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 02 September 2026. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The amendments to the specification and abstract were received on 02 September 2026. These amendments to the specification and abstract are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, the recitation “the recess” should be “a recess”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6-7, 9, 15, and 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 1: 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), 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 electric motor to the gear mechanism.
Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich does not disclose “an electric disc 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 coupling device formed as a belt connecting a shaft of the electric motor or a pulley connected to the electric disc motor to the gear mechanism” as claimed.
Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich’s invention has worm 40 as the claimed “coupling device”. Vom Brocke’s first gear element 42 is “a coupling device” 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”.
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 coupling device formed as 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).
With respect to claim 2: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets wherein the belt is a toothed belt (Hollenstein’s “toothed belt 8a” @ [0023]).
With respect to claim 3: See Vom Brocke Figs. 1-2 and 6. Instead of connecting the toothed belt 8a to the output shaft of machine 6, which is driven by rotor 37 of machine 6, it is obvious to modify the rotor 37 to directly connect to the toothed belt 8a. This makes obvious “the belt and the electric disc motor are arranged substantially in the same plane” as claimed.
With respect to claim 6: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets wherein the electric disc motor: is designed as an axial flux motor (“electric machine (6) is designed as an axial flux machine”); and/or has a rotor with at least 4 magnetic poles (Figs. 4-6 of Vom Brocke shows 12 magnets 48 on rotor 37), and/or has a stator with at least 3 coils (Vom Brocke Fig. 7 shows 12 stator teeth 39 on stator 36; “A coil 41 is arranged around each of the stator teeth 39”).
With respect to claim 7: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets wherein an axis of rotation of the electric disc motor is aligned substantially parallel to an axis of rotation of at least one element of the gear mechanism (the machine axis X1 of Vom Brocke, 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 8a connects the two parts).
With respect to claim 9: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets further comprising a housing (Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich’s furniture body 2).
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 part (flap 3), and the furniture drive according to claim 1, wherein the movable furniture part 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 17: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets wherein the belt is applied to a shaft of the electric disc motor (the output shaft of machine 6, forms machine axis X1) or to a pulley connected to the electric disc motor within the electric disc motor (one of Hollenstein’s rollers/pulleys 9 connected to said output shaft of electric disc motor).
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 2011/0068669 A1 (Hollenstein) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE 20 2009 015 640 U1 (Hettich-Heinze).
With respect to claim 4: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets wherein the electric disc motor is designed as a brushless motor (Vom Brocke translation: “In particular, the axial flow machine can be a brushless direct current machine”) including an 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 “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 brushless motor to be electronically commutated with a control unit for magnetic field commutation, as one known way to provide and operate a brushless electric disc motor.
Claim(s) 5 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 2011/0068669 A1 (Hollenstein) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of DE 10 2019 102 057 A1 (Andschus).
With respect to claim 5: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, does not meet “wherein the electric disc motor: has a width of less than 16 millimeters, and/or has a diameter of less than 90 millimeters, and/or has a holding torque and/or a maximum torque of less than or equal to 0.3 Newton meters” 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 disc 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 16: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, meets wherein the furniture body includes a wall.
Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, does not meet “and the furniture drive includes a housing, wherein the housing of the furniture drive is substantially completely inserted into a recess in the wall” as claimed.
Andschus shows it is known to mount a housing of 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 housing 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) 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 2011/0068669 A1 (Hollenstein) 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 at least partially formed of a sound-damping material, the sound-damping material of the belt being a rubber, a caoutchouc, a plastic, or an open-cell or closed-cell material” as claimed.
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 toothed belt 8a 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 WO 2022/063954 A1 (Vom Brocke) and US 2011/0068669 A1 (Hollenstein) 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 disc motor and the gear mechanism are arranged in a first housing, and the actuator is arranged on a second 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) 11, 13, 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 WO 2022/063954 A1 (Vom Brocke) 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 part (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 part to be driven, and a gear mechanism (gear 31) connected between the electric motor and the actuator (Figs. 1A-1B), wherein the actuator is arranged on the second housing 9at least swivel part 4 is on holding plate 20).
Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich does not disclose “an electric disc 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 first housing” as claimed. Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich does not disclose the holding plate 20 “structurally separate from the first housing” as claimed 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 second housing (holding plate 20), and/or the furniture drive further comprises a mechanical energy accumulator (spring 25) configured to exert a force on the actuator to compensate for the weight force of the furniture part to be driven, and/or the actuator is arranged substantially completely in the 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).
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 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) 14 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 WO 2008/135300 A1 (Schael) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of DE 10 2019 102 057 A1 (Andschus).
With respect to claim 14: Hetal-Werke Franz Hettich, as modified, does not meet “wherein each of the first housing and the second housing has a maximum width of less than 18 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 housings to have a width of less than 18 mm, in order to fit the device inside a thin furniture wall.
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 WO 2022/063954 A1 (Vom Brocke) 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 18 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
The new grounds of rejection made in this Office action render moot the Applicant’s arguments dated 02 September 2026, which are drawn to grounds of rejection which are no longer relied upon. The latest claim amendments necessitated the new claim rejections made in this Office action.
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