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 .
The amendment filed on November 12, 2025 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: output element 68 (Paragraph 0047) and base element 69 (paragraph 0047). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22, 23, 25, and 27-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 22, the base element and output element are not defined or shown. Examiner interprets them to be portions of the linear drive.
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 22, 23, 25, and 27-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claim 22 recites an abstract idea of “determining … several value pairs of displacement positions and tilt angles of the linear drive in a state installed in the furniture item” (mental process), “determining from the measured current value of the tilt angle with the control device a corresponding displacement position of the displacement positions of the output element with respect to the base element based on the stored value pairs” (mental process).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)). Storing the value pairs in a memory unit associated to the linear drive and measuring with the tilt sensor a current value of a tilt angle of the tilt angles during operation of the linear drive in the furniture item are directed to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(A)).
Storing the value pairs in a memory unit and measuring tilt angle with the tilt sensor are also well-understood, routine and conventional activities known in the industry (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The remaining dependent claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 23, 25, 27, and 28 are directed to an abstract idea. in claim 28, it is noted that a stationary base, and a hinged movable furniture part configured to pivot with respect to the base, an electromotive furniture drive comprising a linear drive comprising a base element pivotally attached to the stationary base, an output element which is displaceable linearly with respect to the base element and attached to the hinged movable furniture part, and a measuring device embodied as a tilt sensor and designed to ascertain a displacement position of the output element with respect to the base element do not carry out the method of claim 22. Rather, the method of claim 22 is carried out by a control device (generic processor). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (control device) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III).
Claims 29-34 are directed to conventional features.
Accordingly, claim 22 and its dependent claims 23, 25, and 27-34 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Prior Art Note
Claims 22, 23, 25, and 27-34 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a method for ascertaining a displacement position of an output element relative io a base element in a linear drive for a furniture item with a movable furniture part comprising determining with the tilt sensor several value pairs of displacement positions and tilt angles of the linear drive in a state installed in the furniture item (claim 22) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 12, 2025 have been fully considered.
With regard to the drawing objections, Applicants argues that “Applicant has made amendments to the FIGS. 5 and 6 to show as "68" the output element and as "69" the base element, as described in paragraph [0047], as originally filed. A new drawing sheet 5/5 is submitted and labeled "REPLACEMENT SHEET".”
Examiner’s position is that amended FIGS. 5 and 6 (new drawing sheet 5/5) have not been received. Thus, a drawing objection has been issued.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 112(a) have been withdrawn.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) of claim 22, Applicants argue
“Applicant has amended claims 22, 23 to address the §112 rejection by adopting the interpretation by the Examiner and correcting the antecedent basis problems and other issues mentioned in the office action following the Examiner's suggestions. These changes are self-explanatory and cosmetic in nature and should not be considered as a narrowing amendment to trigger prosecution history estoppel.”
Examiner’s position is that since amended FIGS. 5 and 6 (new drawing sheet 5/5) have not been received, the base element and output element in claim 22 are not defined or shown.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the remaining rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The remaining rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicants argue “[c]laim 22, as amended, recites "determining with the tilt sensor several value pairs of displacement positions and tilt angles of the linear drive in a state installed in the furniture item." The term "determining" refers here to actually measuring the displacement positions and the tilt angles in a state installed in the furniture item, which is real and NOT an abstract idea.”
Examiner interprets the limitation to read "determining, from the measured/sensed data from the tilt sensor, several value pairs of displacement positions and tilt angles of the linear drive in a state installed in the furniture item." That is, the tilt sensor senses/measures tilt data, then from the tilt data, an abstract step of determining several value pairs of displacement positions and tilt angles is performed. However, even if the term "determining" refers to actually measuring displacement positions and tilt angles of the linear drive in a state installed in the furniture item,
“measuring”, while not abstract, is an insignificant extra-solution activity for the purpose of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, “measuring” does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicants further argue “"measuring with the tilt sensor a current value of a tilt angle of the tilt angles during operation of the linear drive in the furniture item" is NOT a mental process, but a process using actual physical measuring devices (tilt sensor). The measured current value is then correlated with the stored value pairs by the control device to determine the actual displacement position.”
As discussed above, “measuring with the tilt sensor” is not abstract. However, “measuring with the tilt sensor” is an insignificant extra-solution activity for the purpose of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, “measuring with the tilt sensor” does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicants further argue “[c]ontrary to the assertions in the office action, the claim limitations are integrated in a practical application, namely ascertaining a displacement position of an-output element relative to a base element in a linear drive for a furniture item based just on the output from a tilt sensor, instead of requiring an additional displacement sensor.”
Examiner’s position is that a tilt sensor is merely used as a measuring device for ascertaining the displacement position of an output element. That is, the tilt sensor is used to measure/sensed data, then the measured/sensed data is used for ascertaining the displacement position of an output element. Thus, measuring/sensing data via the tilt sensor is an insignificant extra solution activity for data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Applicants further argue “[h]aving argued above that claim 22 is not directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, the control device in claim 28 which is configured to carry out the method as set forth in claim 22, is also not directed to an abstract idea.”
Examiner’s position is that claim 22 is directed to an abstract idea pursuant to the Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis, step 2A, prong 1 (see MPEP 2106), as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 102/103 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ohta et al. (US 2014/0191541) discloses determining with the tilt sensor (tilt sensor 102) several value pairs of displacement positions (102 detect a position of nut member, paragraph 0086, lines 3-4) and tilt angles (detecting tilt angles, paragraph 0086, lines 4-5). Ohta et al. further discloses determining whether the wheelchair is in the tilt posture or a non-tilt posture (posture other than the tilt posture) based on the tilt angle θt detected by the tilt posture detection sensor 102, so that the drive of the extension and contraction drive unit 33a is controlled (paragraph 0086, lines 15-19). However, the tilt angle θt is a tilt angle of the chair waist bottom member, and not a tilt angle of the drive unit 33a.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. 18288120For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 February 5, 2026