Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1, 5-7, 10-12, 14, 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 11, 12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10,842,286 to Lukas in view of Japanese Patent JPH 11253239 to Suzuki.
Lukas teaches
1. A method for controlling a position of a desktop (130) of a desk, the desk comprising: a desktop, a pair of powered lifting columns (110,120, 150,160, 155, 165) configured for altering the vertical height of the desktop, and wherein at least one lifting column of the pair of powered lifting columns comprises a stationary section (150,160) and a height adjustable section (110,120), and wherein the height adjustable section is slideably fixed to the desktop and the stationary section is fixedly coupled to the base frame, wherein each lifting column of the pair of powered lifting columns comprises respective height position sensing means for determining a vertical height of the respective lifting column, wherein the desk comprises a control unit (140) for controlling a position of the desktop including a height position and an angular position, the pair of lifting columns comprising a primary lifting column and a secondary lifting column, wherein the primary lifting column comprises a primary height position sensing means providing a primary height position signal, and the secondary lifting column comprises a secondary height position sensing means different and independent from the primary height position sensing means and providing a secondary height position signal, wherein both the primary height position sensing means and the secondary height position sensing means are operationally coupled to the control unit, wherein the method comprises: controlling with the control unit the height position of the desktop based on the primary height position signal, controlling with the control unit the angular position of the desktop based on a difference between the primary height position signal and the secondary height position signal, calibrating the control unit by powering at least one of the primary lifting columns and the secondary lifting column until an extreme position is taken, and then setting a corresponding at least one of the primary height position signal and secondary height position signal to an initial value (Col 5, lines 40-51; Col 9, line 45 to Col 10, line 3).
Lukas does not expressly disclose the columns are hingeably fixed to a support structure on the desktop.
Suzuki teaches
A desk (10) comprising: a desktop (11), a pair of powered lifting columns (20,21) configured for altering the vertical height of the desktop, wherein the pair of lifting columns are hingeably fixed to the desktop for allowing an inclined position of the desktop, and a support structure (61, 75) configured for maintaining at least one of the lifting columns in a stationary orientation
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the desk of Lukas by adding additional legs, the hinging structure, and support structure as taught by Suzuki to allow for inclination adjustment.
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki teaches
5. wherein one lifting column of the pair of powered lifting columns is slideably fixed to the desktop through a slotted hole connection (50), and wherein the slotted hole connection comprises prestressing means operational to avoid mechanical backlash between the at least one lifting column and the desktop (as best seen in figure 5).
Regarding claim 6, Lukas in view of Suzuki teaches
6. further comprising a desktop support frame contacting the desktop and wherein the pair of lifting columns are hingeably and/or slideably coupled to the desktop through the desktop support frame.
Regarding claim 7, Lukas in view of Suzuki teaches
7. further comprising a second pair of powered lifting columns, the two pairs of power lifting columns being arranged at opposite ends of the desk.
Regarding claim 11, Lukas teaches
11. wherein an input unit coupled with the control unit, receives a single user instruction associated with both the height position and the angular position.
Regarding claim 12, Lukas in view of Suzuki teaches
12. further comprising the step of powering the primary lifting column and the secondary lifting column of the pair of lifting columns for simultaneously controlling the height position and the angular position of the desktop.
Regarding claim 14, Lukas in view of Suzuki teaches
14. wherein the method further comprises; driving the primary lifting column and the secondary lifting column at different speeds, and; the desktop reaching a set height position and set angular position at the same time as perceived by a user of the desk.
Regarding claim 15, Lukas in view of Suzuki teaches
15. wherein in case the angular position exceeds a user acceptable value, the method comprises interrupting of powering of at least one of the primary lifting columns and the secondary lifting column, and/or powering of at least one of the primary lifting columns and the secondary lifting column in an opposite direction.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 10-12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2004/135045 to Larson in view of US Patent 8,378,610 to Jensen.
Larson teaches
1. A method for controlling a position of a desktop (34) of a desk, the desk comprising: a desktop, a pair of powered lifting columns (18,24) configured for altering the vertical height of the desktop, wherein the pair of lifting columns are hingeably fixed to the desktop for allowing an inclined position of the desktop, and a support structure (12,14,16) configured for maintaining at least one of the lifting columns in a stationary orientation, wherein the support structure comprises a base frame (30,32, 86 or 12,14,16) contacting a subsurface of the desk, and/or wherein the support structure interconnects the pair of lifting columns for maintaining the pair of lifting columns in the stationary orientation, in particular the upright position: and wherein at least one lifting column of the pair of powered lifting columns comprises a stationary section (20,26) and a height adjustable section (22,28), and wherein the height adjustable section is slideably fixed to the desktop and the stationary section is fixedly coupled to the base frame, wherein each lifting column of the pair of powered lifting columns comprises respective height position sensing means for determining a vertical height of the respective lifting column, wherein the desk comprises a control unit (266) for controlling a position of the desktop including a height position and an angular position, the pair of lifting columns comprising a primary lifting column and a secondary lifting column, wherein the primary lifting column comprises a primary height position sensing means (par 7) providing a primary height position signal, and the secondary lifting column comprises a secondary height position sensing means different and independent from the primary height position sensing means and providing a secondary height position signal, wherein both the primary height position sensing means and the secondary height position sensing means are operationally coupled to the control unit, wherein the method comprises: controlling with the control unit the height position of the desktop based on the primary height position signal, controlling with the control unit the angular position of the desktop based on a difference between the primary height position signal and the secondary height position signal (par 106, 137)
Larson does not expressly disclose calibrating the control unit using an extreme position and rotary position sensors.
Jensen teaches a linear actuator to control length/height. A rotary or sliding sensor provides position information (Col 1, line 36 to Col 2, line 42). The actuator is calibrated by contacting a known position which is an end stop (Col 5, line 41 to Col 6, line 21; Col 7, line 64 to Col 8, line 21).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the desk of Larson by using a actuator with internal sensors that are calibrated form the end stops as taught by Jensen to provide a simple reliable position system.
Regarding claim 5, Larson teaches
5. wherein one lifting column of the pair of powered lifting columns is slideably fixed to the desktop through a slotted hole connection (several embodiments teach different embodiments; figure 19-21 or figure 25-27), and wherein the slotted hole connection comprises prestressing means operational to avoid mechanical backlash between the at least one lifting column and the desktop.
Regarding claim 6, Larson teaches
6. further comprising a desktop support frame (30,32) contacting the desktop and wherein the pair of lifting columns are hingeably and/or slideably coupled to the desktop through the desktop support frame.
Regarding claim 7, Larson teaches
7. further comprising a second pair of powered lifting columns (as best seen in figures 1-8, figures 50-56, and figures 64-65), the two pairs of power lifting columns being arranged at opposite ends of the desk.
Regarding claim 10, Jensen teaches
10. wherein the primary height position sensing means and/or the secondary height position sensing means comprises a rotary sensor (Col 1, line 36 to Col 2, line 42), and/or the desk comprises an electric motor powering one of the primary lifting column and secondary lifting column, and wherein the said rotary sensor is operationally coupled with the electric motor for counting a number of motor shaft revolutions.
Regarding claim 11, Larson teaches
11. wherein an input unit coupled with the control unit, receives a single user instruction (via the first, second , or third switch) associated with both the height position and the angular position.
Regarding claim 12, Larson teaches
12. further comprising the step of powering the primary lifting column and the secondary lifting column of the pair of lifting columns for simultaneously controlling the height position (via the third switch) and the angular position (via the first or second switch) of the desktop (par 137).
Regarding claim 14, Larson in view of Jensen teaches
14. wherein the method further comprises; driving the primary lifting column and the secondary lifting column at different speeds, and; the desktop reaching a set height position and set angular position at the same time as perceived by a user of the desk (par 101).
Regarding claim 15, Larson in view of Jensen teaches
15. wherein in case the angular position exceeds a user acceptable value, the method comprises interrupting of powering of at least one of the primary lifting columns and the secondary lifting column, and/or powering off at least one of the primary lifting columns and the secondary lifting column in an opposite direction (inherently and intrinsically the structure described above would operate with these steps in order for the table to perform the operations described; Jensen teaches end stop limit switches to power off the motor)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/26/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 TIMOTHY MICHAEL AYRES whose telephone number is (571)272-8299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:30-8.
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, Dan Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. 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.
/TIMOTHY M AYRES/Examiner, Art Unit 3637 /DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637
