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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed February 19th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-6 have been cancelled, claims 7-12 have newly been entered, claims 7-12 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome a plurality of Drawing Objections alongside each and every Abstract and Claim Objection and each and every 112b Rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 6th, 2026 and are hereby withdrawn in light of their correction. However, 7 necessitates a similar 112b Rejection as that of cancelled claim 1, while claim 11 necessitates a similar 112b Rejection as that of cancelled claim 5 due to analogous rationale therein/remaining.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a recess of the lever” (claim 11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. With regard to claim 11 concerning ‘a recess’ and ‘a lever’, claim 1 already establishes “a shaped recess” for “the lever” already, it’s unclear where a second recess and lever are provided. Further clarity is respectfully requested and otherwise amendment is necessary.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “14” has been used to designate both the channel section (paragraph 0042) and the U-. While conversely and confusingly, reference character “14” has been used as the channel section (or the u-shaped channel section) in [0042], while in [0043], the channel section used the reference character “7”. Furthermore, although applicant’s have amended the specification to newly make ‘u-shaped channel section’, such respectfully seems to be in error in correspondence with the remainder of the disclosure, as “14” appears to be a U/C-shaped profiled bracket, not a channel, while “7” appears to be more like a channel. 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.
Claim 1 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitations “a motor acting through intermediate elements on the sliding seat of the furniture” and “the motor is placed in each mechanism” is recited. There is some confusion as the claim establishes what appears to be a single motor by “a motor”, without any attribution to ‘each’ mechanism’. There is a degree of indefiniteness due to two separate quantities of components in the same claim without clarifying language that delineates whether one or two motors is necessitated by the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation “placed in each mechanism” is construed as to be “so placed as to be operable in each mechanism” as by some linking ‘intermediate elements’ between the two sides the mechanisms are attributed to at a minimum.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “a recess of the lever” is recited. There is antecedent confusion as “a recess” has already been provided to claim 1 as “a shaped recess”, particularly “in the upper part of the lever there is a shaped recess”. It is unclear if ‘a recess’ of claim 5 is the same ‘shaped recess’ of antecedent claim 1 or a separate and distinguished recess, therefore making it unclear if claim 5 necessitates the lever to have two recesses or simply the 1 and a pin is engaged therewith.
Claims 8-10, and 12 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 second paragraph as being dependent on a rejected indefinite antecedent claim (at least claim 7).
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) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Beck et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20190313805); hereafter “Beck”.
Regarding claim 7, Beck discloses (FIGS. 1-9) an assembly comprising: a piece of furniture (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-1A) having a furniture box (illustrated in FIG. 2) and a sliding seat (as illustrated between FIGS. 2-2A and conveyed further through FIGS. 3-9); a pair of mechanisms (correspondent 44a/44b; FIG. 2) positioned at opposite sides of the furniture box (As illustrated in FIG. 2); a motor (62/64) interconnected by intermediate elements(as illustrated between FIGS. 2-2A and conveyed through FIGS. 3-9) to the sliding seat of the piece of furniture, wherein each mechanism of said pair of mechanisms has a lift (correspondent and demonstrated in at least FIGS. 5A-6B where the center is clearly lifted), the lift being formed of a fastening slat (74; FIG. 3) attached to said piece of furniture (as illustrated between FIGS. 3 and 2), each lift of said pair of mechanisms having a rear arm (at least 106; illustrated between FIGS. 2-4) articulated at a lower end thereof with the fastening slat (as illustrated in FIGS. 2-3) and at an upper end with an angle slat (at least 108; as illustrated in FIGS. 2-3), each lift of said pair of mechanisms having a front arm (at least 112; as illustrated between FIGS. 2-3) articulated at a lower end thereof with the fastening slat and at an upper end with an angle strip (at least 118; as illustrated between FIGS. 2-4), wherein the angle slat of each {lift} having openings thereon adapted to be affixed to the sliding seat (as illustrated between FIGS. 2-4), each lift of said pair of mechanisms having a lever (at least 142 or 178; FIGS. 2-4) with a lower end thereof articulated to the fastening slat (As illustrated between FIGS. 2-4) and with an upper end thereof articulated with a connector (at least 152 or 134/194, and adjacent connectors thereof including bolts/pins; as illustrated between FIGS. 2-4), the connector being articulated with the front arm (as illustrated between FIGS. 2-4), the lever having a through groove (correspondent hole of 145 or 186 as illustrated between FIGS. 2-4) that slidably receives a pin (145/186) affixed to an upper portion of the connector (As illustrated between FIGS. 2-4), the lever having a shaped recess (correspondent the pin hole recesses of 152/134/194 at least, as illustrated between FIGS. 2-4) with a contact surface (As illustrated between FIGS. 2-4), each of the intermediate elements being a moveable bracket (at least 130/244/86; FIG. 2-4) having the pin and a U-shaped profile (as illustrated in FIGS. 2-4), a carriage of said motor being mounted in the movable bracket (As illustrated between FIGS. 2-4), the motor being positioned in each of said pair of mechanisms (as eminently demonstrated between FIGS 2-4 with the motor 64 in each mechanism of 44a/44b in FIG. 2 and further clarified in FIGS. 2-4), wherein the assembly transforms said piece of furniture from a sitting position to a lying position (As illustrated between FIGS. 1-1C).
Regarding claim 8, Beck discloses (FIGS. 1-9) the assembly of claim 7, wherein the pin is embedded in a bent part of an angle bar of the bracket (as illustrated between FIGS. 2-4, with connection to the pins of at least 148/122/168/128/115/234/104/218).
Regarding claim 9, Beck discloses (FIGS. 1-9) the assembly of claim 7, wherein the movable bracket has a C-profile attached to a vertical part of the angle slat (where the bracket 240/244 is synonymously C-profile and is attached at least indirectly to the vertical part of the angle slat of 108 as illustrated between FIGS. 2-4).
Regarding claim 10, Beck discloses (FIGS. 1-9) the assembly of claim 7, wherein each movable bracket has at least one roller (150/138 as illustrated between FIGS. 2-4 or 84; FIG. 7) rotatably fixed to the vertical part of the angle bar (as illustrated between FIGS. 2-6).
Regarding claim 11, Beck discloses (FIGS. 1-9) the assembly of claim 7, wherein the lift has the pin embedded in a recess of the lever of the lift when the lift is in the raised position (as illustrated in FIGS. 2-6, the pin is embedded in the recess and remains there and is so embedded in the lever of the lift when in the raised position in FIGS. 5A-5B)
Regarding claim 12, Beck discloses (FIGS. 1-9) the assembly of claim 7, further comprising a plurality of support rollers (support rollers of at least 150 or 138, as illustrated between FIGS. 2-4, or 84/246; FIG. 7) positioned respectively in said pair of mechanisms adjacent to the lift (as illustrated between FIGS. 2-4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (page 7-8, filed February 19th, 2026, with respect to a plurality of Drawing Objections alongside each and every Abstract and Claim Objection, alongside the majority of 112b Rejections excepting the rationale of now-cancelled claims 1 and 5, re-introduced in new claims 7 and 11) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The a plurality of Drawing Objections alongside each and every Abstract and Claim Objection, alongside the majority of 112b Rejections excepting the rationale of now-cancelled claims 1 and 5, re-introduced in new claims 7 and 11) of January 6th, 2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed February 19th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Particularly, applicant’s allege that the modes of operations of applicant’s claimed invention and the prior art differ in that Beck traverses and flattens while applicant’s raises and traverses/adjust other elements of the invention. However, respectfully, applicant has not claimed this particular feature, only necessitating a ‘lift’ and a ‘raised position’, the raised position is only concerning the pin and the recess, which under an apparatus and the current claim construction could reasonably be by contact of fastening, not necessitating some traversal where the pin is not contacting the recess and at some nebulous point in time contacts the recess.
Furthermore, applicant alleges that Beck’s connections are not synonymous with the claimed invention. However, most curiously, applicant’s do not in fact claim the connections, but instead recite “articulated with”/”articulated at”. Notably this is a considerably broader claim limitation than ‘x connected to y’, as “x articulated with y” can be by composite articulation, articulation indirectly/directly, and respectfully does not necessitate narrow and specific connections as applicant alleges. 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 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).
Additionally, applicant alleges that Beck does not have slots. However, respectfully applicant also does not claim slots, but either broadly “openings” or a “though groove” (which could be a hole under BRI), if applicant seeks for an elongated slot, Examiner respectfully recommends amending such feature into the claim.
Additionally, applicant alleges that applicant’s seats raise and/or traverse to accommodate a gap space, and that the pin of the ‘slot’ (previously addressed) is slidably arranged. However, again respectfully applicant has not claimed the seat/panel/etc. raises, or that the pin of the ‘slot’ slidably traverses, where particularly “slidably receives” can indeed concern the insertion of the pin into the through-groove/circular slot/opening.
Applicant also alleges that Beck’s 244 fails to avail a pin (the pin that is engaged with the through grooves). However, examiner respectfully indicated “at least 244”, not just 244, where 244 indeed is connected to the pin 186 in FIGS. 2-4.
Additionally, Applicant also alleges that Beck does not demonstrate the attachment of the channel is not attached to the vertical portion of the angle bracket. Notably, the claims state “to the vertical portion of the angle slat”, which examiner has identified the angle slat as “at least 108” (with adjacent function components composite therewith), where the channel would be considered to 84/86; FIGS. 2-7 which does in fact connect to a vertical portion of the strut 108. However, applicant’s respectfully do not claim “the channel” but the movable bracket, and respectfully does not note the C-profile is directly attached to a vertical portion of the angle slat, but is merely ‘attached’. Respectfully under BRI and in using the comprising/having language form, intermediary elements can be between as long as they are ultimately attached to one another, which they respectfully appear to do so in FIGS. 2-7.
With regards to applicant’s allegation that Beck does not use rollers/support rollers (i.e. narrower circular wheels, “rolling rollers” as applicant alleges), Examiner considers that applicant’s do not have an explicit definition of what a “roller” is, nor that they are “rolling rollers”. Examiner does take some consideration that a roller may be “a revolving cylinder over or on which something is moved or which is used to press, shape, spread, or smooth something” (Merriam Webster: “roller”, definition 1a). Wherein cylindrical rod and screw of 84/86 indeed is something that is a revolving cylinder on which something is moved (the support rollers of 154 and 138; FIGS. 2-6). Respectfully, Examiner strongly recommends language and amendments that delineate the terms from their broader counterparts currently present, as otherwise in the lack of an explicit definition and in view of the extrinsic evidence of Merriam Webster’s dictionary would indeed appear to permit Beck as conveying “a roller” and even “support rollers”.
With regards to claim 11, applicant alleges that Beck does not properly demonstrate a pin that engages a contact surface of the shaped recess (considered the same recess of claim 7, due to 112b considerations and interpretations taken). However, pins 145 and 186 (examiner apologizes a copy-paste error did not re-recite 186 with 145 originally, but was indicated in the first map of what “a pin” was considered), are indeed inside a shaped recess (in Beck considered to be a ‘circular hole recess’, which indeed has a contact surface that the pin engages upon to operate).
With regards to claim 12 and considerations of ‘support rollers’, Examiner again respectfully considers that applicant’s do not explicitly define what a “roller” is, while Merriam Webster also considers a roller to be “one that performs a rolling operation” and again “a revolving cylinder over on which something is moved or which is used to press, shape, spread, or smooth something” (Merriam Webster: “roller”, definitions 1a and 3), indeed 150/138 are in fact ‘rollers’ in a literal sense by being cylindrical bushings and that indeed ones that perform a rolling operation or rolls (as cylinders on an axis, they assist with rotation of parallel elements). However, examiner additionally and newly in light of the amendments considers 246 to qualify as “support roller” as well for reasons previously identified for claim 10 prior.
Respectfully, examiner is not presently persuaded that Beck fails to anticipate applicant’s invention due to the considerably broad language and considerably broader constructions and arrangements that render the claim scope of the invention considerably broad and nebulous and is considered under BRI. The claims remain rejected under 102 with Beck due to considerably broad language that opens considerable scope and breadth of consideration in the absence of explicit definitions or more delineating terms. Examiner respectfully recommends applicant’s to consider amendments that further distinguish the features of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. 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.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights