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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “moto” should read --motor--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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, in lines 3 & 7 the limitation “preferably” is indefinite, and it is not clear if the limitations following it are required or optional.
Regarding claim 4, in line 1, the limitation “essentially forms a structural unit” is not clear because it can’t be determined if the structural unit is required or optional.
Regarding claim 5, in line 2 the limitation “preferably” is indefinite, and it is not clear if the limitations following it are required or optional.
Regarding claim 9, in line 2 the limitation “preferably” is indefinite, and it is not clear if the limitations following it are required or optional.
Regarding claim 13, in line 2 the limitation “preferably” is indefinite, and it is not clear if the limitations following it are required or optional.
Regarding claim 14, in line 2 the limitation “preferably” is indefinite, and it is not clear if the limitations following it are required or optional.
Regarding claim 5, in line 3 the limitation “preferably” is indefinite, and it is not clear if the limitations following it are required or optional.
Regarding claim 17, in lines1 & 2 the limitation “preferably” is indefinite, and it is not clear if the limitations following it are required or optional.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schael et al. (WO 2008/135300) (hereinafter Schael).
Regarding claim 1, Schael discloses a furniture drive for driving a movable furniture part, comprising: at least one electric motor (38), at least one actuator (4), preferably movable back and forth between two end positions, for exerting force on the furniture part to be driven, and a transmission (32) connected between the electric motor and the actuator.
Schael does not disclose wherein the at least one electric motor has a maximum diameter of less than 18 mm, preferably less than 16 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Schael wherein the at least one electric motor has a maximum diameter of less than 18 mm, preferably less than 16 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Schael, as modified, teaches a furniture drive wherein the at least one electric motor is an external rotor motor or as a disc rotor motor (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Schael, as modified, teaches a furniture drive wherein a planetary gear (37) is interposed between the at least one electric motor and the transmission.
Regarding claim 4, Schael, as modified, teaches a furniture drive wherein the planetary gear essentially forms a structural unit with the at least one electric motor (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Schael, as modified, teaches the furniture drive as claimed. Schael, as modified, does not teach wherein the planetary gear has a maximum diameter of less than 18 mm, preferably less than 16 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Schael wherein the planetary gear has a maximum diameter of less than 18 mm, preferably less than 16 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6, Schael, as modified, teaches the furniture drive as claimed. Schael, as modified, does not teach wherein a maximum diameter of the planetary gear substantially corresponds to the maximum diameter of the at least one electric motor. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Schael wherein a maximum diameter of the planetary gear substantially corresponds to the maximum diameter of the at least one electric motor, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Schael, as modified, teaches a furniture drive wherein the furniture drive comprises at least one housing (50).
Regarding claim 8, Schael, as modified, teaches a furniture drive wherein the housing has at least one recess for receiving the at least one electric motor (Figs. 4 & 5).
Regarding claim 9, Schael, as modified, teaches the furniture drive as claimed. Schael, as modified, does not teach wherein the housing has a maximum width of less than 18 mm, preferably less than 16 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Schael wherein the housing has a maximum width of less than 18 mm, preferably less than 16 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Schael, as modified, teaches the furniture drive as claimed. Schael, as modified, does not teach wherein the maximum diameter of the at least one electric motor substantially corresponds to the maximum width of the housing. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Schael wherein the maximum diameter of the at least one electric motor substantially corresponds to the maximum width of the housing. A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Schael, as modified, teaches a furniture drive wherein the furniture drive has at least one bearing device (51, 52), via which the at least one electric moto is mounted in and/or on the housing, wherein the at least one bearing device comprises at least one damping element made of a sound-damping material.
Regarding claim 12, Schael, as modified, teaches a furniture drive wherein the transmission has at least one crown gear, bevel gear and/or worm gear (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Schael, as modified, teaches a furniture drive wherein the transmission comprises between 3 and 9, preferably 6, gear stages (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Schael, as modified, teaches a furniture drive wherein at least one transmission device (30) is provided, with which the transmission is connected to the at least one actuator, preferably wherein the transmission device comprises at least one lever, a toothing and an element interacting therewith and/or a belt.
Regarding claim 15, Schael, as modified, teaches a furniture drive wherein the at least one electric motor and the transmission are arranged in a first housing (50) and the actuator is arranged on a second housing (2) which is structurally separate from the first housing, preferably wherein the two housings are arranged one above the other in a coupled state essentially in a common plane.
Regarding claim 16, Schael, as modified, teaches a furniture drive wherein: at least one lever arrangement (30) is provided, via which the actuator is pivotally connected to the housing, and/or at least one mechanical energy accumulator (25) is provided, with which a force for compensating the weight of the furniture part to be driven can be exerted on the actuator, and/or the actuator is arranged substantially completely in the housing in a first end position.
Regarding claim 17, Schael, as modified, teaches an item of furniture, preferably an upper cabinet, comprising: at least one movable furniture part ([0006]), preferably in the form of a flap that can be opened upwards, and the furniture drive according to claim 1, wherein the furniture part is movably mounted on the furniture via the at least one furniture drive.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schael in view of Sobolewski et al. (US patent application publication 2020/0008579) (hereinafter Sobolewski).
Regarding claim 17, Schael, as modified, teaches an item of furniture wherein the furniture comprises at least one wall. Schael, as modified, does not teach wherein the housing of the at least one furniture drive is substantially completely inserted into a recess in the wall. Sobolewski teaches an item of furniture wherein a furniture drive is substantially completely inserted into a recess (427) in the wall. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Schael, as previously modified, to comprise a recess in the wall in view of Sobolewski’s teaching, because this arrangement would have improved the aesthetic appearance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it gives a general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J ROHRHOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-7624. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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.
/DANIEL J ROHRHOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights