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 05/07/2026, with a request for continued examination filed 05/07/2026.
Claims 1-28 are pending.
Claims 1, 12, and 28 are amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/07/2026, regarding claim 28 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Rejections based on a newly cited reference(s) 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.
Claim 28 is 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 2017/0295949 to Sizer et al., (hereinafter Sizer), and in further view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN107453961A to Sun et al., (hereinafter Sun. English translation of CN107453961A is included and cited in this office action).
Regarding claim 28, 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 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 Wi-Fi circuit being disposed in a connect box that is physically separate from a first furniture member; a first Bluetooth transceiver comprising a Bluetooth radio, disposed in a connect box, in communication with and electrically coupled to a Wi-Fi circuit by an electrical connection; a second Bluetooth transceiver that is physically separate from a first Bluetooth transceiver and disposed in a first furniture member, configured to send and receive wireless signals to and from the first Bluetooth transceiver over a wireless Bluetooth link; and control circuitry disposed in a first furniture member, 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 over the electrical connection, 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 over the wireless Bluetooth link;
However, Sizer from the same or similar field of adjustable furniture, teaches a Wi-Fi circuit being disposed in a connect box that is physically separate from a first furniture member (A bridging device, such as Wi-fi bridge 56, has the implication of a wifi circuit within its boxed case and the bridge is separate from the furniture, see Fig. 1, p45, p13, 44-46, Fig. 3, p38, Sizer); a first Bluetooth transceiver comprising a Bluetooth radio, disposed in a connect box, 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 radio in order to be able to then communicate the converted signal via Bluetooth to a control device that uses Bluetooth, where the bridge device is in its enclosure box of the wifi bridge connecting device, see Fig. 1, p45, p13, 44-46, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, p38, Sizer); a second Bluetooth transceiver that is physically separate from a first Bluetooth transceiver and disposed in a first furniture member, configured to send and receive wireless signals to and from the first Bluetooth transceiver over a wireless Bluetooth link (A second Bluetooth device (e.g. device 28 in Fig 2) that is in a furniture and is separate from the bridging device, communicates with bridging device via Bluetooth. Therefore, there must be a second Bluetooth transceiver in the controller in order to be able to communicate with a first Bluetooth of the wifi bridge, see Fig. 2, Fig. 1, p45, p13, 44-46, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, p38, Sizer); and control circuitry disposed in a first furniture member (A microcontroller/controller (e.g. 50 in figure 3) that is in a device such as 28 in a part of a furniture, see Fig. 2, Fig. 2, P43-45, Sizer), in communication with and electrically coupled to the second Bluetooth transceiver and configured to control one or more actuators (Microcontroller controller that uses a specified communications format such as Bluetooth obtained through a Bluetooth communications device (e.g. 28 in a furniture component), and 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 over the electrical connection, 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 over the wireless Bluetooth link (A bridging device in a network of wireless devices, receives a signal for furniture control, such as repositioning command, via Wi-fi electrical signal and then feeds translated/converted operating command signals through the bridge’s Bluetooth transmission and sends it to a microcontroller in suitable format, such as Bluetooth, and so that the 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, where Bluetooth is a known wireless communication’s link, 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).
While any person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the implied hardware configurations of a wifi bridge that converts received wi-fi signals into suitable Bluetooth signals for communication to another separate Bluetooth enabled device,
Sun, from the same or similar field of communication bridging devices in multi-protocol control networks more explicitly teaches the hardware structure of a communication devices including bridging device (A device acting as a bridge includes Wifi chip circuitry for receiving Wireless-fidelity signals and is interconnected within the device to other modules, such as a wireless Bluetooth chip circuit and antenna permitting transceiving of radon communications to other Bluetooth devices, and where the bridge converts/translates between the protocols, see Fig. 2, p43-45, p49, p18, p4-5, p2, p8, Sun).
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 that includes Schramm and explicitly incorporating a bridging device with hardware interconnecting Wifi circuit communications device and Bluetooth transceiving communications circuitry for radio communications using Bluetooth, as taught by Sun.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to properly provide the required physical interconnections and components between various modules that respectively use known specific standardized protocols and technological specifications, so as to form a bridging device capable of receiving signals in a ubiquitous wireless signal format, such as Wi-fi that is prevalent in local area networks and be able to translate/convert said wi-fi format into another known communications format that may be employed by other devices device so as to better interconnect communications between different communications formats, thus allowing desperate devices to communicate with each other (see p18, p2-5, p8, Fig. 2, p43-45, p49, Sun).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-27 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Applicants' arguments on page 11-14 have been considered in view of amended claims 1 and 12, and subsequent to an updated search of relevant prior art, are persuasive. Independent claims 1 and 12, and their respective dependent claims, are therefore allowed for reasons deemed to be of record. While Schramm discloses a smart furniture motion control system for controlling movement of one or more movable parts of a first furniture member comprising one or more actuators configured to control movement of the one or more movable parts of the first furniture member, a Wi-Fi circuit configured to send and receive wireless signals, a lockout switch configured to enable and disable a lockout mode, and control circuitry configured to control the one or more actuators, 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, 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, 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, and while Elku more explicitly teaches wherein a lockout mode, when enabled, prevents control circuitry from implementing a command in response to a control signal, none of the references, discovered within the allotted time for search and consideration, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose the claims invention as detailed in claims 1 and 12 that also includes wherein the lockout mode, when enabled by manual actuation of the lockout switch, prevents the control circuitry from driving the one or more actuators in response to the smart furniture control signal received from the cloud network via the Wi-Fi circuit (claim 1) and the lockout mode, when enabled by manual actuation of the lockout switch, preventing the smart furniture member from being controlled in response to the one or more smart furniture control signals transmitted by the cloud network (claim 12), and wherein the novelty is in the combination of all the limitations. It is for these reasons that the applicant's invention defines over the prior art of record.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Collins, JR. et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2007/0210917 teaches a bed with wireless communications and a button to lock or unlock certain bed functions, but does not teach the specifics of preventing actuation as indicated in the allowable subject matter above.
Johnson et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2015/0102927 teaches a Bluetooth/Wi-Fi bridge.
Chen et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2016/0374183 teaches a data bridge that can include functionality for converting between WiFi and Bluetooth.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights