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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: disc motor 45 (at least [0061] in the published application).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, the recitation “the electric” should be “the at least one electric”. In line 5, the recitation “the actuator” should be “the at least one actuator”. In line 6, the recitation “the electric” should be “the at least one electric”. In line 7, the recitation “the electric” should be “the at least one electric”. In line 8, the recitation “the electric” should be “the at least one electric”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “the electric” should be “the at least one electric”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the recitation “the belt” should be “the at least one belt”. In line 2, the recitation “the electric” should be “the at least one electric”. In line 3, the recitation “the belt” should be “the at least one belt”. In lines 3-4, the recitation “the electric” should be “the at least one electric”. In line 5, the recitation “the belt” should be “the at least one belt”. In line 6, the recitation “the electric” should be “the at least one electric”. In line 7, the recitation “the belt” should be “the at least one belt”. In line 8, the recitation “the belt” should be “the at least one belt”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “the electric” should be “the at least one electric”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “the belt” should be “the at least one belt”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the recitation “the electric” should be “the at least one electric”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the recitation “the actuator” should be “the at least one actuator”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “the electric” should be “the at least one electric”. In line 2, the recitation “the actuator” should be “the at least one actuator”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the recitation “the actuator” should be “the at least one actuator”. In lines 5-6, the recitation “the actuator” should be “the at least one actuator”. In line 7, the recitation “the actuator” should be “the at least one actuator”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 5-6, the recitation “the at least one furniture drive” should be “the furniture drive”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the recitation “the at least one furniture” should be “the furniture”. In line 3, the recitation “the wall” should be “the at least one wall”.
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.
Claims 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 13: In lines 3 and 7, each recitation of “the housing” lacks proper antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 14: In line 1, the recitation “the housing” lacks proper antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 16: In line 2, the recitation “the housing” lacks proper antecedent basis.
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.
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, 5-7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 20 2007 006 690 U1 (Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich) in view of WO 2022/063954 A1 (Vom Brocke) and US 2013/0334944 A1 (Karg).
With respect to claim 1: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich discloses a furniture drive (flap fitting 1) for driving a movable furniture component (flap 3 of the furniture body 2), the furniture drive comprising: at least one electric motor (electric motor 32), at least one actuator (at least swivel part 4, may optionally include guide lever 7, coupling element 30, etc.), which is preferably movable back and forth between two end positions (Figs. 1A and 1B), for exerting force on the furniture component to be driven, and a gear mechanism (gear 31) connected between the electric motor and the actuator (Figs. 1A-1B).
The recitation “preferably movable back and forth between two end positions” is not required.
Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich does not disclose “wherein the electric motor is designed as a disc motor and/or as an external rotor motor” as claimed. The translation of Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich states, “Through the gears 39 to 39 a translation is provided so that the electric motor 32 can be made comparatively small.”
Vom Brocke shows that it is known in the art to use and electrical machine (motor) 6 in the form a disc motor for moving a door or window leaf. In Vom Brocke Fig. 2, the electrical machine 6 drives a gear 7. Vom Brocke’s gear 7 is a toothed gear arrangement analogous to the toothed gear 31 of Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich. The “Description” in Vom Brocke highlights the compact design of the drive device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich’s fitting 1 by replacing the electric motor 32 with Vom Brocke’s electrical machine, as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Vom Brocke shows this is a known, alternative way in which the electric drive means can be made small (compact).
Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich does not disclose “wherein at least one belt, preferably a toothed belt, is provided, which connects the electric motor, preferably a shaft of the electric motor or a pulley connected thereto, to the gear mechanism” as claimed.
Vom Brocke discloses “the transmission can include any type of transmission or combination of transmissions, in particular toothed wheel transmissions and/or friction wheel transmissions and/or belt transmissions and/or cable transmissions and/or chain transmission”. Vom Brocke further states “at least one transmission element of the transmission can be arranged coaxially to the axial flow machine”.
Karg shows it is known in the art to connect a roller (pulley) 21 to the output shaft of an electric motor 10, and thereby drive a belt 22, in order to move a flap.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich’s gear 31 to connect to the motor via a belt and pulleys, as an obvious variation of the means translating the rotary output of the motor into the rotation of the gear 31 (and thereby move the flap).
This meets “wherein at least one belt, is provided, which connects the electric motor, to the gear mechanism” as claimed.
The claim recitations “preferably a toothed belt” and “preferably a shaft of the electric motor or a pulley connected thereto” are not required.
With respect to claim 5: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets wherein the disc motor: is designed as an axial flux motor.
The claim recitations “and/or has a rotor with, preferably at least 4, particularly preferably exactly 8, magnetic poles, and/or has a stator with preferably at least 3, particularly preferably exactly 6, coils” are not required.
With respect to claim 6: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets “wherein the belt is or can be applied to the shaft or to a belt pulley connected thereto within the electric motor” as claimed.
With respect to claim 7: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets wherein the axis of rotation of the electric motor is aligned substantially parallel to the axis of rotation of at least one element of the gear mechanism (Vom Brocke Fig. 2: axis of machine 6 aligned parallel to axis of rotation of first gear element 32 and/or Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich Fig. 1: axis of motor 32 parallel to axis of rotation of worm 40).
The claim recitation “preferably all elements” is not required.
With respect to claim 9: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets further comprising at least one housing (Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich’s furniture body 2).
With respect to claim 11: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets wherein at least one transmission device (Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich Fig. 1A: at least coupling element 30, may optionally include guide lever 7) is provided, with which the gear mechanism is connected to the actuator (gear 31 connected to part 4).
The claim recitation “preferably wherein the transmission device comprises at least one lever” is not required.
With respect to claim 13: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets wherein: at least one lever arrangement (Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich Fig. 1A: at least coupling element 30, may optionally include guide lever 7) is provided, via which the actuator is pivotally connected to the housing (holding plate 20 and/or furniture body 2), and/or at least one mechanical energy accumulator (spring 25) is provided, with which a force for compensating the weight force 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 (Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich Fig. 1A: part 4 is substantially completely in furniture body 2).
With respect to claim 15: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets a piece of furniture (“cabinet furniture” and/or body 2 of Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich), comprising: at least one movable furniture component (flap 3), and the furniture drive according to claim 1, wherein the furniture component is movably mounted on the piece of furniture via the at least one furniture drive (flap 3 is mounted on body 2 via fitting 1).
The claim recitations “preferably an upper cabinet” and “preferably in the form of a flap that can be opened upwards” are not required.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 20 2007 006 690 U1 (Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich) in view of WO 2022/063954 A1 (Vom Brocke) and US 2013/0334944 A1 (Karg) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE 20 2009 015 640 U1 (Hettich-Heinze).
With respect to claim 2: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets wherein the at least one electric motor is designed as a brushless motor (translation: “In particular, the axial flow machine can be a brushless direct current machine”)… with at least one electronic control unit (“control” in the translation of Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich; “control device for controlling the axial flow machine” in the translation of Vom Brocke).
Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, does not meet “in particular as an EC motor with at least one electronic control unit for magnetic field commutation” as claimed.
Hettich-Heinze shows it is known in the art for a brushless motor to be electronically commutated, and to include a control unit. The motors are designed as magnets excited by permanent magnets with ironless rotor and drum collector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the motor to be electronically commutated (“an EC motor” as claimed) with a control unit for magnetic field commutation, as one known way to provide a brushless electric disc motor.
Claim(s) 3, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 20 2007 006 690 U1 (Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich) in view of WO 2022/063954 A1 (Vom Brocke) and US 2013/0334944 A1 (Karg) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of DE 10 2019 102 057 A1 (Andschus).
With respect to claim 3: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, does not meet “wherein the electric motor: has a width of less than 16 millimeters, preferably less than 10 millimeters, and particularly preferably less than or equal to 8 millimeters, and/or has a diameter of less than 80 millimeters, preferably less than or equal to 50 millimeters, particularly preferably less than or equal to 40 millimeters, and/or has a holding torque and/or a maximum torque of less than or equal to 0.3 Newton meters, preferably when a voltage of less than or equal to 50 volts is applied” as claimed.
Vom Brocke’s translation describes a ratio of a maximum torque to axial extent (width parallel to the machine axis) between “preferably greater than 30 Nm/m” and “preferably greater than 200 Nm/m”.
Andschus shows it is known in the art for a disk-shaped motor arrangement to have a width of less than 16 mm, and somewhere between 6 mm and 15 mm. Examples of diameters includes “greater than 50mm”. In many configurations, the diameters is between 75 mm and 150 mm. See MPEP § 2144.05 regarding the obviousness of claimed ranges and the prior art’s disclosed values and/or ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electric motor to have the claimed width and/or diameter, because Andschus shows it is known in the art for such sizes to exist.
Based on Vom Brocke’s ratio of maximum torque to axial extent (width), and Andschus’ disclosure of known widths, the claimed “maximum torque of less than or equal to 0.3 Newton meters” is obvious. Vom Brocke’s 30 Nm/m multiplied by Andschus’ 0.006 m (6 mm) is 0.18 Nm (Newton meters).
With respect to claim 14: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, does not meet “wherein the housing has a maximum width of less than 18 mm, preferably less than 16 mm” as claimed.
Andschus shows it is known in the art for a disk-shaped motor arrangement to have a width of less than 16 mm, and somewhere between 6 mm and 15 mm. This is inside a housing (Figs. 3-14) and held inside a wall of an item of furniture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drive arrangement to be inside a housing of the claimed width, in order to fit the device inside a thin furniture wall.
With respect to claim 16: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified in the rejection of claim 15, meets wherein the piece of furniture comprises at least one wall.
Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, does not meet “wherein the housing of the at least one furniture drive is substantially completely inserted into a recess in the wall” as claimed.
Andschus shows it is known to mount a motorized flap fitting inside a recess of a wall of a furniture body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich’s fitting 1 to be inside a recess of a wall of body 2, in order to hide the fitting 1 from view and/or maximize the storage capacity inside the body 2 by not having the fitting 1 therein.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 20 2007 006 690 U1 (Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich) in view of WO 2022/063954 A1 (Vom Brocke) and US 2013/0334944 A1 (Karg) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2013/0127275 A1 (Camilleri).
With respect to claim 4: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, does not meet “wherein the external rotor motor: is designed as a radial flux motor, and/or has a rotor with, preferably at least 6, particularly preferably exactly 14, magnetic poles, and/or has a stator with preferably at least 9, particularly preferably exactly 12, coils” as claimed.
Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich discloses the at least one electric motor is designed as a brushless motor (translation: “In particular, the axial flow machine can be a brushless direct current machine”)
Camilleri shows it is known for a brushless DC motor to be a radial flux motor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the motor to be a radial flux motor, because that is one known electric motor means.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 20 2007 006 690 U1 (Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich) in view of WO 2022/063954 A1 (Vom Brocke) and US 2013/0334944 A1 (Karg) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 10-0880272 B1 (Chun).
With respect to claim 8: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, does not meet “wherein the belt is made at least in regions of a sound-absorbing material, wherein the sound-absorbing material of the belt is a rubber, a caoutchouc, a plastic, or an open-cell or closed-cell material, preferably a polyurethane elastomer, caoutchouc, silicone, EVA or PE foam and/or neoprene” as claimed.
Vom Brocke discloses “the transmission can include any type of transmission or combination of transmissions, in particular toothed wheel transmissions and/or friction wheel transmissions and/or belt transmissions and/or cable transmissions and/or chain transmission”. Vom Brocke further states “at least one transmission element of the transmission can be arranged coaxially to the axial flow machine”.
Chun teaches the use of a rubber belt in order to eliminate noise of a door moving means.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich’s gear 31, coupling element 30, or guide lever 7 to be driven by a rubber belt which is driven by the disc motor, in order to eliminate noise transmission similarly to Chun’s invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 20 2007 006 690 U1 (Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich) in view of WO 2022/063954 A1 (Vom Brocke) and US 2013/0334944 A1 (Karg) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 2004/0189107 A1 (Mattson).
With respect to claim 10: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, does not meet “wherein the furniture drive has at least one bearing device via which the electric motor 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-absorbing material, preferably wherein the at least one bearing device has at least one bearing part connected to the electric motor, preferably wherein the bearing part is designed as a steel axle, rivet or pin” as claimed.
Mattson discloses the use of vibration isolators 37 including a central elastomeric material 43 which isolates vibration and noise from a motor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disc motor to be mounted with vibration isolators 37, in order to isolate any noise and vibration from said disc motor similarly to Mattson’s invention.
The added isolators 37 are the claimed “at least one bearing device” in the claim recitation “wherein the furniture drive has at least one bearing device via which the electric motor 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-absorbing material”.
The claim recitations “preferably wherein the at least one bearing device has at least one bearing part connected to the electric motor, preferably wherein the bearing part is designed as a steel axle, rivet or pin” are not required.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 20 2007 006 690 U1 (Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich) in view of WO 2022/063954 A1 (Vom Brocke) and US 2013/0334944 A1 (Karg) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2008/135300 A1 (Schael).
With respect to claim 12: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, does not meet “wherein the electric motor and the gear mechanism are arranged in a first housing and the actuator is arranged on a second housing which is structurally separate from the first housing, preferably wherein the two housings are arranged in a coupled state substantially in a common plane one above the other” as claimed.
Schael shows it is known in the art to have the motor and gear in a first housing (housing 50), with the actuator arranged on a second housing (support plate 2) which is structurally separate from the first housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich’s gear 31 and the disc motor to be in a first housing, structurally separate from the holding plate 20, in order to protect and enclose the driving motor and gears.
The claim recitation “preferably wherein the two housings are arranged in a coupled state substantially in a common plane one above the other” is not required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ROERSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-3185. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Daniel 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.
/ANDREW ROERSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights