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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
adjustment device (claims 1-25)
adjustment element (claims 1-25)
holding element (claims 1-25)
actuator (claims 8, 21)
angularly-movable coupling device (claim 24)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-25 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.
Claims 1-25 require “an overload safety device configured to rotationally couple the adjustment element with the transmission upon a rotation of the adjustment element with a torque below a predetermined limit torque, and being configured to rotationally decouple the adjustment element from the transmission upon a rotation of the adjustment element with a torque above the limit torque” (emphasis added). It is unclear how the disclosed overload safety device (33) rotationally couples or decouples the adjustment element (19a) with the transmission (35). The disclosed overload safety device acts at a front end of the adjustment element and it appears the adjustment element stays coupled to the transmission mechanism throughout the entirety of the operation. The disclosed overload safety device appears to act between the adjustment element (19a) and a rotational tool (36). It is therefore unclear how the disclosed overload safety device (33) rotationally couples or decouples the adjustment element (19a) with the transmission (35).
Claim 16 is further unclear as to how no torque transmission between the adjustment element and the transmission takes place. As indicated above with respect to claim 1, the disclosed overload safety device does not act between the adjustment element and the transmission, but instead acts between the adjustment element (19a) and a rotational tool (36). Therefore it appears torque transmission between the adjustment element and the transmission would still be possible in all disclosed configurations.
Dependent claims 2-25 are unclear at least for the same reasons as the claims from which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and objections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: AT524391 (A1) and US 2023/0272655 are the closest prior art and teach a similar furniture drive, however ‘391 and ‘655 do not teach or render obvious at least one overload safety device configured to rotationally couple the adjustment element with the transmission upon a rotation of the adjustment element with a torque below a predetermined limit torque, and being configured to rotationally decouple the adjustment element from the transmission upon a rotation of the adjustment element with a torque above the limit torque, wherein the overload safety device includes a first component having a longitudinal direction and at least a second component, the second component being configured to be moved at least in a direction extending transversely to the longitudinal direction of the first component so as to rotationally decouple the adjustment element from the transmission when the torque is above the limit torque. These limitations, in combination with all the other limitations of independent claim 1, define over the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 1-25, Applicant argues that the overload safety device is configured to rotationally couple the adjustment element with the transmission upon a rotation of the adjustment element with a torque below a predetermined torque, and to rotationally decouple the adjustment element from the transmission upon a rotation of the adjustment element with a torque above the limit torque. However, Applicant’s arguments point to and describe how the tool (36) is coupled and decouple from the first and second components 37a, 37b of adjustment component 19a. Such coupling and decoupling between the tool and the adjustment element is not what is claimed. It is unclear how this would cause any rotational decoupling between the adjustment element and the transmission. It appears any rotation of the adjustment element (such as with a pair of pliers) would still cause actuation of the transmission. Examiner maintains that it is still unclear how the disclosed overload safety device (33) rotationally couples or decouples the adjustment element (19a) with the transmission (35). Applicant’s arguments are therefore not convincing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12129700, US 12000188, and US 2022/0074248 teach similar furniture drives and are pertinent to applicant’s disclosure, but have not been relied upon in the current rejection.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jeffrey O'Brien whose telephone number is (571)270-3655. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5:30.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/Jeffrey O'Brien/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677