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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 10/24/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 13 (the second occurrence of claim 13) 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 13 (the second occurrence of claim 13) is indefinite because two claims are numbered 13, and the second claim 13 refers to itself. Therefore, it is unclear which previously set forth claim the second claim 13 is intended to depend from. For the purpose of examination, the second occurrence claim 13 is interpreted as claim 14.
Claim 13 (the second occurrence of claim 13) is indefinite because the previous recitation “A method” has been deleted. It is not known which method “the method” is referring to, therefore “the method” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Strothmann et al. (US 9,236,817 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Strothmann discloses a collision detection device configured to be arranged in an adjustable piece of furniture comprising a driving arrangement and a first part and a second part being moveable relative to each other (see below annotated Fig. 4A and 4B, elem. 5, 6 and 3; see Col. 1, ll. 13-14,” The present invention relates to a device and a method for detecting a collision of furniture…”) said collision detection device being configured to detect a collision during motion of said adjustable piece of furniture, the collision detection device comprising (see Col. 7, lines 44-56,” … device for detecting collisions of the automatically movable member with obstacles, an automatic drive mechanism 5, 6 which is adapted to move the movable member…”): a holder configured to, when in use, be arranged to one of the first and second parts of the adjustable piece of furniture to be at least indirectly in contact with a part of the driving arrangement (see below annotated Fig. 4B, elem. 31, 32 and 40); a circuit board arranged on the holder, said circuit board comprising a wiring circuit on at least one of its sides (see below annotated Fig. 4B, elem. 40 and 41; see Col. 6, ll. 43-44,” The coupling section, also called the "tail", is a wired lead for coupling the FSR 41 with the downstream electronics”. The FSR, together with its conductive leads and associated downstream electronics , forms an electrical circuit); wherein the holder is configured to, when arranged to the adjustable piece of furniture ( see annotated Fig. 4B, elem. 31, 40 and 41; see below Fig. 2, elem. 1, 31 and 32), transfer a force from the driving arrangement acting on the holder to the circuit board such that said force implies a flexure of the circuit board (see Col. 5, ll. 38-53,” The sensor frame 40 is formed in such a way as to be arranged within the inner table-leg member 31 and above the electric motor 5. The FSR 41 has a measuring section and a coupling section. It is important to note that the shape of the FSR 41 has an influence on its electrical conductivity; there can however be applied FSR with other shapes than described here”; see Col. 5, ll. 15-16,” The electric motors 5 of both of the table-legs 3 are driven 15 by a control device…”).
PNG
media_image1.png
562
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
959
699
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Strothmann discloses: further comprising a processing unit configured to apply a voltage over the at least one wiring circuit and measuring an electrical quantity which is dependent on the electrical characteristic of the at least one wiring circuit (see Col. 5, ll. 15-16,” The electric motors 5 of both of the table-legs 3 are driven 15 by a control device…”; Col. 3, ll. 15-17,” The resistance to be recorded is measured by the electronics connected”; see Col. 6, ll. 43-44,” The coupling section, also called the "tail", is a wired lead for coupling the FSR 41 with the downstream electronics”).
With respect to claim 3, Strothmann discloses: wherein the processing unit is configured to issue a collision event signal based on the measured electrical quantity of the at least one wiring circuit (see Col. 7, ll. 49-54,” a control device adapted to control the automatic drive mechanism 5, 6, and at least one sensor 4 adapted to detect a collision during the motion of the movable member 1, 2, 31 with an obstacle and to transmit this incident to the control device, wherein the at least one sensor 4 comprises a force-sensitive sensor 41”; see above Col. 5, ll. 15-16).
With respect to claim 7, Strothmann discloses: wherein said electrical characteristic of the at least one wiring circuit is electrical resistance (see Col. 6, ll. 41-53,” The measuring section being present is a basically round surface on which the pressure for changing the resistance is to be applied. The coupling section, also called the "tail", is a wired lead for coupling the FSR 41 with the downstream electronics” the reference inherently has a circuit”).
With respect to claim 8, Strothmann discloses: wherein the adjustable piece of furniture comprises at least one telescopic column (see above annotated Fig. 4A and 4B, elem. 31 and 32), said first part being a first tube of the at least one telescopic column and said second part being a second part of said telescopic column (see above annotated Fig. 4A and 4B, elem. 31 and 32; Col. 5, lines 5-9, A table-leg comprises an inner table-leg- 5 member 31 which is at its upper end connected to the carrier plate 22, and an outer table-leg-member 32, wherein the table-leg-members 31, 32 are arranged in such a way that the table-leg 3 is telescopically variable in length), wherein the holder is configured to be arranged in contact with one the tubes of the telescopic column (see above annotated Fig 4B. elem. 40 and 31, 42,43 and 34).
With respect to claim 11, Strothmann discloses: wherein the circuit board is pre-biased on the holder (see above annotated FIG. 4B, elem. 40 and 41; Col. 5, ll. 38-53,” The sensor frame 40 is formed in such a way as to be arranged within the inner table-leg member 31 and above the electric motor 5. The FSR 41 has a measuring section and a coupling section. It is important to note that the shape of the FSR 41 has an influence on its electrical conductivity; there can however be applied FSR with other shapes than described here”. Strothmann discloses the FSR 41 having a preset shape which influences its electrical conductivity configured within the sensor frame (see above annotated Fig. 4B, elem. 40 and 41, col. 5 lines 38-53), thereby making the sensing structure a pre-biased configuration in the frame).
With respect to claim 12, Strothmann discloses: wherein the holder is shaped to hold the circuit board in a bent configuration in a resting position (see above annotated Fig. 4B, elem. 40 and 41; Col. 6, ll. 37-38,” The FSR 41 is arranged above the electric motor 5 within a sensor frame 40.” See Col. ll. 46-48, “It is important to note that the shape of the FSR 41 has an influence on its electrical conductivity; there can however be applied FSR with other shapes than described here”. Strothmann discloses the FSR 41 having a preset shape which influences its electrical conductivity configured within the sensor frame (Fig. 4B, elem. 40 and 41, col. 5 lines 38-53), thereby making the sensing structure a pre-biased configuration in the frame which is bent to store potential energy).
With respect to claim 13, Strothmann discloses: whereby the device is implemented on an adjustable piece of furniture (see above annotated above Fig. 4B, elem. 31 and 32; see below Fig. 1, elem. 31, 32 and 1) whereby the device: measures an electrical quantity of the wiring circuit during motion of the adjustable piece of furniture, and issues, based on said measuring, a collision event signal (see Col. 4, ll. 22-24,” the FSR in said sensor in the case of a collision of a furniture with an obstacle, and/or detecting a load of the furniture, either in the case of a collision or in a static-motionless-state 25 transmitting a collision-signal or an overload-signal...”).
With respect to claim 13 (interpreted as claim 14 for the purpose of examination), Strothmann discloses: The method according to claim 13, further comprising a step of halting and/or reversing the motion of the adjustable piece of furniture based on the collision event signal (see Col. 1, ll. 66-67 and Col. 2, ll. 1-2, “device with adjustable elements,
wherein there is provided a piezo-electric sensor which in case of a detected collision, initiates a control signal which stops or reverses the movement”).
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 5, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strothmann et al. (US 9,236,817 B2) in view of Keller et al. US (10470563 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Strothmann discloses a collision detection device. Strothmann does not disclose: wherein said wiring circuit on the circuit board is a first wiring circuit arranged on a first side of the circuit board, and the circuit board further comprises a second wiring circuit on a second side of the circuit board, and wherein electrical characteristics of both the first and second wiring circuits depend on the flexure of the circuit board.
Keller discloses: wherein said wiring circuit on the circuit board is a first wiring circuit arranged on a first side of the circuit board (see [0013], “The deformation sensor is arranged or designed to detect a change between the first reference section…”), and the circuit board further comprises a second wiring circuit on a second side of the circuit board (“…and the second reference section”), and wherein electrical characteristics of both the first and second wiring circuits depend on the flexure of the circuit board (see [0019], “ The piezo effect here can be a piezoresistive effect,
which describes the change of electrical resistance of a material by means of pressure or tension”; see below annotated Fig. 4, elem. 311 and 333; see [0045],” … is thus bent and the reference distance 72' between the two is increased. This is accompanied by a change in the distance between the first reference section 311 and the second reference section 333).
Strothmann and Keller are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field for measuring forces due to impact. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Strothmann with Keller to provide a faster more responsive collision detection by monitoring the rate of change of the electrical quantity (see Keller [0005] and [0013]).
PNG
media_image3.png
319
665
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Strothmann discloses a collision detection device. Strothmann does not disclose wherein the processing unit is configured to measure an electrical quantity of both wiring circuits respectively.
Keller discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to measure an electrical quantity of both wiring circuits respectively (see [0007], “Known safety mechanisms comprise a sensor,
which measures a deformation or a displacement of two components of a piece of furniture with respect to one another.” Keller’s sensor functions as the claimed processing unit because the sensor performs proceeding of the detected signals).
Strothmann and Keller are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field for measuring forces due to impact. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Strothmann with Keller to provide a quicker adjustment to a physical relative change of the two reference sections (see Keller [0005]).
Regarding claim 16, Strothmann discloses a collision detection device. Strothmann does not disclose: wherein said wiring circuit on the circuit board is a first wiring circuit arranged on a first side of the circuit board, and the circuit board further comprises a second wiring circuit on a second side of the circuit board, and wherein electrical characteristics of both the first and second wiring circuits depend on the flexure of the circuit board.
Keller discloses: wherein said wiring circuit on the circuit board is a first wiring circuit arranged on a first side of the circuit board (see [0013], “The deformation sensor is arranged or designed to detect a change between the first reference section…”), and the circuit board further comprises a second wiring circuit on a second side of the circuit board (“…and the second reference section”), and wherein electrical characteristics of both the first and second wiring circuits depend on the flexure of the circuit board (see [0019], “ The piezo effect here can be a piezoresistive effect,
which describes the change of electrical resistance of a material by means of pressure or tension”; see above annotated Fig. 4, elem. 311 and 333; see [0045],” … is thus bent and the reference distance 72' between the two is increased. This is accompanied by a change in the distance between the first reference section 311 and the second reference section 333).
Strothmann and Keller are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field for measuring forces due to impact. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Strothmann with Keller to provide a quicker collision detection (see Keller [0005] and [0013]).
Regarding claim 17, Strothmann discloses a collision detection device. Strothmann does not disclose: wherein said wiring circuit on the circuit board is a first wiring circuit arranged on a first side of the circuit board, and the circuit board further comprises a second wiring circuit on a second side of the circuit board, and wherein electrical characteristics of both the first and second wiring circuits depend on the flexure of the circuit board.
Keller discloses: wherein said wiring circuit on the circuit board is a first wiring circuit arranged on a first side of the circuit board (see [0013], “The deformation sensor is arranged or designed to detect a change between the first reference section…”), and the circuit board further comprises a second wiring circuit on a second side of the circuit board (“…and the second reference section”), and wherein electrical characteristics of both the first and second wiring circuits depend on the flexure of the circuit board (see [0019], “ The piezo effect here can be a piezoresistive effect,
which describes the change of electrical resistance of a material by means of pressure or tension”; see above annotated Fig. 4, elem. 311 and 333; see [0045],” … is thus bent and the reference distance 72' between the two is increased. This is accompanied by a change in the distance between the first reference section 311 and the second reference section 333).
Strothmann and Keller are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field for measuring forces due to impact. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Strothmann with Keller to provide a quicker collision detection (see Keller [0005] and [0013]).
Claims 6, 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strothmann et al. (US 9,236,817 B2) in view of Shelton (US 20190200987 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Strothmann discloses a collision detection device.
Strothmann does not disclose wherein the processing unit is configured to estimate a derivative of the electrical quantity.
Shelton discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to estimate a derivative of the electrical quantity ([0435],” ... The derivative technique or rate of change measure becomes most useful...”).
Strothmann and Shelton are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field for measuring forces due to impact. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Strothmann with Shelton to provide a faster rate of change (see Shelton [0448]).
Regarding claim 9, Strothmann discloses a collision detection device. Strothmann does not disclose wherein the holder is configured to be arranged on a part of the piece of furniture or the driving arrangement through a snap-fit function or screwing means.
Shelton discloses wherein the holder is configured to be arranged on a part of the piece of furniture or the driving arrangement through a snap-fit function or screwing means (see [0241],” A second channel is configured to slidably receive the light source module, which can be configured for a snap-fit engagement with the second channel. A threaded engagement can be employed in lieu of the snap-fit engagement”).
Strothmann and Shelton are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field for measuring forces due to impact. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Strothmann with Shelton to more effectively employ attachments (see Shelton [0439]).
Regarding claim 18, Strothmann discloses a collision detection device. Strothmann does not disclose wherein the processing unit is configured to estimate a derivative of the electrical quantity.
Shelton discloses: wherein the processing unit is configured to estimate a derivative of the electrical quantity (see [0435],” Measuring not only how much time has passed but the variation of the sensor signals and determining the derivative of the signal”…; see [0641] Unless specifically stated otherwise as apparent from the foregoing disclosure, it is appreciated that, throughout the foregoing disclosure, discussions using terms such as “processing,” “computing,” “calculating,” “determining,” “displaying,” or the like, refer to the action and processes of a computer system, or similar electronic computing device, that manipulates and transforms data represented as physical (electronic) quantities..”).
Strothmann and Shelton are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field for measuring forces due to impact. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Strothmann with Shelton to dramatically improve staple formation (see Shelton [0435]).
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strothmann et al. (US 9,236,817 B2) in view of Hansen (US 9993069 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Strothmann discloses a collision detection device. Strothmann does not disclose wherein the processing unit is configured to be calibrated for forces between the holder and the adjustable piece of furniture or the driving arrangement, by repeatedly or continuously measuring the electrical characteristic of the at least one wiring circuit motion of the adjustable piece of furniture.
Hansen discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to be calibrated for forces between the holder and the adjustable piece of furniture or the driving arrangement (see below Fig. 2 shows a schematic flow diagram for signal processing for the control of the height-adjustable table according
to the invention, with a column or respectively with a sensor “; Col. 9, ll. 31-32,” When the lifting column must be calibrated in its position, i.e. when the lifting colunm must ascertain its current position…”), by repeatedly or continuously measuring the electrical characteristic of the at least one wiring circuit motion of the adjustable piece of furniture (see below, “FIG. 1 shows the schematic circuit arrangement of a circuit for controlling a height-adjustable table”. See Col. 6, ll. 58-62,” This means that the voltage likewise varies over the measuring resistance which can be measured at the filter output, with a variation of the electrical resistance of the force-sensitive sensor”. See Col. 9, ll. 7-8, “…as long as the master sensor determines a continuous load upwards or respectively downwards. It is well known in the art for a force sensor to include at least one wiring circuit for detecting an electrical change from applied force).
Strothmann and Hansen are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field for measuring forces due to impact. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Strothmann with Hansen to be able to prevent damage to the structure and to other objects (see Hansen Col. 1, ll. 62-64).
PNG
media_image4.png
437
664
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
835
499
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Strothmann discloses a collision detection device. Strothmann does not disclose: further comprising a step of comparing the measured electrical quantity with a predetermined threshold, wherein the predetermined threshold varies along the telescopic column's stroke of length based on a calibration curve the calibration curve providing load on the collision detection device (2) in a state of the telescopic column without external load as a function of stroke position, and issuing the collision event signal based on said comparison.
Hansen discloses: further comprising a step of comparing the measured electrical quantity with a predetermined threshold (see Col. 2 ll.39-40," When a measuring resistance, which has a constant electrical resistance..."; see Col.9, ll. 26-27,"...or increases up to over a threshold value which is to be established in advance"), wherein the predetermined threshold varies along the telescopic column's stroke of length based on a calibration curve the calibration curve providing load on the collision detection device (2) in a state of the telescopic column without external load as a function of stroke position (see Col. 9, ll. 29-55, "When the lifting column must be calibrated in its position, i.e. when the lifting colunm must ascertain its current position...This arrangement can, in addition, be arranged or respectively accommodated inside the height adjustment device. With the use of additional sensors for the detection of collisions(jamming), it is, in addition, advantageous that the sensors have different sensitivities for signal detection"), and issuing the collision event signal based on said comparison (see Col.5, ll. 31-33," More precisely, the control unit has a comparison unit, which compares the loads of the two sensors with one another...").
Strothmann and Hansen are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field for measuring forces due to impact. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Strothmann with Hansen to be able to prevent damage to the structure and to other objects (see Hansen Col. 1, ll. 62-64).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strothmann et al. (US 9,236,817 B2) in view of Keller et al. (US 10470563 B2) and further in view of Shelton et al. (US 20190200987 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Strothmann and Keller disclose a collision detection device (see below Keller annotated FIG. 5, elem. 31 and 811,” The impact nose 811 is positioned on the underside of the tabletop 31. In the position in FIG. 5, the deflection lever 81 is in a normal starting position, i.e. oriented in an untilted or horizontal manner”. The impact nose is utilized to detect collision).
Strothmann and Keller do not disclose wherein the processing unit is configured to estimate a derivative of the electrical quantity.
Shelton discloses: (see [0435],” Measuring not only how much time has passed but the variation of the sensor signals and determining the derivative of the signal…” ; see [0641] Unless specifically stated otherwise as apparent from the foregoing disclosure, it is appreciated that, throughout the foregoing disclosure, discussions using terms such as “processing,” “computing,” “calculating,” “determining,” “displaying,” or the like, refer to the action and processes of a computer system, or similar electronic computing device, that manipulates and transforms data represented as physical (electronic) quantities..”).
Strothmann, Keller and Shelton are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field for measuring forces due to impact. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Strothmann and Keller with Shelton to dramatically improve staple formation (see Shelton [0435]).
PNG
media_image6.png
364
645
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Strothmann and Keller disclose a collision detection device. Strothmann and Keller do not disclose wherein the processing unit is configured to estimate a derivative of the electrical quantity.
Shelton discloses: (see [0435],” Measuring not only how much time has passed but the variation of the sensor signals and determining the derivative of the signal…” ; see [0641] Unless specifically stated otherwise as apparent from the foregoing disclosure, it is appreciated that, throughout the foregoing disclosure, discussions using terms such as “processing,” “computing,” “calculating,” “determining,” “displaying,” or the like, refer to the action and processes of a computer system, or similar electronic computing device, that manipulates and transforms data represented as physical (electronic) quantities..”).
Strothmann, Keller and Shelton are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field for measuring forces due to impact. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Strothmann and Keller with Shelton to dramatically improve staple formation (see Shelton [0435]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are considered relevant but fail to teach the combination as claimed:
Bergvall (US 20080315568 A1) teaches a collision detection device; wherein said wiring circuit on the circuit board is a first wiring circuit arranged on a first side of the circuit board, and the circuit board further comprises a second wiring circuit on a second side of the circuit board, and wherein electrical characteristics of both the first and second wiring circuits depend on the flexure of the circuit board; wherein the processing unit is configured to measure an electrical quantity of both wiring circuits respectively; wherein the processing unit is configured to issue a collision event signal based on the measured electrical quantity of the at least one wiring circuit; wherein said wiring circuit on the circuit board is a first wiring circuit arranged on a first side of the circuit board, and the circuit board further comprises a second wiring circuit on a second side of the circuit board, and wherein electrical characteristics of both the first and second wiring circuits depend on the flexure of the circuit board; wherein the processing unit is configured to measure an electrical quantity of both wiring circuits respectively; wherein said electrical characteristic of the at least one wiring circuit is electrical resistance: further comprising a step of comparing the measured electrical quantity with a predetermined threshold, wherein the predetermined threshold varies along the telescopic column's stroke of length based on a calibration curve the calibration curve providing load on the collision detection device (2) in a state of the telescopic column without external load as a function of stroke position, and issuing the collision event signal based on said comparison; wherein said wiring circuit on the circuit board is a first wiring circuit arranged on a first side of the circuit board, and the circuit board further comprises a second wiring circuit on a second side of the circuit board, and wherein electrical characteristics of both the first and second wiring circuits depend on the flexure of the circuit board.
Zannoni et al. (US 2023/0017386 Al) teaches a collision detection device configured to be arranged in an adjustable piece of furniture comprising a driving arrangement and a first part and a second part being moveable relative to each other, said collision detection device being configured to detect a collision during motion of said adjustable piece of furniture, the collision detection device; further comprising a processing unit configured to apply a voltage over the at least one wiring circuit and measuring an electrical quantity which is dependent on the electrical characteristic of the at least one wiring circuit; wherein the processing unit is configured to issue a collision event signal based on the measured electrical quantity of the at least one wiring circuit, wherein the adjustable piece of furniture comprises at least one telescopic column, said first part being a first tube of the at least one telescopic column and said second part being a second part of said telescopic column, wherein the holder is configured to be arranged in contact with one the tubes of the telescopic column; whereby the device is implemented on an adjustable piece of furniture, whereby the device: measures an electrical quantity of the wiring circuit during motion of the adjustable piece of furniture, and issues, based on said measuring, a collision event signal; further comprising a step of halting and/or reversing the motion of the adjustable piece of furniture based on the collision event signal; further comprising a step of comparing the measured electrical quantity with a predetermined threshold, wherein the predetermined threshold varies along the telescopic column's stroke of length based on a calibration curve the calibration curve providing load on the collision detection device (2) in a state of the telescopic column without external load as a function of stroke position, and issuing the collision event signal based on said comparison; wherein said wiring circuit on the circuit board is a first wiring circuit arranged on a first side of the circuit board, and the circuit board further comprises a second wiring circuit on a second side of the circuit board, and wherein electrical characteristics of both the first and second wiring circuits depend on the flexure of the circuit board; wherein the processing unit is configured to estimate a derivative of the electrical quantity.
Lukas et al. (US 20210239459 A1) teaches A collision detection device configured to be arranged in an adjustable piece of furniture comprising a driving arrangement and a first part and a second part being moveable relative to each other, said collision detection device being configured to detect a collision during motion of said adjustable piece of furniture, the collision detection device comprising: a holder configured to, when in use, be arranged to one of the first and second parts of the adjustable piece of furniture to be at least indirectly in contact with a part of the driving arrangement; further comprising a processing unit configured to apply a voltage over the at least one wiring circuit and measuring an electrical quantity which is dependent on the electrical characteristic of the at least one wiring circuit. wherein the processing unit is configured to issue a collision event signal based on the measured electrical quantity of the at least one wiring circuit, The collision detection device, wherein the processing unit is configured to estimate a derivative of the electrical quantity; wherein said electrical characteristic of the at least one wiring circuit is electrical resistance; wherein the adjustable piece of furniture comprises at least one telescopic column, said first part being a first tube of the at least one telescopic column and said second part being a second part of said telescopic column, wherein the holder is configured to be arranged in contact with one the tubes of the telescopic column. wherein the processing unit is configured to be calibrated for forces between the holder and the adjustable piece of furniture or the driving arrangement, by repeatedly or continuously measuring the electrical characteristic of the at least one wiring circuit motion of the adjustable piece of furniture; wherein the holder is shaped to hold the circuit board in a bent configuration in a resting position; whereby the device is implemented on an adjustable piece of furniture, whereby the device: measures an electrical quantity of the wiring circuit during motion of the adjustable piece of furniture, and issues, based on said measuring, a collision event signal; further comprising a step of halting and/or reversing the motion of the adjustable piece of furniture based on the collision event signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS WILKERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/LOUIS JAWAYNE WILKERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights