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 replacement drawings were received on 03 September 2026. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The amendments to the specification were received on 03 September 2026. These amendments to the specification are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 5-6, 13, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 5: Claim 1 defines the motor as an external rotor motor. Claim 5 defines the motor as a disc motor that is an axial flux motor.
The Applicant’s specification at [0079] discloses the disc motor 6 is an axial flux motor due to the arrangement of the coils 16 therein. The disc motor 6 of Figs. 12-13 is different than the external rotor motor 5 of Figs 14-16. The coils 16 of the external rotor motor 5 are not the same as the coils 16 of the disc motor 6. External rotor motor 5 is a radial flux motor, and not an axial flux motor. Combining two distinct embodiments in a single claim raises the issue of new matter, and necessitates rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
With respect to claim 6: Claim 1 defines the motor as an external rotor motor. Claim 6 defines the belt arranged in an intermediate space between two coils and/or magnetic poles of the motor, which is a disc motor.
In the external rotor motor 5 of Figs. 14-16, the belt is applied around the outside of the external rotor 39, or indirectly to shaft 11. The belt is not arranged in an intermediate space between two coils 16 and/or magnetic poles 17 of the external rotor motor 5. The disc motor 6 of Figs. 12-13 is different than the external rotor motor 5 of Figs 14-16. Combining two distinct embodiments in a single claim raises the issue of new matter, and necessitates rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
With respect to claim 13: The lever arrangement pivotally connects the actuator to the second housing. The recitations “to the first housing” and “in the first housing” raise the issue of new matter, and necessitate rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
With respect to claim 19: The claim defines the electric motor as “a disc motor and/or an external rotor motor”.
The disc motor 6 of Figs. 12-13 is different than the external rotor motor 5 of Figs 14-16. Combining two distinct embodiments in a single claim raises the issue of new matter, and necessitates rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
With respect to claim 20: The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) via dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 18 is/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 5: The recitation “the disc motor” lacks proper antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 18: Claim 17, from which claim 18 depends, defines “the electric motor is a disc motor or an external rotor motor”. Claim 18 only includes the external rotor motor. The scope of claim 18 is unclear when the electric motor is a disc motor in claim 17.
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, 3-7, 9, and 15-18 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 DE 10 2019 102 057 A1 (Andschus).
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: an electric motor (electric motor 32), an actuator (at least swivel part 4, may optionally include guide lever 7, coupling element 30, etc.) configured to exert force on the movable furniture component to be driven, and a gear mechanism (gear 31) connected between the electric motor and the actuator (Figs. 1A-1B).
Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich does not disclose electric motor 32 is “an electric external rotor motor” as claimed. Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich does not disclose “a belt connecting the electric motor to the gear mechanism” as claimed.
Electric motor 32 is connected to the gear set 31 via a worm gear 40 mounted on the drive shaft of the motor 32 (Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich Fig. 1). 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.”
See the translation of Andschus in the application file, dated 03 June 2026. Andschus shows that external rotor motors are known in the art for driving movable furniture parts, and that such external rotor motors require little installation space (in the furniture item). At least Figs. 2 and 6-7 show a drive arrangement 30 having an external rotor motor as the engine/motor 10. Page 5 of the translation states (underlining added by examiner for emphasis):
The rotatable outer ring preferably has an outer drive component. In particular, the outer drive component can be designed as an external toothing, as a result of which the rotational movement of the rotatable outer ring can be transmitted to further parts via the external toothing. It is also possible that the outer ring has the shape of an eccentric, or that a winding device, a lever arrangement or the like is provided or designed on the outside. The rotatable outer ring is coupled to the movable furniture part via the outer drive component and drives the furniture fitting above it. The coupling can take place, for example, via a toothed rack, a toothed belt, an articulated arm or the like.
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 flap fitting 1 by replacing electric motor 32 and worm 40 with an external rotor motor and a belt, as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Andschus shows this is a known, alternative way in which the electric drive means can be made small.
With respect to claim 3: See the translation of Andschus. Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets wherein the electric motor: has a width of less tan 16 millimeters (“An axial width of the disk-shaped drive arrangement is preferably less than 30 mm or 25 mm or less than 16 mm and can be less than 14 mm. In a preferred embodiment, the axial width of the disk-shaped drive arrangement is between 6 mm and 15 mm and can be, for example, 12 mm. In particular, axial widths of less than 18 mm or less than 16 mm or less than 14 mm are very advantageous, since this also enables the drive arrangement to be integrated in a typical wall of a piece of furniture.”), and/or a diameter of less than 80 millimeters (“In preferred configurations, a maximum outer diameter of the drive arrangement and / or the rotor and / or the motor is greater than 50 mm and in particular greater than 60 mm and preferably greater than 75 mm.”), and/or a holding torque and/or maximum torque of less than or equal to 0.3 Newton meters.
With respect to claim 4: Applicant’s specification at [0084] discloses that coils 16 of the coil core 15 being arranged in a star-shaped orientation makes the motor 5 a radial flux motor.
Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets wherein the external rotor motor: is a radial flux motor (Andschus Fig. 6 shows coils 12 in a star-shaped orientation), and/or has a rotor (rotor 13) having at least 6 magnetic poles (24 permanent magnets 14 on rotor 13 in Fig. 6), and/or a stator (stator 11) having at least 9 coils (24 coils 12 on stator 11 in Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 5: Applicant’s specification at [0079] discloses that the arrangement of the coils 16 makes the motor 6 an axial flux motor (see Fig. 12b).
Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets wherein the external rotor motor: is a radial flux motor (Andschus Fig. 6 shows coils 12 in a similar or same orientation as Applicant’s coils 16), and/or has a rotor (rotor 13) having at least 4 magnetic poles (24 permanent magnets 14 on rotor 13 in Fig. 6), and/or a stator (stator 11) having at least 3 coils (24 coils 12 on stator 11 in Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 6: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets wherein: the belt and the electric motor are arranged substantially in the same plane (the belt engages the exterior of rotor 13, and is therefore in the same plane as rotor 13), and/or the belt is applied to the a shaft of the electric external rotor motor or to a belt pulley connected thereto within the electric motor, and/or the belt is arranged partly in an intermediate space between at least two coils and/or magnetic poles arranged on a stator of the electric motor, which is in particular designed as a disc motor.
With respect to claim 7: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets wherein an axis of rotation of the electric external rotor motor is aligned substantially parallel to an axis of rotation of at least one element of the gear mechanism (the axis of rotation 35 of Andschus, as added to Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, is parallel to the rotation axis of Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich’s gear 39 so that the belt connects the two parts).
With respect to claim 9: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets further comprising a housing (Andschus Figs. 4-5: metallic case 8).
With respect to claim 15: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets a piece of furniture, comprising: a furniture body (“cabinet furniture” and/or body 2 of Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich), a movable furniture component (flap 3), and the furniture drive according to claim 1, wherein the furniture component is movably mounted on the furniture body via the furniture drive (flap 3 is mounted on body 2 via fitting 1).
With respect to claim 16: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets wherein the furniture body comprises a wall (Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich Figs. 1-2: wall to which holding plate 20 is mounted).
Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, does not meet “and the furniture drive further comprises a housing, and the housing is substantially completely inserted into a recess in the wall” as claimed.
Andschus Figs. 3-5 show a metallic case 8 holding a furniture fitting 2 and completely and/or substantially completely inserted into a recess in a wall 3 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 mounted inside a metallic case and mounted in a recess in the wall of the furniture body, as an obvious variation of mounting on the wall as in Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich Figs. 1-2. Such a modification is desirable because the fitting 1 being mounted inside the recess does not take up storage space inside the piece of furniture.
With respect to claim 17: In the rejections above, Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich’s fitting 1 is modified to include Andschus’ external rotor motor (Figs. 6-8) having a belt engaging the external toothing thereof.
Andschus discloses the external rotor may drive the movable furniture part in a variety of other manners, such as an eccentric 29 (Fig. 12), a toothed tack 28 (Fig. 13), a gearwheel that drives an articulated arm 2a (Fig. 14), and a rack or other transmission mechanism (Fig. 15). The arm 2a in Fig. 14 is or appears to be mounted on the rotational shaft of gearing 2a. In Andschus Fig. 8, rotor 13 has transmissions units 16 that engage a flexible toothed ring element 21.
Andschus also teaches designing gearboxes to have certain gear ratios, in order to achieve a desired drive speed of the movable furniture part (e.g., page 5 of the translation).
In order to achieve a specific gear ratio, it is obvious to vary the diameter of the gearwheel of Andschus Fig. 14. Instead of the arm 2a of Fig. 14 attached at the rotation center of the gearwheel, it is obvious to have a toothed gear coaxial with the gearwheel and engaged by a toothed belt. This achieves a belt-driven connection (as disclosed by Andschus) with a specific output ratio (as disclosed by Andschus).
Such a modification meets a furniture drive (the modified fitting 1) for driving a movable furniture component (flap 3), the furniture drive comprising: an electric motor (drive arrangement 30) having a shaft (of the gearwheel in Andschus Fig. 14), an actuator (at least swivel part 4, may optionally include guide lever 7, coupling element 30, etc.) configured to exert force on the movable furniture component to be driven, a gear mechanism (gear 31) connected between the electric motor and the actuator, and a belt (Andschus’ belt) connecting the shaft of the electric motor or a belt pulley (the toothed gear mounted on the gearwheel) connected to the shaft to the gear mechanism (the belt connects to the toothed gear mounted on the gearwheel), wherein the electric motor is a disc motor or an external rotor motor (as in Andschus).
With respect to claim 18: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets wherein the belt is applied to the shaft of the electric external rotor motor or to the belt pulley connected thereto (the belt is connected to the gear connected to the gearwheel – the gear connected to the gearwheel is the claimed “belt pulley”).
Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, does not meet “within the electric motor” as claimed.
Andschus Figs. 3-5 show a metallic case 8 holding a furniture fitting 2.
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 mounted inside a metallic case, as an obvious variation of mounting on the wall as in Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich Figs. 1-2.
Being inside the metallic case meets “within the electric motor” as claimed.
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 DE 10 2019 102 057 A1 (Andschus) 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 electric external rotor motor is a brushless motor (Andschus: “The motor is preferably designed as an electric brushless motor.”)…including an electronic control unit (“control” in the translation of Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich; “controller” in the translation of Andschus).
Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, does not meet “a brushless EC motor including an 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 (“a brushless EC motor” as claimed) with a control unit for magnetic field commutation, as one known way to provide a brushless electric motor.
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 DE 10 2019 102 057 A1 (Andschus) 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 partially of a sound-damping material” as claimed.
The Applicant’s specification teaches that the sound-damping material of the belt is a rubber, a caoutchouc, a plastic, or an open-cell or closed-cell material.
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 the belt to be a rubber belt, in order to eliminate noise transmission similarly to Chun’s invention.
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 DE 10 2019 102 057 A1 (Andschus) 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, meets the actuator (at least swivel part 4 of Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich) is arranged on a second housing (holding plate 20).
Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, does not meet “wherein the electric disc motor and the gear mechanism are arranged in a first housing…the second housing being structurally separate from the first housing” 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 electric 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.
Claim(s) 17 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 2011/0068669 A1 (Hollenstein).
With respect to claim 17: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich discloses a furniture drive (flap fitting 1) for driving a movable furniture part (flap 3 of the furniture body 2), the furniture drive comprising: an electric motor (electric motor 32) having a shaft (shaft on which worm gear 40 is mounted), an actuator (at least swivel part 4, may optionally include guide lever 7, coupling element 30, etc.) configured to exert force on the movable furniture part to be driven, a gear mechanism (gear 31) connected between the electric motor and the actuator (Figs. 1A-1B), and a coupling device (worm 40) connecting the shaft of the electric motor or a belt pulley connected to the shaft to the gear mechanism.
Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich does not disclose “wherein the electric motor is a disc motor or 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 “a belt connecting the shaft of the electric motor or a belt pulley connected to the shaft to the gear mechanism” as claimed.
Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich’s invention has worm 40 connecting the motor and the gear mechanism. 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”.
Hollenstein shows it is known in the art to use a motor 7, a toothed belt 8a, and a roller (pulley) 9 to transmit power from the motor 7 to thereby drive a movable furniture part 5.
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 electric disc motor via a toothed belt 8a, and optionally rollers/pulleys 9, as an obvious variation of the means translating the rotary output of the electric disc motor into the rotation of the gear 31 (and thereby move the flap).
This makes obvious, as claimed, a belt (belt 8a) connecting a shaft of the electric disc motor (Vom Brocke Figs. 1-2: the output shaft of machine 6 that is connected to first gear element 42 of gear 7 and defines machine axis X1) or a pulley connected to the electric disc motor (one of Hollenstein’s rollers/pulleys 9 connected to said output shaft of electric disc motor) to the gear mechanism (gear 31).
Claim(s) 11, 13-14, and 19 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 DE 10 2019 102 057 A1 (Andschus) and WO 2008/135300 A1 (Schael).
With respect to claim 19: 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: a second housing (holding plate 20); an electric motor (electric motor 32), an actuator (at least swivel part 4, may optionally include guide lever 7, coupling element 30, etc.) configured to exert force on the movable furniture component to be driven, a gear mechanism (gear 31) connected between the electric motor and the actuator (Figs. 1A-1B), and wherein the actuator is arranged on the second housing (Figs. 1-2).
Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich does not disclose electric motor 32 is “an electric external rotor motor” as claimed. Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich does not disclose “a belt connecting the electric motor to the gear mechanism” as claimed.
Electric motor 32 is connected to the gear set 31 via a worm gear 40 mounted on the drive shaft of the motor 32 (Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich Fig. 1). 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.”
See the translation of Andschus in the application file, dated 03 June 2026. Andschus shows that external rotor motors are known in the art for driving movable furniture parts, and that such external rotor motors require little installation space (in the furniture item). At least Figs. 2 and 6-7 show a drive arrangement 30 having an external rotor motor as the engine/motor 10. Page 5 of the translation states (underlining added by examiner for emphasis):
The rotatable outer ring preferably has an outer drive component. In particular, the outer drive component can be designed as an external toothing, as a result of which the rotational movement of the rotatable outer ring can be transmitted to further parts via the external toothing. It is also possible that the outer ring has the shape of an eccentric, or that a winding device, a lever arrangement or the like is provided or designed on the outside. The rotatable outer ring is coupled to the movable furniture part via the outer drive component and drives the furniture fitting above it. The coupling can take place, for example, via a toothed rack, a toothed belt, an articulated arm or the like.
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 flap fitting 1 by replacing electric motor 32 and worm 40 with an external rotor motor and a belt, as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Andschus shows this is a known, alternative way in which the electric drive means can be made small.
Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich does not disclose “a first housing”, the holding plate 20 “structurally separate from the first housing”, and/or “wherein the electric disc motor and the gear mechanism are arranged in the first housing” 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 electric 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.
With respect to claim 11: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets further comprising a transmission device (Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich Fig. 1A: at least coupling element 30, may optionally include guide lever 7), the gear mechanism being connected to the actuator via the transmission device (gear 31 connected to part 4).
With respect to claim 13: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets wherein: the furniture drive further comprises a lever arrangement (Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich Fig. 1A: at least coupling element 30, may optionally include guide lever 7) pivotally connecting the actuator to the first/second housing (holding plate 20), and/or the furniture drive further comprises a mechanical energy accumulator (spring 25) configured to exert a force for compensating for a weight force of the furniture part to be driven, on the actuator, and/or the actuator is arranged substantially completely in the first/second housing in a first end position (Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich Fig. 1A: part 4 is substantially completely in furniture body 2 and plate 20 – inside the added housing when closed).
With respect to claim 14: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets wherein each of the first housing and the second housing has a maximum width of less than 18 mm (“An axial width of the disk-shaped drive arrangement is preferably less than 30 mm or 25 mm or less than 16 mm and can be less than 14 mm. In a preferred embodiment, the axial width of the disk-shaped drive arrangement is between 6 mm and 15 mm and can be, for example, 12 mm. In particular, axial widths of less than 18 mm or less than 16 mm or less than 14 mm are very advantageous, since this also enables the drive arrangement to be integrated in a typical wall of a piece of furniture.”).
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 DE 10 2019 102 057 A1 (Andschus) and WO 2008/135300 A1 (Schael) as applied to claim 19 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 “further comprising a bearing device, the electric disc motor being mounted in and/or on the first housing via the bearing device, wherein the bearing device comprises a damping element formed of a sound-absorbing material” 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 electric 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 “bearing device” in the claim recitation “further comprising a bearing device, the electric disc motor being mounted in and/or on the first housing via the bearing device, wherein the bearing device comprises a damping element formed of a sound-absorbing material”.
Claim(s) 20 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 DE 10 2019 102 057 A1 (Andschus) and WO 2008/135300 A1 (Schael) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US 8,807,670 B2 (Blum).
With respect to claim 20: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, does not meet “wherein the first housing and the second housing are coupled so as to be arranged substantially in a common plane one above the other” as claimed.
See Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich Figs. 1-2. As modified above, the motor and gear 31 are in the “first housing”, and the swivel part 4, etc. are on the “second housing” (plate 20). In Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, the arms for the flap are arranged in front of the drive means and gearing.
Blum shows it is known in the art to have the arms for the flap arranged above the drive means (Figs. 1-6 and 16-17) as an alternative to having the arms for the flap arranged in front of the drive means (Figs. 12-15). Blum uses an integral fixing plate 26 for the components.
It has been held that rearrangement of the essential working parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
See Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich Figs. 1-2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to 1) move the motor, gear 31, and the housing added thereto below the bearing plate 20, and 2) attach the added housing to beating plate 20, as an obvious variation of the arrangement of the components.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s latest arguments are drawn to grounds of rejection which are no longer relied upon, thereby rendering moot said arguments. The new grounds of rejection in this Office action are necessitated by the latest claim amendments.
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 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