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 Amendment
Examiner acknowledges preliminary amendment to the claims filed on 02/15/2022. They have been entered and considered.
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.
Claims 1-6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lamb (USPGPUB 20070190496) “Lamb”.
Regarding claim 1, Lamb discloses a furnishing planning system (Fig. 1), for assisting with the selection of the number, arrangement and/or configuration of pieces of furniture and/or their ordering (“Couch”, “Love Seat”, “End Table”, etc...), characterized wherein the furnishing planning system has at least one simulation device (104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, and 120) configured for simulating the floor space requirement of at least one piece of furniture in a real room (100) to be furnished.
Regarding claim 2, Lamb discloses the furnishing planning system according to claim 1, wherein the simulation device (104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, and 120) comprises or is formed by at least one physical placeholder ([0017]) of a floor plan of a piece of furniture (“Couch”, “Love Seat”, “End Table”, etc...).
Regarding claim 3, Lamb discloses the furnishing planning system according to claim 1, wherein the simulation device (104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, and 120) is plate-shaped and has an outline ([0028]) that at least substantially coincides with the floor plan of a piece of furniture (“Couch”, “Love Seat”, “End Table”, etc...).
Regarding claim 4, Lamb discloses the furnishing planning system according to claim 1, wherein the simulation device (104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, and 120) comprises at least one piece of information (206) which contains the configuration of the respectively simulated piece of furniture (“Couch”, “Love Seat”, “End Table”, etc...).
Regarding claim 5, Lamb discloses the furnishing planning system according to claim 1, wherein the simulation device (104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, and 120) comprises resizing aids ([0020]).
Regarding claim 6, Lamb discloses the furnishing planning system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one simulation device (104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, and 120) comprises a stencil (204).
Regarding claim 11, Lamb discloses the furnishing planning system according to claim 1, wherein multiple simulation devices (104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, and 120) for simulating the floor space requirements of a piece of furniture (“Couch”, “Love Seat”, “End Table”, etc...) in a real room (100) to be furnished are arranged in the container (212), which are different from each other and form a set ([0022]).
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.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamb, and further in view of Kelly et al. (USPGPUB 20050277093) “Kelly”.
Regarding claim 7, Lamb discloses the furnishing planning system according to claim 1, and the furnishing planning system with multiple simulation devices (104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, and 120) which are different from each other.
Lamb does not disclose a connecting means for reversibly connecting to each other and form a set.
Kelly teaches a means for reversibly connecting to form a set (52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Kelly’s connectors in Lamb’s furnishing planning system to better maintain the position of Lamb’s simulation devices and reduce setup time when exploring multiple layouts.
Regarding claim 10, Lamb and Kelly disclose the furnishing planning system according to claim 7, wherein the furnishing planning system comprises a container (Lamb; 212) for accommodating the simulation devices (Lamb; 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, and 120), and the mass of the container (Lamb; 212) together with the simulation devices is less than 25 or 10 or 5 kg.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Lamb’s container in Lamb and Kelly’s furnishing planning system, making it easier to ship Lamb’s simulation devices to the user.
Claims 8, 9, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamb, and further in view of Barlett (US Patent 6782119) “Barlett”.
Regarding claim 8, Lamb discloses the furnishing planning system according to claim 4.
Lamb does not disclose software for an electronic data processing device.
Barlett teaches software for an electronic data processing device (100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Barlett’s software for an electronic data processing device in Lamb’s furnishing planning system, connecting physical template planning with digital planning and making it easier for the user to design their room layout.
Regarding claim 9, Lamb and Barlett disclose the furnishing planning system according to claim 8, wherein the data processing device (Barlett; 100) comprises an electronic reading device (Barlett; 90), and the information (Lamb; 206), the reading device (Barlett; 90) and the software are coordinated with one another (Barlett; 96) such that the information (Lamb; 206) is configured to be read by the reading device (Barlett; 90) and processed in the data processing device (Barlett; 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to coordinate Lamb’s information with Barlett’s reading device and software, making it easier for the user to digitally access information regarding their furniture layout.
Regarding claim 12, Lamb discloses a stencil for furniture construction or for the furnishing planning system according to claim 1, which is made of a material in defined dimensions ([0019]), wherein the stencil comprises multiple markings aligned in the longitudinal and/or transverse direction of the material (204), wherein by means of the markings, sections of different depth ([0020]), width and/or height are marked at a defined distance from their outer edges to be created to a side edge of the material ([0020]).
Lamb does not disclose at least one piece of information configured to be scanned and/or read in electronically.
Barlett teaches at least one piece of information configured to be scanned and/or read in electronically (Fig. 6A-6D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Barlett’s scannable information on Lamb’s stencil for furnishing planning, providing an easier way for the user to get information about the size of furniture that works in their room.
Regarding claim 13, Lamb and Barlett disclose the stencil according to claim 12, wherein the defined distances (Lamb; 204) correspond to the standard widths, depths, and/or heights of kitchen furniture ([0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to correspond Lamb’s defined distances with standard widths, depths, and/or heights of kitchen furniture, ensuring better consistency and making planning faster and easier.
Regarding claim 14, Lamb and Barlett disclose a method for using the furniture planning system according to claim 1, further including the following steps:
configuring at least one piece of furniture (Lamb; “Couch”, “Love Seat”, “End Table”, etc...) by selecting and/or resizing a simulation device (Lamb; 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, and 120),
simulating the configuration in a real room (Lamb; 1100) to be furnished by means of the at least one simulation device (Lamb; 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, and 120),
checking the configuration (Barlett; 120), and
depending on the result of this check, either keeping the configuration, or discarding the configuration and creating a new configuration and re-simulating and checking the new configuration (Barlett; 126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Lamb’s simulation devices in Barlett’s configuration checking method, allowing the user to achieve their desired layout while verifying it meets spatial and functional requirements before implementation.
Regarding claim 15, Lamb and Barlett disclose the method for using a furnishing planning system according to claim 14, wherein after keeping the configuration (Barlett; 126), the information of the at least one selected and/or resized simulation device (Lamb; 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, and 120) is entered and/or read into the electronic data processing device (Barlett; 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Barlett’s configuration checking method in Lamb and Barlett’s method for using a furnishing planning system, allowing the user to achieve their desired layout while verifying it meets spatial and functional requirements before implementation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA JOSEPHINE SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6528. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/ANNA JOSEPHINE SAUNDERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855