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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 5, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nava et al US Patent Application Publication 2018/0103770.
Additionally, the amendments to the independent claims have introduced new rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) as noted below.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 recites “height of the electric is not…” which appears to be missing the noun --furniture--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 18 recite “a plurality of predetermined that are not user-specific” which is considered new matter. The entire specification utilizes the term “the” user, and the physical states are specifically tied to the condition of the person in/on the furniture. This amendment appears to be an attempt to overcome the prior art rejection which presents user profiles that are utilized, but this limitation does not have any basis of support in the original specification. There is no description as to how the physical states of the user are not user-specific as a “sleep state” and “awake state” are conditions of the specific user of the furniture.
Claims 2-17 and 19-22 are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
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 1-22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, as noted above, the specification does not describe how the predetermined states are not user-specific, therefore the scope of these claims is indefinite. The states are in fact specific to the user, but the Examiner believes the Applicant is attempting to highlight the generic states of sleeping or of being awake. While those conditions can happen to any user, they are still user-specific (the condition of being asleep means of the user of the furniture and not specific to another person in the room). Examiner will interpret this claim as requiring a “sleeping state” condition and “awake state” condition as the conditions the user will experience in/on the furniture.
Claim 2 recites that the controller operates in a manual mode which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 has been amended to note that the states are “awake” and “asleep”, therefore it is unclear how a user, when asleep, can operate the method in manual mode.
Claims 8 and 10 still contain subject matter which was amended into claim 1 while also rendering the scope unclear. Claim 1 requires the first predetermined physical state be a sleeping state but then claims 8 and 10 allow for a falling asleep state. This renders the scopes of the claims indefinite.
Claim 14 recites the predetermined physical states are “based on the biometric characteristics” but amended claim 1 requires the predetermined physical states be “not user-specific”. This comparison makes the link between the user and “not-user specific” unclear as there must be some overlap.
Claim 22 recites “a speed of movement…is slower than a speed of movement” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what speed is slower and what the comparison is. The claim requires a manual move and then says that the controller controls in a slower movement, but there is no clear delineation between the controller and whatever manual mode means. The claims do not clearly define what elements are automatic, and presumably slower, and what elements are manual and presumably faster.
Claims 3-7, 9, 11-13, 15-17 and 19-21 are rejected as depending from a rejected indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim broadens the possible physical states from the newly amended claim 1 physical states. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 16-19, 21, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nava et al US -Patent Application Publication 2018/0103770 hereinafter referred to as Nava.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 18, Nava discloses electric furniture, and method controlling thereof, comprising: a movable part (the frame (30) and adjustable base frame (10), in general and also noted as (1702) in the disclosed embodiment); an actuator ((90, 110, 110) in general and (1706, 1712) in the specific embodiment disclosed) configured to move the movable part [0099, 0104, 0109, 0130, and 0133]; a detector (1718) configured to detect a physical state of a user on the electric furniture [0136 which notes that this may be an external device, and [0028] which notes this can be an active sleep system that recognizes sleep); a memory [0131]; and a controller (1710) configured to: automatically perform an operation to determine that the physical state of the user detected by the detector corresponds to one of a plurality of predetermined physical states that are not user-specific [0132, 0133, 0136 - performs the control of the bed automatically depending on the inputs it receives according to whether the user is awake or asleep (in general and not tied to a specific user), see also Figure 33], the plurality of predetermined physical states including a first predetermined physical state, which is a predetermined sleeping state on the electric furniture [0137], and a second predetermined physical state, which is a predetermined awake state on the electric furniture [0137]; upon determining that the detected physical state corresponds to the first predetermined physical state at a first time, store in the memory a positional state of the movable part at the first time as a first positional state in association with the first predetermined physical state [0026 - the lay down position is a stored positioned]; upon determining that the detected physical state corresponds to the second predetermined physical state at a second time, store in the memory a positional state of the movable part at the second time as a second positional state in association with the second predetermined physical state [0029, 00136 - the user can store the position they desire when awake and watching TV as an exemplary activity disclose]; upon determining that the detected physical state corresponds to the first predetermined physical state at a third time after the first time (either from the generated timer, signals from other devices, or input from the user, see [0026, 0028]), control the actuator based on data stored in the memory such that the movable part is moved to be in the first positional state [0026, 0029, 0130 - moves the user to lay down]; and upon determining that the detected physical state corresponds to the second predetermined physical state at a fourth time after the second time (because the user hits a button, and therefore triggers the awake functions, see [0136, 0137]), control the actuator based on data stored in the memory such that the movable part is moved to be in the second positional state (the furniture will move back to the sitting, awake position, see [0136, 0137]).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Nava further discloses wherein the controller is configured to operate in an auto mode during which the controller performs the operation (via the pre-programming as cited above), and in a manual mode during which the controller does not perform the operation (via the button press as cited above).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Nava further discloses a remote control device (the controller (1710) comprises a remote control [0132]) connectable to the controller, the remote control device including a first button and a second button, the first button being located in a first surface of the remote control device, the second button being located in a second surface of the remote control device, the second surface being opposite to the first surface [0132-0135].
Regarding claim 6, Nava further discloses wherein the controller is configured to automatically store in the memory the positional state of the movable part at the first time as the first positional state in association with the first predetermined physical state and store in the memory the positional state of the movable part at the second time as the second positional state in association with the second predetermined physical state without use of a remote control device connected to the controller [0029, 0137 - the programs are stored with or without the remote, and the remote with input can be distinct from the controller as noted in 0136].
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Nava further discloses wherein the first positional state of the movable part corresponds to a state in which a height of the electric furniture is a lowest height (the lay down function as cited above, [0029 - “flat position”]).
Regarding claim 9, Nava further discloses wherein the controller is configured to control the actuator so as to lower the height of the electric furniture if the height of the electric is not the lowest height [0137].
Regarding claims 10, 11, 16, and 17, as best understood, Nava further discloses wherein the first predetermined physical state corresponds to a falling asleep state or a sleeping state of the user, and the first positional state of the movable part corresponds to a state in which an angle of a back portion of the electric furniture is within a first range, and adjusting when the back is not within the desired range [0138].
Regarding claim 21, Nava further discloses at least one safety detector selected from a floor detector configured to detect an object between the movable part and a floor, and a frame detector configured to detect an object between the movable part and a frame (capacitive sensors); wherein the controller is further configured to: prevent the control of the actuator based on the stored data when the at least one safety detector detects an object [0037, 0162-0164].
Regarding claim 22, as best understood, Nava further discloses a first user interface configured to receive a manual control operation, wherein the controller is further configured to control the actuator such that a speed of movement of the movable part based on the detected physical state is slower than a speed of movement of the movable part based on the manual control operation received by the first user interface [0148].
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 4, 5, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nava as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Tanaka US Patent Application Publication 2003/0088918 hereinafter referred to as Tanaka.
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Nava fails to disclose wherein an operational mode of the electric furniture includes a first mode and a second mode that is settable by the second button, and the controller is configured to store in the memory the positional state of the movable part at the first time as the first positional state in association with the first predetermined physical state and store in the memory the positional state of the movable part at the second time as the second positional state in association with the second predetermined physical state during the second mode, and not during the first mode.
Tanaka teaches an analogous electric furniture that is controlled by remote control (see Figure 4). Tanka further teaches that the bed can be controlled automatically or manually [0076]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Nava to comprise both an automatic mode and a manual mode, as taught by Tanaka, in order to solve the problem of controlling bed movements and selecting one of a finite options (manual and/or automatic as taught between Tanaka and Nava) with a reasonable expectation of success for controlling actuators for bed movement (as taught by both Nava and Tanaka).
Regarding claim 5, Nava in view of Tanaka further teach wherein the controller is configured to control the actuator such that the movable part is moved to be in the first positional state upon the first button being operated during the first mode [as taught by Tanaka in 0076].
Claims 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nava as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of REFSNÆS et al US Patent Application Publication 2019/0274905 hereinafter referred to as Refs.
Regarding claims 12, 14, and 15, Nava discloses wherein the controller can be in contact with external information to determine conditions of the user to know if they are awake or asleep [0028, 0136]. Nava fails to disclose the details of those external systems. Refs teaches an analogous electric bed that monitors a user and modifies the bed position accordingly (see Figure 3). Refs further teaches that the user can be monitored via a weight sensor [0079], a biometric sensor [0068], and a camera [0083]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included one of the previous detecting means taught by Refs as one of the external detecting means as taught by Nava in order to discern the condition of the user as taught by both Refs and Nava.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nava as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blumberg US Patent 9,591,995 hereinafter referred to as Blumberg.
Regarding claim 13, Nava discloses wherein the detector can include a microphone to text snoring to move the bed accordingly [0030, 0138]. However, Nava fails to disclose wherein the detector is a vibration sensor. Blumberg teaches means for detecting snoring on a moveable electric bed that includes means for analyzing audio or vibrations (Column 11, lines 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to simply substitute the microphone of Nava with a vibration sensor to yield the predictable result of detecting snoring to trigger bed movement as Blumberg teaches these are analogous methods of snoring detection.
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 TARA SCHIMPF whose telephone number is (571)270-7741. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 3:30pm 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, John Fristoe can be reached at (571) 272-4926. 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.
/TARA SCHIMPF/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights