, where wi-fi is known wireless protocol, wireless fidelity, see p22, 28, 40, 64, figs., Schramm) a lockout switch configured to enable and disable a lockout mode (A seat can be locked, such as by a user/entity, meaning there the user/entity can switch to lock the furniture, thus there is a switching means to implement the locking of the seat (i.e. furniture), and this locked state is being interpreted as a lockout mode, see P49, p28, Fig. 1, p22, 26, Schramm); and control circuitry configured to control the one or more actuators (Controllers for controlling actuators, see p21-22, 26, 28,32, 40, 64, figs., Schramm), wherein the control circuitry is configured to, in response to receiving a smart furniture control signal from a cloud network via the Wi-Fi circuit (Sources of command to control furniture can include input via wi-fi and cloud transmission, see p64, 26, p21-22, 26, 28,32, 40, figs. 1, Schramm), drive the one or more actuators such that the one or more movable parts move in accordance with one or more operations specified by the smart furniture control signal (Actuators used in control and movement of furniture components based on input received, see p33, p2-3, p14-15, 21-22, p64, 26, p21-22, 26, 28,32, 40, figs., Schramm), wherein the lockout mode, when enabled, prevents the control circuitry from driving the one or more actuators in response to the smart furniture control signal (When seats are locked (i.e. a lockout mode is enabled), control box circuity performs motor lock-out that disables actuators, meaning the actuators are prevented from being operated, which has the implication that the seat (i.e. furniture) will not respond to user, such as a person who did not buy a ticket to use a specified seat, see P49, p28, Fig. 1, p22, 26, Schramm).
While Schramm implies wherein a lockout mode, when enabled, prevents control circuitry from implementing a command in response to a control signal (as cited above),
Elku from the same or similar field of adjustable furniture, more explicitly teaches wherein a lockout mode, when enabled, prevents control circuitry from implementing a command in response to a control signal (A furniture apparatus in a lockout option mode, prevents implementation of a command, such as by ignoring a command that will implement control (e.g. as releasing a siderail lock), in response to a furniture control signal, such as from a button on/for furniture control, see P371, 384, Elku).
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 and control as described by Schramm and incorporating preventing implementation of control in response to a signal, as taught by Elku.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better ensure that a furniture device in a lockout mode will not respond to input from an unauthorized/unwanted user that would otherwise serve to control a furniture unit, either because of safety or by desire of an operator of the furniture (see P371, 384, Elku).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Schramm and Elku teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Scharmm further teaches wherein the control circuitry is configured such that, in response to the smart furniture control signal indicating an operation of moving a first movable part from among the one or more movable parts of the first furniture member to a first position (An input is used to indicate control to move furniture to a first position, for example to a first height or moving a portion of a chair, see p15, p14-15, p33, p2-3, 21-22, p64, 26, p21-22, 26, 28,32, 40, figs., Schramm), the control circuitry drives the actuator such that the first movable part moves to the first position (Actuator is driven in control and movement of furniture components based on input received, see p33, p2-3, p14-15, 21-22, p64, 26, p21-22, 26, 28,32, 40, figs., Schramm).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Schramm and Elku teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schram further teaches wherein the control circuitry is configured such that, in response to the smart furniture control signal indicating a stop motion operation, the control circuitry stops driving the actuator such that movement of the one or more movable parts of the first furniture member ceases (A signal to stop movement used to stop movement, in response to actuation of the signal, p60, 69, Schramm).
Regarding claim 6, Schramm teaches a smart furniture member (Controlled furniture, see p2-3, p14-15, 21-22, Schramm) comprising: a seatback (At least a traditional chair, recliners, love seats, and sofas have seatbacks, see p30, p15, p2, 26, Schramm); a seat bottom (At least a traditional chair, recliners, love seats, and sofas have seat bottoms, as is their purpose to provide seating (i.e. seat bottoms), see p30, p15, p2, 26, Schramm); a frame (At least a traditional chair, recliners, love seats, and sofas have frames to provide the structure for seating, see p30, p15, p2, 26, Schramm); at least one movable legrest platform, headrest platform, lumbar platform, or back recline mechanism that is supported by the frame and movable relative to the frame (At least a chair or recliners that are motorized with headrest, reclining, and/or ottoman (i.e. leg rest) functions forming part of the furniture, see p30, p15, p2-3, 26, 14-15, 21-22, Schramm); and the smart furniture motion control system of claim 1, wherein the smart furniture member is the first furniture member (limitations of claim 1 is further rejected on the same grounds as claim 1, where controlled furniture is controlled via control movement of furniture, see p2-3, p14-15, 21-22, p33, p2-3, p14-15, 21-22, Schramm
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Schramm and Elku teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schramm further teaches wherein the furniture member further comprises a massager, and wherein the control circuitry is configured such that, in response to the smart furniture control signal indicating an operation of starting a massage function, the control circuitry controls the massager to turn on (Massage function of furniture, with activation, see p26, 41, 52-53, 71, Schramm).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Schramm and Elku teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schramm further teaches wherein the control circuitry is configured such that, in response to the smart furniture control signal indicating an operation of controlling a level of the massage function, the control circuitry controls the massager to control an intensity of the massage function (Massage function of furniture, with levels, thus there is control of intensity, see p41, p26, 52-53, 71, Schramm).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schramm, in view of Elku, and in further view of US Patent Publication No 2019/0029434 to Platzer (hereinafter Platzer)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Schramm and Elku teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schramm further teaches further comprising a memory, wherein a control circuitry is configured such that, in response to a smart furniture control signal indicating an operation of storing at least one current position of at least one movable part from among one or more movable parts of a first furniture member as a preset, the control circuitry stores the at least one current position of the at least one movable part as a preset in the memory (User-defined memory positions, meaning preset positions, can be stored in memory, see P41, 51, 66, 68, 36, 45, 51 Schramm).
While Schramm implies the storing of a current position, Platzer from the same or similar field of adjustable furniture, more explicitly teaches in response to a smart furniture control signal indicating an operation of storing at least one current position of at least one movable part from among one or more movable parts of a first furniture member as a preset, control circuitry stores the at least one current position of the at least one movable part as a preset in the memory (Programmable memory with a set of predefined adjustments that can be saved and selected for adjustment, see P33-34, Platzer).
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 and control as described by Schramm and incorporating programmable memory of adjustments, as taught by Platzer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide greater flexibility in controlling a by saving predefined adjustment that can facilitate a user simply selecting an adjustment to automatically adjust a position instead of having to continually input a set of adjustments (see P33-34, Platzer).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schramm, in view of Elku, and in further view of US Patent Publication No 2006/0226975 to Keebler et al., (hereinafter Keebler)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Schramm and Elku teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schramm further teaches a smart furniture control signal (Command signals associated with furniture, see p33, p2-3, p14-15, 21-22, p64, 26, p21-22, 26, 28,32, 40, figs., Schramm)
Schramm does not explicitly teach wherein a control circuitry is configured such that, in response to a control signal indicating an operation of finding a remote, the control circuitry transmits, to the remote, a signal for causing the remote to generate an audible sound and/or a visible flashing light pattern.
However, Keebler from the same or similar field of controlled devices, teaches wherein a control circuitry is configured such that, in response to a control signal indicating an operation of finding a remote, the control circuitry transmits, to the remote, a signal for causing the remote to generate an audible sound and/or a visible flashing light pattern (A remote control device can emit an audible tone or lights, in response to a signal, see p4, Keebler).
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 and control as described by Schramm and incorporating a remote that responds to a signal, as taught by Keebler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to increase the chances of a user detecting or finding a misplaced remote control by sending a signal that causes sensory feedback that a user can probably detect (see p4, Keebler).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schramm, in view of Elku, and in further view of US Patent Publication No 2014/0217785 to Arens et al., (hereinafter Arens)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Schramm and Elku teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schramm does not explicitly teach wherein a furniture member further comprises a heater, and wherein control circuitry is configured such that, in response to a smart furniture control signal indicating an operation of starting a heating function, control circuitry controls the heater to turn on.
However, Arens from the same or similar field of controlled furniture, teaches wherein a furniture member further comprises a heater, and wherein control circuitry is configured such that, in response to a smart furniture control signal indicating an operation of starting a heating function, control circuitry controls the heater to turn on (A furniture component, such as a chair, includes a heater, which can be accessed by remote control to turn on, see p33, 83, 59, p75, 87, 61, 68, fig. 3 Arens).
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 and control as described by Schramm and incorporating a heater that can be turned on, as taught by Arens.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide increased comfort to a user by permitting control and activation of a heating element that can provide heat to user that may feel cold (see p33, 83, 59, p75, 87, 61, 68, fig. 3 Arens).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Schramm, Elku, and Arens teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Arens further teaches wherein a control circuitry is configured such that, in response to a smart furniture control signal indicating an operation of controlling a level of a heating function, the control circuitry controls a heater to adjust the level of the heating function (A furniture component, such as a chair, includes a heater, which can be accessed by remote control to adjust heating to levels of heating, see 83, 59, p33, p75, 87, 61, 68, fig. 3 Arens).
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 and control as described by the combination including Schramm and incorporating a heater with heating levels, as taught by Arens.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide increased comfort and flexibility to a user by permitting control and activation of a heating element that can provide heat at varied levels so that a user that may feel cold can fine tune the amount of heat desired in a range (see p33, 83, 59, p75, 87, 61, 68, fig. 3 Arens).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schramm, in view of Elku, and in further view of US Patent Publication No 2022/0273105 to Liu et al., (hereinafter Liu)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Schramm and Elku teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schramm further teaches wherein a control circuitry is configured such that, in response to a smart furniture control signal indicating an operation of providing a massage function, the control circuitry controls the massager to provide the massage function (Massage function of furniture, with activation, see p26, 41, 52-53, 71, Schramm).
Schramm does not explicitly teach a massage function with a specified massage pattern from among a plurality of different massage patterns, a control circuitry controls a massager to provide the massage function with the specified massage pattern.
However, Liu from the same or similar field of furniture, teaches a massage function with a specified massage pattern from among a plurality of different massage patterns, a control circuitry controls a massager to provide the massage function with the specified massage pattern (A furniture component, such as a chair, includes massage with different massage modes patterns, see p6, p3, 4, 28, 34, Liu).
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 and control as described by Schramm and incorporating massage function with different massage patterns, as taught by Liu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide increased service to a user by providing various message mode patterns that may be more effective or provide greater comfort in different situations (see p3, p6, 4, Liu).
Claims 12-14, 16, 17, 19, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schramm, in view of US Patent Publication No 2019/0216228 to Bertinato et al., (hereinafter Bertinato ‘228)
Regarding claim 12, Schramm teaches a cloud network (Fig. 1, p64, 26, p21-22, 26, 28,32, 40, Schramm) comprising: memory storing computer-executable instructions (Memory, Fig. 8, p39, Schramm); and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions (Processors, see Fig. 8, p39, Schramm), wherein the computer-executable instructions include, receiving, from a remote device (A device, such as remotes, phones, tablets, etc., can be used to provide control commands, and are interpreted as a remote device, see P40, p22, Schramm), a first command indicating a requested operation of a smart furniture member (Control and movement of furniture based on input command received (i.e. requested operation), see p40, p33, p2-3, p14-15, 21-22, p64, 26, p21-22, 26, 28,32, 40, figs., Schramm); generating, based on the requested operation of the first command, one or more smart furniture control signals for controlling the smart furniture member (Control and movement of furniture based on input command received, meaning control signals are generated for controlling the furniture, see p15, p22, p40, p33, p2-3, p14-15, 21-22, p64, 26, p21-22, 26, 28,32, 40, figs., Schramm); and transmitting the one or more smart furniture control signals to the smart furniture member (Furniture movement controlled via actuators/motors of furniture based on input command received, meaning control signals are transmitted to furniture, see p15, p33, p22, p40, p2-3, p14-15, 21-22, p64, 26, p21-22, 26, 28,32, 40, figs., Schramm), wherein the smart furniture member is remote from the cloud network (A cloud server under its known term of the art meaning is a remote internet/network accessible device, thus a furniture member is remote from it, see p64, Fig. 1, p64, 26, p21-22, 26, 28,32, 40,, Schramm) and the remote device is at least one of a mobile user device and a smart home device (Phones, tablets, etc., can be used to provide control commands, see p64, P40, p22, 26, Schramm ), wherein the mobile user device and the smart home device are configured to receive voice or text commands (Voice inputs assist in providing an interface to a user, see P84, Schramm ).
While Schramm implies, wherein a device is configured to receive voice or text commands and perform natural language processing,
Bertinato ‘228 from the same or similar field of adjustable furniture, more explicitly teaches wherein a device is configured to receive voice or text commands and perform natural language processing (Voice control can be used to assist user in controlling furniture, by way of a device capable of employing natural language processing, see p11-12,Abs., Bertinato ‘228).
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 and control as described by Schramm and incorporating voice command and natural language processing, as taught by Bertinato ‘228.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide greater flexibility in controlling furniture by permitting a user to use speech commands instead of inputting commands, and to permit user to use commands worded in a “more human” manner by employing natural language processing that is known terminology indicative of a computer linguistic module using artificial intelligence that learns to understand the spoken word or voice commands with the aid of grammar rules, lexica, statistics, and algorithms (see p12,11, Bertinato ‘228).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Schramm and Bertinato ‘228 teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schramm further discloses wherein the receiving of the first command includes receiving the first command via the internet (Internet can be used in control, see p38, Fig. 1, 28, 40, 64, Schramm).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Schramm and Bertinato ‘228 teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schramm further discloses wherein the first command is an app command received from a user device running a smart furniture app (User devices such as phones or tablets with software application can be used for control and configuration of furniture, see p40, 28, Schramm ).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Schramm and Bertinato ‘228 teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schramm further discloses wherein the transmitting of the one or more smart furniture control signals to the smart furniture member includes transmitting the one or more smart furniture control signals to the smart furniture member via the internet (Control source can be through cloud (internet) network, thus includes transmission via internet, see Fig. 1, 64, p38, 28, 40, Schramm).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Schramm and Bertinato ‘228 teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schramm further discloses wherein the generated one or more smart furniture control signals are control signals for controlling the smart furniture member to move a first movable part, from among one or more movable parts of the smart furniture member, to a first position (An input is used to indicate control to move furniture to a first position, for example to a first height or moving a portion of a chair, see p15, p14-15, p33, p2-3, 21-22, p64, 26, p21-22, 26, 28,32, 40, figs., Schramm), and wherein the first movable part and the first position are indicated by the first command (Actuator is driven in control and movement of furniture components based on input received, meaning that the command indicates the position of movement, see p33, p2-3, p14-15, 21-22, p64, 26, p21-22, 26, 28,32, 40, figs., Schramm).
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 23 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
Claim 24 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
Claims 18, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schramm, in view of Bertinato ‘228, and in further view of Platzer.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Schramm and Bertinato ‘228 teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schram further teaches wherein computer-executable instructions include: displaying, on a mobile device, a status of a smart furniture member (A report (status) on the available actuators of a furniture can be displayed on an app. Connection status can be and power status can be detected and reported in the system, see p28, p61, Schramm).
While Schramm implies displaying a status of a smart furniture member, Platzer from the same or similar field of adjustable furniture, more explicitly teaches displaying a status of a smart furniture member (A visual display can provide feedback, current status, errors messages, etc. of furniture, see P37, Platzer).
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 and control as described by Schramm and incorporating displaying a status of furniture, as taught by Platzer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better inform a user of relevant information of the system that can help verify that the system is as expected or that an issue may have occurred that needs addressing or that limits operation (see P37, Platzer).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Schramm, Bertinato ‘228, and Platzer teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schramm further teaches wherein a status of a smart furniture member includes one or more of: a battery status, positions of components of the smart furniture member, a wireless connectivity status of the furniture member, a status of a do-not-disturb feature, a power status of the furniture member indicating whether the furniture member is connected to a power source, and a wireless connectivity status of the furniture member (A report (status) on the available actuators of a furniture , report on power status, connection status, etc., see p28, p61, Schramm).
Platzer further teaches wherein a status of a smart furniture member includes one or more of: a battery status, positions of components of the smart furniture member, a wireless connectivity status of the furniture member, a status of a do-not-disturb feature, a power status of the furniture member indicating whether the furniture member is connected to a power source, and a wireless connectivity status of the furniture member (Furniture feedback, current status, errors messages, etc. of furniture, see P37, Platzer).
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 and control as described by the combination including Schramm and incorporating specified statuses, as taught by Platzer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better inform a user of specific relevant information of the system that can help verify that the system is as expected or that an issue may have occurred that needs addressing or that limits operation (see P37, Platzer).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schramm, in view of Bertinato ‘228, and in further view of Keebler.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schramm, in view of Bertinato ‘228, and in further view of Arens.
Claim 21 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claim 22 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schramm, in view of Bertinato ‘228, and in further view of Liu.
Claim 25 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 11.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schramm, in view of Bertinato ‘228, and in further view of US Patent Publication No 2018/0199716 to Bertinato et al., (hereinafter Bertinato)
Regarding claim 15, Schramm discloses all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schramm further teaches wherein a first command is a voice command received from a virtual assistant device ( Voice inputs assist in providing an interface to a user, see P84, Schramm)
While Schramm implies wherein a first command is a voice command received from a virtual assistant device, Bertinato from the same or similar field of adjustable furniture, more explicitly teaches wherein a first command is a voice command received from a virtual assistant device (Voice control can be used to assist user in controlling furniture, see p22, Bertinato).
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 and control as described by Schramm and incorporating voice command, as taught by Bertinato.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide greater flexibility in controlling furniture by permitting a user to use speech commands instead of inputting commands (see p22, Bertinato).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schramm, in view of US Patent Publication No 2017/0295949 to Sizer et al., (hereinafter Sizer)
Regarding claim 28, Schramm discloses a smart furniture motion control system for controlling movement of one or more movable parts of a first furniture member (Control of a furniture, see p2-3, p14-15, 21-22, Schramm), the system comprising:
one or more actuators configured to control movement of the one or more movable parts of the first furniture member (Actuators used in control and movement of furniture components, see p33, p2-3, p14-15, 21-22, Schramm);
a Wi-Fi circuit configured to send and receive wireless signals (Wi-fi used in sending and receiving control of a furniture, where wi-fi is known wireless protocol, wireless fidelity, see p22, 28, 40, 64, figs., Schramm);
a Bluetooth transceiver (Control and receiving via a Bluetooth can be used, thus there is at least one Bluetooth transceiver, see p22, 28, 40, 63, figs., Schramm);
A cloud network (Cloud server, see Fig. 1, p64, 26, p21-22, 26, 28,32, 40, Schramm)
and control circuitry in communication with and electrically coupled to a Bluetooth transceiver and configured to control the one or more actuators (Control via at least a Bluetooth remote to control a furniture unit via controller, thus there is control circuitry in communication with and coupled to Bluetooth transceiver to control on or more actuators in or to reposition the furniture unit, see p22, 28, 40, 63, figs., Schramm).
Schramm does not explicitly teach a first Bluetooth transceiver in communication with and electrically coupled to a Wi-Fi circuit; a second Bluetooth transceiver configured to send and receive wireless signals to and from the first Bluetooth transceiver; and control circuitry in communication with and electrically coupled to the second Bluetooth transceiver and configured to control one or more actuators, wherein the Wi-Fi circuit is configured to receive a smart furniture control signal from a network and transmit the smart furniture control signal to the first Bluetooth transceiver, wherein the first Bluetooth transceiver is configured to receive the smart furniture control signal from the Wi-Fi circuit and wirelessly transmit the smart furniture control signal to the second Bluetooth transceiver;
However, Sizer from the same or similar field of adjustable furniture, teaches a first Bluetooth transceiver in communication with and electrically coupled to a Wi-Fi circuit (A bridging device is communicated to via Wi-fi and then feeds translated/converted operating command signals to a microcontroller in suitable format, such as Bluetooth. Therefore, there is a Wi-fi circuit, that receives Wi-fi signal that is translated to Bluetooth format, and must be connected to a first Bluetooth transceiver in order to be able to then communicate the converted signal via Bluetooth to a control device that uses Bluetooth, see p45, p13, 44-46, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, p38, Sizer); a second Bluetooth transceiver configured to send and receive wireless signals to and from the first Bluetooth transceiver (A bridging device is communicated to via Wi-fi and then feeds translated/converted operating command signals to a controller in suitable format, such as Bluetooth. Therefore, there must be a second Bluetooth transceiver in the controller in order to be able to communicate with a first Bluetooth transceiver that communicates the converted signal via Bluetooth to the controller, see p45, p13, 44-46, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, p38, Sizer); and control circuitry in communication with and electrically coupled to the second Bluetooth transceiver and configured to control one or more actuators (A controller that uses a specified communications format such as Bluetooth, controls a furniture unit by actuators based on communicated signals passed to the controller by Bluetooth. Therefore, there is control circuitry, in communication with a second Bluetooth transceiver of the system, and configured to control actuators, see P42-46, Fig. 1, 13, p38, Fig. 3, Abs., Sizer), wherein the Wi-Fi circuit is configured to receive a smart furniture control signal from a network and transmit the smart furniture control signal to the first Bluetooth transceiver, wherein the first Bluetooth transceiver is configured to receive the smart furniture control signal from the Wi-Fi circuit and wirelessly transmit the smart furniture control signal to the second Bluetooth transceiver (A bridging device in a network of wireless devices, receives a signal for furniture control, such as repositioning command, via Wi-fi and then feeds translated/converted operating command signals to a microcontroller in suitable format, such as Bluetooth, and controller implements control of actuators for the furniture control. Therefore, there is a Wi-fi circuit, that receives Wi-fi signal that is translated to Bluetooth format, and must be connected to a first Bluetooth transceiver in order to be able to then communicate the converted signal via Bluetooth to a control device that needs to have a second Bluetooth transceiver to receive the converted Bluetooth signal, see p40-46, Fig. 1, Abs., p13, 44-46, Fig. 3, p38, Sizer).
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 and control as described by Schramm and incorporating Wifi circuit, two Bluetooth transceivers, control circuitry, and signal transmission and receiving through the mentioned devices as taught by Sizer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better provide a bridging device that is able to receive signals in a ubiquitous wireless signal format, such as Wi-fi that is prevalent in local area networks and user devices that will likely use the relatively longer range wi-fi for local area communications within a building, and be able to translate/convert said wi-fi format into another known communications format that may be employed by a local controlling device of smart furniture, and for the furniture system to include the required hardware communications components for wi-fi and Bluetooth communications to receive and transmit respective communications formats (see p40-46, Fig. 1, Abs., p13, 44-46, Fig. 3, p38, Sizer).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jo, US. Patent Publication No. 2019/0381271 teaches a massage chair and operation thereof that includes voice control and natural language processing.
Schaaf et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2017/0172827 teaches a furniture apparatus that prevent actuation of certain actuatable devices, and may ignore user input signals associated with a control adjustment.
Conclusion
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 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