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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paul Savage (Savage) US 7,701,083 B2.
As per claim 1 Savage disclose;
A workspace, (fig. 1-3 item 100) comprising:
a power input receptacle (item 106) configured to receive an input power at a first voltage level, wherein the first voltage level is an extra-low voltage;
a voltage regulator (fig. 3 item 302) configured to regulate the input power and output a regulated power at a second voltage level (At item 120);
a power distribution bus (item 206 fig. 2), wherein the power distribution bus is configured to receive the input power (fig. 2 from item 112); and
a safety disconnect (116) configured to disconnect the input power (Col. 6 line 60-61) from the power distribution bus (120 and 206) in response to detecting an adverse condition. (Col. 6 lines 60-62, “AC or DC overload or short will trip circuit breaker 116 isolating workstation 100 from both AC and DC input.”), wherein the safety disconnect (116) is programmable (Examiner’s note: Specification do not provide any specific details regarding programing) to set a threshold (through item 122 control panel Col. 5 line 44 “user input of data, set points and information” setpoints are programmable through control panel) associated with the adverse condition.
As per claim 2 Savage disclose;
further comprising one or more ancillary power outputs (item 206, 120), wherein the one or more ancillary power outputs (item 206, 120) receive power via the voltage regulator. (Fig. 3 item 302 )
As per claim 3 Savage disclose;
wherein the one or more ancillary power outputs are configured to output an accessory power output at a third voltage level. (Col. 7 lines 11-13)
As per claim 4 Savage disclose;
wherein the second voltage level is greater than the first voltage level. (Col. 7 lines 11-13 voltage regulator to control voltage upper or lower second voltage)
As per claim 5 Savage disclose;
wherein the second voltage level is less than the first voltage level. (Col. 7 lines 11-13 voltage regulator to control voltage upper or lower )
As per claim 6 Savage disclose;
further comprising an auxiliary power source (Fig. 2 and 5 item 502 DC input regulator) configured to receive the input power (202) and output an auxiliary power.(Fig. 5 and Col. 8 lines 8-18)
As per claim 7 Savage disclose;
wherein the first voltage level is a level configured to charge the auxiliary power source. (Col. 8 lines 43-51)
As per claim 9 Savage disclose;
wherein the adverse condition is one or more of an over-voltage condition and an over-current condition. (Col. 6 lines 60-61)
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.
Claim(s) 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage in view of Stefan LUKAS (LUKAS) US 2017/0273455 A1.
As per claim 11 Savage disclose;
A workspace system (fig. 1-3 item 100), comprising: a power distribution device (item 206 fig. 2), including: a power converter (item 112) to convert a utility power (from item 110) to a distribution power at a first voltage level, (Col. 7 lines 11-13) wherein the first voltage level is an extra-low voltage (Col. 7 lines 11-13 “24 volt” Examiner’s note: “extra-low voltage” as per applicant’s specification, below 50VDC); and a power rail (item 206), wherein the power rail receives the distribution power from the power converter (fig. 2 112);
Savage disclose, one workspace with power distribution and power input receptacle but do not teach, one or more mobile workspaces, each of the one or more mobile workspaces including: a power input receptacle configured to be removably electrically coupled to the power rail to receive the distribution power;
a power distribution bus (item 206 fig. 2), wherein the power distribution bus is configured to receive the input power (fig. 2 from item 112); and
a power distribution bus configured to provide the received distribution power to one or more devices; (Fig. 2 at power outlet 120)
a safety disconnect (116) configured to disconnect the input power (Col. 6 line 60-61) from the power distribution bus (120 and 206) in response to detecting an adverse condition. (Col. 6 lines 60-62, “AC or DC overload or short will trip circuit breaker 116 isolating workstation 100 from both AC and DC input.”), wherein the safety disconnect (116) is programmable (Examiner’s note: Specification do not provide any specific details regarding programing) to set a threshold (through item 122 control panel Col. 5 line 44 “user input of data, set points and information” setpoints are programmable through control panel) associated with the adverse condition.
However in analogues art LUKAS disclose, one or more mobile workspaces (fig. 5), each of the one or more mobile workspaces including: a power input receptacle (item 50) configured to be removably electrically coupled to the power rail to receive the distribution power (fig. 5); and a power distribution bus configured to provide the received distribution power to one or more devices.
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the known technique taught by LUKAS to the device of Savage would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved assembly, that would allows to connect multiple workstations.
As per claim 12 Savage and LUKAS disclose;
further comprising an auxiliary power source configured to provide an auxiliary power (Savage item 206, 120), to the power distribution bus (fig. 2) in response to the first voltage level falling below a predetermined threshold. (Col. 2 line 44-46 “UPS” function to detect and respond to voltage level falling)
Motivation to combine remains same as claim 11.
As per claim 13 Savage and LUKAS disclose;
wherein the one or more mobile workspaces further include a voltage regulator (Savage Fig. 3 item 302) coupled to the power distribution bus and configured to output a regulated power different from the distribution power.
Motivation to combine remains same as claim 11.
As per claim 14 Savage and LUKAS disclose;
wherein the regulated power has a lower voltage than the distribution power. (Col. 7 lines 11-13 voltage regulator to control voltage upper or lower second voltage)
Motivation to combine remains same as claim 11.
Claim(s) 15-17, 20 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage in view of LUKAS.
As per claim 15 Savage disclose;
A workspace system (fig. 1-3 item 100), comprising:
a power input receptacle (106) configured to receive an input power, wherein the input power is a DC power (item 108 DC input connector);
an auxiliary power source (Fig. 2 item 202) configured to receive the input power (Fig.2 at 108);
a power distribution bus (206), wherein the power distribution bus is configured to receive the input power; (item 206 receives input power from 102)
a voltage regulator (fig. 3 item 302) coupled to the power distribution bus and configured to output a first regulated voltage;(fig. 2 and 3)
one or more auxiliary power ports (fig. 2 120 and 206) configured to receive power from the power distribution bus,
a safety disconnect (116) configured to disconnect the input power (Col. 6 line 60-61) from the power distribution bus (120 and 206) in response to detecting an adverse condition. (Col. 6 lines 60-62, “AC or DC overload or short will trip circuit breaker 116 isolating workstation 100 from both AC and DC input.”), wherein the safety disconnect (116) is programmable (Examiner’s note: Specification do not provide any specific details regarding programing) to set a threshold (through item 122 control panel Col. 5 line 44 “user input of data, set points and information” setpoints are programmable through control panel) associated with the adverse condition.
Savage disclose, one workspace with power distribution but do not teach, A height adjustable workspace, comprising:
a tabletop; a leg coupled to the tabletop;
an actuator positioned within the leg and configured to raise and lower the tabletop, wherein the actuator is further configured to receive power from the power distribution bus; and
However in analogues art LUKAS disclose, A height adjustable workspace, (Fig. 4) comprising:
a tabletop (310); a leg (fig. 4) coupled to the tabletop;
an actuator (321, 322) positioned within the leg and configured to raise and lower the tabletop (310), wherein the actuator (321, 322) is further configured to receive power from the power distribution bus; (Para 0052)
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the known technique taught by LUKAS to the device of Savage would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved assembly, that would allows to adjust height of the table top, to help worker to perform better.
As per claim 16 Savage and LUKAS disclose;
further comprising one or more ancillary power output ports (Savage Fig. 2 206), wherein the one or more ancillary power output ports receive power at the first regulated voltage via the voltage regulator. (Savage fig. 2 and 3 302)
As per claim 17 Savage and LUKAS disclose;
wherein the one or more ancillary power output ports are configured to output a second regulated voltage. ((Col. 7 lines 11-13 voltage regulator to control voltage upper or lower)
As per claim 20 Savage and LUKAS disclose;
wherein the auxiliary power source (Savage item 206, 120 is configured to provide an auxiliary power to the power distribution bus (fig. 2) in response to the input power being removed. (Col. 2 line 44-46 “UPS” function to detect and respond to power being removed)
Motivation to combine remains same as claim 11.
As per claim 8 Savage disclose workspace, but do not teach
an actuator configured to raise and lower a worksurface of the workspace, wherein the actuator is configured to receive power via the power distribution bus.
However in analogues art LUKAS disclose, an actuator (321, 322) configured to raise and lower a worksurface of the workspace (310), wherein the actuator is configured to receive power via the power distribution bus. (Para 0052)
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the known technique taught by LUKAS to the device of Savage would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved assembly, that would allows to adjust height of the table top, to help worker to perform better.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage in view of David Black (Black) US 9,912,112 B1.
Regarding claim 18 Savage disclose outlets (fig.2) but do not teach,
Well-known in the art, wherein the one or more ancillary power output ports include a USB-C port.
However in analogues art Black disclose to provide, the one or more ancillary power output ports include a USB-C port. (Fig. 8)
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the known technique taught by Black to the device of Savage would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved assembly, that would allows to provide USB charging port for convenience to the operator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument “a safety disconnect that is "programmable to set a threshold associated with the adverse condition,"
Examiner respectfully disagree, because Savage disclose as per claims rejection, a safety disconnect (116) configured to disconnect the input power (Col. 6 line 60-61) from the power distribution bus (120 and 206) in response to detecting an adverse condition. (Col. 6 lines 60-62, “AC or DC overload or short will trip circuit breaker 116 isolating workstation 100 from both AC and DC input.”), wherein the safety disconnect (116) is programmable (Examiner’s note: Specification do not provide any specific details regarding programing the setpoint or threshold) to set a threshold (through item 122 control panel Col. 5 line 44 “user input of data, set points and information” setpoints are programmable through control panel) associated with the adverse condition.
Further applicant’s specification do not provide any specific details of how safety disconnect is programmable? For example para 0019 mentions “ the safety disconnect 306 may be programmable to allow a user to set the one or more threshold values.” No details of safety disconnect e.g. how it is programmable is not described in the specification or shown in the drawing. Fig. 3 only shows box with label, none of the other drawings shown ant details.
However prior art Savage disclose, control panel (122) to input setpoints can be programmable through control panel. (Fig. 2 and 3 122 is connected to item 112 and Fig. 5 disclose details of protection circuit and explained in Col. 9 lines 11-21)
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 MUKUNDBHAI G PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1364. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7Am-6pm Fri 7-12 pm (Flex).
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, Jayprakash P Gandhi can be reached at (571) 272-3740. 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.
/MUKUNDBHAI G PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835