DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This office action is a non-final rejection in response to the filing of the application on 10/17/2024. 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 § 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 9,10,12 and 15 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.
Claim 9 recites:
the furniture system according to claim 1, wherein the power distributor further comprises at least one unidirectional interface and is arranged to supply at least one load connected to one of the at least one unidirectional interface from at least one of the following:
- the internal power supply unit,
- the external power source, if the external power source is connected to the at least one external interface;
- potential energy of the at least one adjustable part.
As per claim 9, the limitation “if” is a conditional statement without corresponding "else" statements. If these limitations are not performed, then there is no defined process to be performed. The examiner understands that in these claims, the open conditional language causes these limitations to be omitted.
“- the external power source, if the external power source is connected to the at least one external interface; ”,
if these conditions are not met, then these steps never occurred.
Processes can be considered as a series of steps to achieve a claimed task hence making the claim indefinite, because the claims are a conditional method step. When executing a process, each step is performed. However, upon reaching an "IF-THEN-ELSE" logical block, each TRUE/FALSE option is equally likely. A process step that includes only an "IF-THEN" logical question means that THEN result only occurs when the answer is TRUE. An answer equally likely is FALSE and therefore the THEN result will not occur. There is a question as to whether the step is even performed, especially if the condition is something that’s only going to be available to someone with the invention in hand as opposed to a description of the invention. It’s difficult/impossible to determine the scope of the claim because if the “if” is not true the claim adds nothing and is not further limiting.
The Examiner takes further guidance from the MPEP § 2106(11)C on how to handle these logical blocks. Specifically, "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation." It is the Examiner's position that when a claimed invention includes a logical block that suggests another choice (FALSE), then the resulting action is not limiting as it may never be performed. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret this claim as best understood.
Claim 10 is rejected under 112th b since it depends on claim 9.
Claim 15, discloses a method for power distribution in a furniture system according claim 1, the method comprising:
- determining a momentary total power demand of all loads connected to the internal network, in particular the components for electrical adjustment of the table system,
- determining an available power from the internal power supply unit,
- determining an available power from one or more connected external power sources, and
- supplying the loads connected to the internal network with combined power from the internal power supply unit and from the connected external power sources if the determined available power from the internal power supply unit is lower than the determined total power demand and if a sum of the determined available power from the internal power supply unit and the external power sources is higher than the determined total power demand.
Claim 1 recites a furniture system, dependent claim 15 recites a method for power distribution in a furniture system, this is a mixture (combination) of statutory classes and are indefinite since both claims recite both structural elements and active method steps.
The examiner recommends the applicant to either rewrite the claim 15 in an independent form or to cancel the claim 15.
In addition, as per claim 15, the limitation “if” is a conditional statement without corresponding "else" statements. If these limitations are not performed, then there is no defined process to be performed. The examiner understands that in these claims, the open conditional language causes these limitations to be omitted.
“- supplying the loads connected to the internal network with combined power from the internal power supply unit and from the connected external power sources if the determined available power from the internal power supply unit is lower than the determined total power demand and if a sum of the determined available power from the internal power supply unit and the external power sources is higher than the determined total power demand.”,
if these conditions are not met, then these steps never occurred.
Processes can be considered as a series of steps to achieve a claimed task hence making the claim indefinite, because the claims are a conditional method step. When executing a process, each step is performed. However, upon reaching an "IF-THEN-ELSE" logical block, each TRUE/FALSE option is equally likely. A process step that includes only an "IF-THEN" logical question means that THEN result only occurs when the answer is TRUE. An answer equally likely is FALSE and therefore the THEN result will not occur. There is a question as to whether the step is even performed, especially if the condition is something that’s only going to be available to someone with the invention in hand as opposed to a description of the invention. It’s difficult/impossible to determine the scope of the claim because if the “if” is not true the claim adds nothing and is not further limiting.
The Examiner takes further guidance from the MPEP § 2106(11)C on how to handle these logical blocks. Specifically, "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation." It is the Examiner's position that when a claimed invention includes a logical block that suggests another choice (FALSE), then the resulting action is not limiting as it may never be performed. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret this claim as best understood.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites: the furniture system according to claim 1, wherein the controller unit is configured to supply the components for electrical adjustment with power from a combination of power from the internal power supply unit and power from at least one connected external power source when the controller unit determines that the power of the internal power supply unit is insufficient for a loading situation of the at least one adjustable part of the furniture system.
as per claim 12, the limitation “when” is a conditional statement without corresponding "else" statements. If these limitations are not performed, then there is no defined process to be performed. The examiner understands that in these claims, the open conditional language causes these limitations to be omitted.
“wherein the controller unit is configured to supply the components for electrical adjustment with power from a combination of power from the internal power supply unit and power from at least one connected external power source when the controller unit determines that the power of the internal power supply unit is insufficient for a loading situation of the at least one adjustable part of the furniture system,
if the condition of “when the controller unit determines that the power of the internal power supply unit is insufficient for a loading situation of the at least one adjustable part of the furniture system” is not met, i.e. (when not), then the controller configuration never occurred.
Processes can be considered as a series of steps to achieve a claimed task hence making the claim indefinite, because the claims are a conditional method step. When executing a process, each step is performed. However, upon reaching an "IF-THEN-ELSE" logical block, each TRUE/FALSE option is equally likely. A process step that includes only an "IF-THEN" logical question means that THEN result only occurs when the answer is TRUE. An answer equally likely is FALSE and therefore the THEN result will not occur. There is a question as to whether the step is even performed, especially if the condition is something that’s only going to be available to someone with the invention in hand as opposed to a description of the invention. It’s difficult/impossible to determine the scope of the claim because if the “if” is not true the claim adds nothing and is not further limiting.
The Examiner takes further guidance from the MPEP § 2106(11)C on how to handle these logical blocks. Specifically, "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation." It is the Examiner's position that when a claimed invention includes a logical block that suggests another choice (FALSE), then the resulting action is not limiting as it may never be performed. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret this claim as best understood.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De La Fuente Sanchez US Patent (US 2020/0093260 A1).
Regarding claim 1, De La Fuente Sanchez discloses a furniture system (700, 720 in figure 7) with at least one electrically adjustable part (720 in figure 7; paragraph [0038]: " ... operates the height adjustment motors in the heightadjustable desk ... "), comprising one or more components for electrically adjusting the at least one electrically adjustable part (paragraph [0033]: " ... concept of this new office desk is a sit and stand desk that elevates using electronic motors ... ");
at least one internal power supply unit (disclosed by paragraph [0050]: "AC power in connector" and simultaneously "DC out" in paragraph [0080]: " ... DC USB connectors (620) located in different parts of the Smart Desk Controller (600) to provide power to other devices such as cell phones ... ");
an internal network for connecting the one or more components (figures 1-2 and paragraph [0080]); and
a power distributor (figures 1-2), the power distributor comprising:
at least one internal interface to the internal network (paragraph [0080]: " ... power distribution system (618) with adaptors ... ");
at least one external interface (2104,2108, Fig 15, par. [0176],[0178]) for connecting an external energy source, the at least one external interface each having one or more lines for voltage supply (paragraph [0107]: " ... captured energy is then transmitted to the power management source ... "; 681 in figure 6,15); and
a controller unit (500) that is configured to control, depending on the demand, one or more energy flows between the internal power supply unit, the internal network and the at least one external interface (see Figs 1-6; par. [0038]-[0040],[0091]-[0094]),
wherein the power distributor (figures 1-2) is configured to selectively supply, in particular via the controller unit (500), the components for electrical adjustment from the following, both individually and in combination: from the internal power supply unit (see Figs 1-6; par. [0072]); and
from the one external energy source when the external energy source is connected to the at least one external interface (figure 6 and paragraph [0107], indicating that the electrical outputs,i.e. those from pedal operation and the AC/DC power, are "mixed" according to the demand),
in addition, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board's finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). (see MPEP 2114).
Furthermore, it has been held that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Exparte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). (See MPEP 2114)).
Regarding claim 2, De La Fuente Sanchez discloses the furniture system according to claim 1, wherein the power distributor comprises at least one further external interface (paragraph [0080]: “ ... power distribution system (618) with adaptors ...”) for connecting a further external power source and is arranged to supply the components for electrical adjustment additionally or alternatively from the further external power source when the further external power source is connected to the at least one further external interface (see Fig 1-7; par. [0048],[0050],[0054],[0097],[0179]).
Regarding claim 3, De La Fuente Sanchez discloses the furniture system according to claim 1, wherein
- the furniture system comprises an electrical energy storage (see batteries 682), in particular for receiving potential energy of the at least one adjustable part (see batteries in Figs 1-7; par. [0070],[0080],[0107]); and
- the power distributor (figures 1-2) is configured to supply the components for electrical adjustment additionally or alternatively from the energy storage (see batteries in Figs 1-7; par. [0070],[0080],[0107]).
Regarding claim 4, De La Fuente Sanchez discloses the furniture system according to claim 3, wherein the power distributor (figures 1-2) is configured to supply the energy storage (see batteries 682) from potential energy of the at least one adjustable part (see batteries in Figs 1-6; par. [0070],[0080],[0107]).
Regarding claim 5, De La Fuente Sanchez discloses furniture system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one external interface (2104,2108, Fig 15, par. [0176],[0178]) and/or, when present, the at least one further external interface are configured as a bidirectional interface (see Figs 1-15, also this claim includes the alternative limitation and/or, when present, therefore the limitation is optional and not required).
Regarding claim 6, De La Fuente Sanchez discloses the furniture system according to claim 5, wherein a direction of an energy flow is adjustable for each of the bidirectional interfaces (see Figs 1-15, in addition, since this claim depend on claim 5, therefore this claim is optional and not required).
Regarding claim 7, De La Fuente Sanchez discloses the furniture system according to claim 5 or 6, wherein a level of an energy flow is adjustable for each of the bidirectional interfaces (see Figs 1-15, in addition, since this claim depend on claim 5, therefore this claim is optional and not required).
Regarding claim 8, De La Fuente Sanchez discloses the furniture system according to claim 5, wherein the power distributor is configured to supply at least one load connected to one of the bidirectional interfaces from at least one of the following:
- the internal power supply unit,
- the external power source, when the external power source is connected to the at least one external interface;
- potential energy of the at least one adjustable part (see Figs 1-15, in addition, since this claim depend on claim 5, therefore this claim is optional and not required).
Regarding claim 9, De La Fuente Sanchez discloses the furniture system according to claim 1, wherein the power distributor (figures 1-2) further comprises at least one unidirectional interface and is arranged to supply at least one load (2104,2108, Fig 1-2,15, par. [0176],[0178]) connected to one of the at least one unidirectional interface from at least one of the following:
- the internal power supply unit (disclosed by paragraph [0050]: "AC power in connector" and simultaneously "DC out" in paragraph [0080]: " ... DC USB connectors (620) located in different parts of the Smart Desk Controller (600) to provide power to other devices such as cell phones ... "),
- the external power source, if the external power source is connected to the at least one external interface;
- potential energy of the at least one adjustable part.
Regarding claim 10, De La Fuente Sanchez discloses the furniture system according to claim 9, wherein a level of an energy flow for the at least one unidirectional interface is adjustable (See Figs 1-15 and par. [0072] disclosing adjust the power the user needs).
Regarding claim 11, De La Fuente Sanchez discloses the furniture system according to claim 1, wherein the power distributor is arranged to negotiate a level and/or a direction of the energy flow by means of a data communication (see figs 1-15, par. [0093]-[0098] disclosing data interfaces, ultimately connected to output devices),
in particular via a data line, with a connected external power source and/or a connected load (see figs 1-15, par. [0093]-[0098] disclosing data interfaces).
Regarding claim 12, De La Fuente Sanchez discloses the furniture system according to claim 1, wherein the controller unit (500) is configured to supply the components for electrical adjustment with power from a combination of power from the internal power supply unit and power from at least one connected external power source when the controller unit (500) determines that the power of the internal power supply unit is insufficient for a loading situation of the at least one adjustable part of the furniture system (see Figs 1-6; par. [0038]-[0040],[0091]-[0094]).
Regarding claim 13, De La Fuente Sanchez discloses the furniture system according to claim 1, wherein the power distributor is configured to connect an external energy storage device and/or an external power supply unit as an external power source (see external storage in par. [0097] and [0179]).
Regarding claim 14, De La Fuente Sanchez discloses the furniture system according to claim 1, wherein the internal network comprises lines for supplying power to the one or more components and lines for data communication between the power distributor and the one or more components and between multiple components (see figs 1-15 and par. [0041],[0049],[0074],[0091]-[0093] and claim 1 disclosing data communication).
Regarding claim 15, De La Fuente Sanchez discloses a method for power distribution in a furniture system (700, 720 in figure 7) according claim 1, the method comprising:
- determining a momentary total power demand of all loads connected to the internal network, in particular the components for electrical adjustment of the table system (see par. [0072]: “select the level of power needed to be applied by the user”),
- determining an available power from the internal power supply unit (disclosed by paragraph [0050]: "AC power in connector" and simultaneously "DC out" in paragraph [0080]: " ... DC USB connectors (620) located in different parts of the Smart Desk Controller (600) to provide power to other devices such as cell phones ... "),
- determining an available power from one or more connected external power sources (see Fig 1,7,15), and
- supplying the loads connected to the internal network with combined power from the internal power supply unit and from the connected external power sources if the determined available power from the internal power supply unit is lower than the determined total power demand and if a sum of the determined available power from the internal power supply unit and the external power sources is higher than the determined total power demand (since this claim has a 112th b, alternative limitations, “if”, then this claim is optional and not required).
Examiner Note
5. The examiner cites particular columns and lines numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the cited prior art in the PTO-892 form attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFONSO PEREZ BORROTO whose telephone number is (571) 270-1714. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9am-4pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taelor Kim can be reached on (571) 270-7166. 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. For 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). If you would like assistance from a
USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ALFONSO PEREZ BORROTO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights