DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-18 are pending.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-18 are rejected, grounds follow.
THIS OFFICE ACTION IS FINAL, see additional information at the conclusion of this action.
Priority
Application’s status as a 35 USC 371 national stage application of PCT application PCT/CN2022/073948 is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Amendment of the final two lines of claims 5 and 12 has led to apparent doubled phrase “the column type, the column type.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 7, filed 20 November 2025, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejections of claims 6, 8, 15 and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner agrees that the various amendments either moot or obviate the need for the rejection. Accordingly, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 8 and 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Page 8 et seq. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., apparently that the various components may be unplugged and replugged modularly, or that the controller is housed in the table surface and not in the column, or that multiple columns are required by the claim) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner notes that several of the asserted differences, while not explicitly disclosed by the Lu reference, may still be obvious in view of court precedent (See MPEP 2144, particularly 2144.04.V and 2144.04.VI).
Examiner notes that an interview may be beneficial in advancing prosecution of this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu et al., Chinese Patent Application Publication CN 106249645 (Citations to machine translation furnished 24 September 2025 with the non-final rejection of the same mailing date).
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Lu discloses:
A control system (see figs. 1-3) for an electric lifting desk, ([0026] “lifting table”) wherein the electric lifting desk comprises at least one column, ([0026] “a first column, which may be the only column, see [0014]) and the control system comprises:
a controller, wherein the controller comprises a microprocessor, ([0027] “hand controller” and [0026] “control board A” [0028] “MCU in the first control board” etc.)
at least one measured voltage acquisition circuit (see [0028]) and at least one measured voltage acquisition terminal,([0028] “the MCU… is connected to the connecting end”) wherein an input and an output of each of the at least one measured voltage acquisition circuit are connected to a respective measured voltage acquisition terminal of the at least one measured voltage acquisition circuit and the microprocessor, respectively; ([0028] “The first pin of the first LIN chip is connected to one end of the first resistor, and the other end of the first resistor is connected to one end of the second resistor. The MCU in the first control board A is connected to the connecting end of the first resistor and the second resistor through a third resistor and reads the voltage division information. The MCU processes the voltage division information into column number information and receives the instruction information that should be executed for the corresponding column number.”)
and a motor driver circuit in each of the at least one column configured to drive lifting of the respective column, (see [0029] “executes the command content and then feeds the working signal of the push rod A back to the hand controller”)
wherein the motor driver circuit comprises a measured voltage generation circuit and a measured voltage output terminal, and an output of the measured voltage generation circuit is electrically connected to the measured voltage output terminal; ([0028] “The first pin of the first LIN chip is connected to one end of the first resistor, and the other end of the first resistor is connected to one end of the second resistor. The MCU in the first control board A is connected to the connecting end of the first resistor and the second resistor through a third resistor and reads the voltage division information. The MCU processes the voltage division information into column number information and receives the instruction information that should be executed for the corresponding column number.”)
wherein the measured voltage generation circuit is configured to output a different value of a measured voltage ([0031] “by connecting two resistors in series in the middle of one of the lines of the two interfaces of a single column, and then using the MCU to read the voltage of the two in series to achieve differentiation, the automatic identification of the push rod is achieved by collecting different voltages and executing a predetermined program in the MCU.”) in a case of at least one of a different number of columns of the electric lifting desk or a different column type of the electric lifting desk; ([0031] “The analog voltage division technology enables the control system to automatically identify the number and order of columns”)
wherein each of the at least one measured voltage acquisition terminal is adapted to be electrically connected to the measured voltage output terminal; ([0028] “The MCU in the first control board A is connected to the connecting end of the first resistor and the second resistor through a third resistor and reads the voltage division information”)
and the microprocessor is configured to determine, according to a voltage signal provided by each of the at least one measured voltage acquisition circuit, whether the controller is connected to a respective motor driver circuit and determine the column type (i.e. push rod, number of columns and number of push rod equipped columns may vary independently, see [0035].) in response to the controller being electrically connected to the respective motor driver circuit; wherein the column number determined by the microprocessor is larger than or equal to zero. ([0031] “The analog voltage division technology enables the control system to automatically identify the number and order of columns”)
Regarding Claim 10, this claim recites substantively the same subject matter, except embodied as an electric lifting desk. Mutatis mutandis, this claim is likewise anticipated by the disclosure of Lu for the same reasons articulated with respect to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Well-Known practice as exemplified by Electronics Tutorials Voltage Dividers (Sep. 2020) and Pull-up Resistors (Jun. 2017). (hereafter “electronics tutorials”)
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Lu discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Lu differs from the claimed invention in that:
While Lu teaches a voltage divider circuit connected to the microprocessor and the acquisition terminal for each of the at least one acquisition circuits (see rejection supra.) Lu does not appear to clearly articulate the particular arrangement of: a first resistor R1, a first end of the first resistor R1 is configured to be electrically connected to a power supply voltage terminal VCC, and a second end of the first resistor R1 is electrically connected to both the respective measured voltage acquisition terminal and the microprocessor.
However, this is a conventional voltage divider circuit which was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, as exemplified by electronics tutorials. (see figure at the top of the page) which depicts a first resistor (R1) connected to the terminal and the supply voltage (Vs)
Electronics tutorials is analogous art because it is representative of the understanding and general background knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application regarding basic DC Circuit theory and application.
Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components – the device of Lu, which differs in the particular arrangement of the voltage divider circuit and digital I/O pull-up circuit with respect to source and ground terminals; 2) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art – as a matter of general background of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application as exemplified by e.g. Electronics Tutorials’ website on voltage divider circuits and pull-up resistors; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application at least because both circuits are voltage divider circuits suitable for the same purpose of dividing a voltage based on proportional resistance of two resistors; and accordingly the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application (See MPEP 2143.I.B)
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, Lu in view of Well-Known practice exemplified by Electronics Tutorials teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 2 and 11, respectively.
Well-Known Practice exemplified by Electronics tutorials further teaches:
wherein the controller further comprises a first ground terminal, the motor driver circuit further comprises a second ground terminal, and the second ground terminal is connected to the first ground terminal; (it is well-known practice to ground devices in a control circuit to a common ground, see e.g. page 1 “with respect to a common point or ground” and Page 5 “The voltage levels at each tapping point is measured with respect to ground” etc.)
the measured voltage generation circuit comprises a second resistor R2, a first end of the second resistor R2 is electrically connected to the second ground terminal, and a second end of the second resistor R2 is electrically connected to the measured voltage output terminal; (see fig. 1, Page 1).
and Lu further teaches:
and a resistance value of the second resistor R2 corresponds to both the column number and the column type. ([0031] “The analog voltage division technology enables the control system to automatically identify the number and order of columns” see also [0035] number of columns and number of push rod equipped columns may vary independently.)
Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components – the device of Lu, which differs in the particular arrangement of the voltage divider circuit and digital I/O pull-up circuit with respect to source and ground terminals; 2) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art – as a matter of general background of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application as exemplified by e.g. Electronics Tutorials’ website on voltage divider circuits and pull-up resistors; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application at least because both circuits are voltage divider circuits suitable for the same purpose of dividing a voltage based on proportional resistance of two resistors; and accordingly the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application (See MPEP 2143.I.B)
Regarding Claims 4, and 13, Lu in view of Well-Known practice exemplified by Electronics Tutorials teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 2 and 11, respectively.
Well Known Practice further teaches:
wherein the microprocessor is configured to determine, according to the voltage signal provided by the measured voltage acquisition circuit, whether the controller is connected to the motor driver circuit in the following manner: comparing the voltage signal provided by each of the at least one measured voltage acquisition circuit with a power supply voltage signal, in a case where the voltage signal provided by a measured voltage acquisition circuit is equal to the power supply voltage signal, determining that the controller is disconnected from the respective motor driver circuit; (Examiner notes that the forgoing is describing the normal behavior of an open digital I/O when a pull-up resistor is used; which is also the state of a voltage divider when the R2 resistor is open/disconnected. See Page 3 of “Pull-Up Resistors” : “By using these two pull-up resistors, one for each input, when switch “A” or “B” is open (off), the input is effectively connected to the +5V supply rail via the pull-up resistor. The result is that as there is very little input current into the input of the logic gate, very little voltage is dropped across the pull-up resistor so nearly all the +5V supply voltage is applied to the input pin creating a HIGH, logic “1” condition.”)
and Lu further teaches:
and in a case where the voltage signal provided by the measured voltage acquisition circuit is less than the power supply voltage signal, determining that the controller is connected to the motor driver circuit. ([0031] “The analog voltage division technology enables the control system to automatically identify the number and order of columns” see also [0028] discussing what occurs if components are plugged in different orders or positions.)
Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components – the device of Lu, which differs in the particular arrangement of the voltage divider circuit and digital I/O pull-up circuit with respect to source and ground terminals; 2) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art – as a matter of general background of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application as exemplified by e.g. Electronics Tutorials’ website on voltage divider circuits and pull-up resistors; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application at least because both circuits are voltage divider circuits suitable for the same purpose of dividing a voltage based on proportional resistance of two resistors; and accordingly the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application (See MPEP 2143.I.B)
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, Lu in view of Well-Known practice exemplified by Electronics Tutorials teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 4 and 13, respectively;
Well-Known Practice further teaches:
wherein the microprocessor is configured to determine the column type in the following manner: in the case where the voltage signal provided by the measured voltage acquisition circuit is less than the power supply voltage signal, determining the resistance value of the second resistor R2 according to a known resistance value of the first resistor R1 and a voltage signal calculation formula that V=VCC*R2/(R1+R2), and determining, according to a correspondence between the resistance value of the second resistor R2 and the column type, the column type. (see Electronics Tutorials Voltage Dividers Page 2, particularly formula: “Vr2 = Vs (R2 / (R1 + R2 )); that is, the claim is describing the normal method for determining the Resistance of a resistor in a voltage divider circuit given the known values of R1 and the Voltage Source.)
(Examiner notes for Clarity of the record that Lu teaches applying the determined voltage divider value to determine whether the column contains a push-rod. See Lu [0031], [0035].).
Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components – the device of Lu, which differs in the particular arrangement of the voltage divider circuit and digital I/O pull-up circuit with respect to source and ground terminals; 2) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art – as a matter of general background of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application as exemplified by e.g. Electronics Tutorials’ website on voltage divider circuits and pull-up resistors; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application at least because both circuits are voltage divider circuits suitable for the same purpose of dividing a voltage based on proportional resistance of two resistors; and accordingly the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application (See MPEP 2143.I.B)
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Well-Known Practice Exemplified by Electronics Tutorials, further in view of Novak et al., US 4,635,565.
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Lu in view of Well-Known Practice Exemplified by Electronics tutorials teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 2 and 11, respectively;
The combination differs from the claimed invention in that:
The references do not clearly articulate wherein the power supply voltage VCC is 3.3 V, 5V or 12 V.
However, Novak teaches a height adjustable table (see fig. 1) wherein the power supply voltage is 12V. (Col. 4, line 30-33 “Mounted on the end of worm shaft 25 is spur gear 28 which is driven by pinion gear 29 mounted on drive shaft 30 of 12-volt D.C. motor 31.”)
Novak is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of height adjustable tables.
Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components – the device of Lu, which differs in that Lu is silent as to the voltage level of the source voltage; 2) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art – as exemplified by Novak, which uses a 12 V DC motor to drive the extension or retraction of the vertical column on a height adjustable table; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application at least because Novak expressly teaches that a 12V DC motor is suitable for the purpose of extending or retracting a vertical column on a height adjustable table. (Col. 4, line 30-33 “Mounted on the end of worm shaft 25 is spur gear 28 which is driven by pinion gear 29 mounted on drive shaft 30 of 12-volt D.C. motor 31.”) and therefore the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. (See MPEP 2143.I.B).
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu further in view of Lin, US Pg-Pub 2016/0309889.
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Lu teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 1 and 10, respectively;
Lu teaches:
The column type comprises a two-section column ([0026] “A push rod A is provided in the first column” i.e. at least two sections.)
Lu does not clearly teach:
The column type comprises a three section column
(Examiner notes for clarity of the record that because the parent claims include embodiments with only a single column, the claim has been interpreted to be enumerating possible column types and not to affirmatively require both types to be installed in the same table.)
However, 3-section lifting columns are known in the art: Lin teaches an electric lifting desk (see fig. 1) where the lifting column may be a three-section column (see fig. 9A).
Lin is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of height adjustable tables.
Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components – the device of Lu, which differs in that Lu only teaches 2-section columns for lifting desks; 2) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art – as exemplified by Lin, which teaches a 3-section column for a lifting desk; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application at least because both column types are taught by the respective references as suitable for the same purpose of lifting the desk table surface; and accordingly the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application (See MPEP 2143.I.B)
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu further in view of Liu et al., Chinese Patent Publication CN 206835028 U (2018) (citations to US-Equivalent US Pg-Pub 2020/0136551).
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, Lu teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 1 and 10, respectively.
Lu further teaches:
wherein the controller further comprises a forward rotation voltage terminal M+, a reverse rotation voltage terminal M− ([0029] “all control information is integrated to realize the unique functions of the electric lift table, such as synchronous lifting and lowering of multiple columns, position memory, and retraction when encountering obstacles.”)
the forward rotation voltage terminal M+ is configured to transmit a forward rotation signal for controlling a motor electrically connected to the motor driver circuit; the reverse rotation voltage terminal M− is configured to transmit a reverse rotation signal for controlling the motor electrically connected to the motor driver circuit; (see e.g. [0029] “The hand controller first issues a command to the first control board A, which then executes the command content and then feeds the working signal of the push rod A back to the hand controller”)
Lu differs from the claimed invention in that:
Lu does not clearly articulate a Hall signal terminal HALL and a Hall signal power supply terminal VCC_HALL;
the Hall signal terminal is configured to transmit a rotor position signal of the motor; and the Hall signal power supply terminal VCC_HALL is configured to connect to an external device for supplying power to a Hall sensor inside the motor.
However, Liu teaches a Hall effect sensor for detecting motor speed, including a HALL signal terminal on the MCU (see fig. 1) where the Hall sensor transmits a rotor position signal ([0014] “a HALL signal reflects the number of revolutions of the electric motor, and the MCU can thereby learn electric motor speed and position;”) where the Hall sensor is inside the motor (see fig. 1, location of Hall Pulse Generator)
Liu is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor of as the claimed invention and other references of height adjustable tables.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Lu to incorporate Hall Effect sensors for detecting the position of the rotor in the motors for the columns, as suggested by Liu.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to monitor the operational speed of the motors for synchronous operation, as suggested by Liu ([0017] “ Synchronous operation can be achieved by setting two or three height-adjustable posts to the same speed and the same target position.”)
Conclusion
Examiner notes that an interview is likely to be beneficial in advancing prosecution of this application.
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 JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights