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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In the specification filed 07 March 2025, “bearing shaft 12” at page 9, line 16 should read “bearing shaft 11”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “guiding” should be “driving”. 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0063484 A1 (Haemmerle) in view of US 2012/0090938 A1 (Maas) and US 2016/0153508 A1 (Battlogg).
With respect to claim 1: Haemmerle discloses a furniture drive (furniture drive system 1) comprising: an actuating arm (actuating arm 5) with a coupling device (at least gear mechanism 12) for the actuating arm with at least one drive part (at least electric motor 8) and at least one output part (Fig. 4a: the output gear of motor 8 and/or the gear stage 14 meshed therewith) to be rotated relative thereto.
Haemmerle does not disclose “wherein a coupling intensity between the at least one drive part and the at least one output part can be adjusted with an adjustment device, wherein the at least one drive part and the at least one output part are arranged spaced apart from one another to form a gap, wherein the gap is filled with a magnetorheological medium that can be influenced by a magnetic field, and the adjustment device for adjusting the coupling intensity has a device for generating a magnetic field for magnetic polarization of the magnetorheological medium” as claimed.
Maas Figs. 1-10 show various embodiments of a device for generating and varying output torque, “in the manner of an electric motor” ([0055]). In Maas Fig. 1, the device 1 includes a driveshaft 2, a driven shaft 3, and a gap 18 filled with a magnetorheological medium. A field generator 13 adjusts the magnetic field applied to the magnetorheological medium, to thereby adjust the output torque of the driven shaft 3.
Battlogg [0151], [0159], and [0261]-[0262] show that it is known in the furniture drive art to use a magnetorheological drive device as a furniture drive. Battlogg [0009] teaches that magnetorheological fluids have magnetically polarizable particles. The magnetorheological medium in Maas’ invention is one example of the magnetorheological fluid in Battlogg’s specification. Battlogg [0018] states that such transmission devices allow transmission of higher forces or torques, possibly with smaller structural form and with low wear at the same time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Haemmerle’s drive system 1 to have the driveshaft of one of Maas’ devices connected to the output of Haemmerle’s electric motor 8, in order to enable variable torque output. This accommodates differently sized (weighted) furniture parts 3 that are driven by the motor 8. Similarly to Battlogg’s disclosure, the modification is desirable in order to transmit higher forces or torques, possibly with smaller structural form and low wear.
Such a modification meets, as claimed, at least one drive part (Maas’ driveshaft) and at least one output part (Maas’ driven shaft) to be rotated relative thereto, wherein a coupling intensity between the at least one drive part and the at least one output part can be adjusted with an adjustment device (at least Maas’ field generator 13 or at least the equivalent field generator of subsequent embodiments), wherein the at least one drive part and the at least one output part are arranged spaced apart from one another to form a gap (e.g., Maas’ gap 18), wherein the gap is filled with a magnetorheological medium that can be influenced by a magnetic field (as disclosed by Maas), and the adjustment device for adjusting the coupling intensity has a device for generating a magnetic field (as disclosed by Maas) for magnetic polarization of the magnetorheological medium (magnetic polarization of the medium/fluid disclosed by Battlogg, thereby showing this is what Maas’ field generator 13 does to the medium/fluid in gap 18).
With respect to claim 2: Haemmerle, as modified, meets wherein the actuating arm connected to the output part can be coupled to and uncoupled from the furniture drive with a coupling intensity corresponding to the polarization of the magnetorheological medium with the coupling device (similarly to Battlogg [0020] and [0161]).
With respect to claim 3: Haemmerle, as modified, meets wherein the device for generating a magnetic field for polarizing the magnetorheological medium has at least one electromagnet with an energizable coil (Maas [0078] discloses radially wound winding assemblies 131-134 as coils, and the field generator 13 with such winding assemblies 131-134 generates magnetic fields using electricity as an electromagnet).
The limitation “wherein the energizable coil is preferably arranged stationary in the furniture drive” is not required by the claim as written.
With respect to claim 4: Haemmerle, as modified, meets wherein the drive part (Maas’ driveshaft) at least partially protrudes into an inner area of the coil (embodiments of Maas Figs. 3-9).
The limitation “wherein preferably a drive shaft projecting axially from the drive part protrudes into an inner area of the coil” is not required by the claim as written.
Maas does not disclose the driveshaft meets “is made of a magnetizable material” as claimed, in that Maas remains silent to the specific material of the driveshaft.
Maas [0050] discloses the driven shaft 3 includes a cylinder 15 which is likewise made of steel, possibly an anisotropic material. Maas [0075] teaches that anisotropic materials can direct magnetic flux in a preferred direction so that the useable amount of magnetic flux intensity is increased with the same supply of energy to the field generator. Maas [0071] discloses driveshaft 118 has a cylinder 120 made of steel that is conductive.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the driveshaft to be made of an anisotropic material such as steel (thereby magnetizable as claimed), in order to direct magnetic flux in a preferred direction.
With respect to claim 5: Haemmerle, as modified, meets wherein the drive part (Maas’ driveshaft) for guiding the output part (Maas’ driven shaft) has a bearing shaft (Maas Fig. 1: part 2 and/or Maas Fig. 7: part 96) projecting axially centrally from the drive part.
The limitation “wherein preferably the bearing shaft is made of a magnetizable material” is not required by the claim as written.
With respect to claim 6: Haemmerle, as modified, meets wherein the drive part and the output part are arranged adjacent to one another along a common axis of rotation (axis denoted by the dashed line in Maas’ figures) and the gap is formed at least axially (Maas Figs. 1-10).
With respect to claim 7: Haemmerle, as modified, meets wherein the drive part is formed to be disk-shaped at least in sections (Figs. 1-10: at least some part of Maas’ driveshaft and/or the components connected thereto is/are disk-shaped).
With respect to claim 8: Haemmerle, as modified, meets wherein the drive part has an axial projection at least in sections (cylinder 9), to form an open U-profile cross-section (flange 7 and cylinder 9 from a U-profile in cross-section).
The limitation “preferably in an edge region” is not required by the claim as written.
With respect to claim 9: Haemmerle, as modified, meets wherein the output part is formed to be disk-shaped at least in sections (Maas’ driven shaft 3 has annular disk 17 on the rotor 16 thereof and/or further part(s) of the driven shaft is/are disk-shaped at least in sections).
With respect to claim 10: Haemmerle, as modified, meets wherein the drive part has an axial projection at least in sections (cylinder 9) to form an open U-profile cross-section (flange 7 and cylinder 9 from a U-profile in cross-section) and the output part is arranged at least partially in the U-profile cross-section of the drive part (Maas Fig. 1). Other embodiments of Maas also meet the claim as written.
With respect to claim 11: Haemmerle, as modified, meets wherein the drive part at least partially radially encloses the output part (at least Maas Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 12: Haemmerle, as modified, meets wherein the gap is formed at least radially (at least Maas Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 13: Haemmerle, as modified, meets wherein at least one radial seal (e.g., radial shaft seal 19 in Maas Fig. 1) is arranged between the drive part and the output part.
With respect to claim 14: Haemmerle, as modified, meets wherein the drive part and/or the output part have a structured surface (grooves or slots @ Maas [0075]) facing the gap at least in sections to form a positive connection to the magnetorheological medium (Maas Fig. 1: driveshaft 2 has cylinder 9, and driven shaft 3 has cylinder 15; Maas [0075] discloses grooves or slots incorporated into the cylinders to exert a specific fluid-mechanical influence on the gaps and can also allow the magnetic flux to be managed in a specific manner).
With respect to claim 15: Haemmerle, as modified, meets wherein the furniture drive has an electric motor (Haemmerle’s electric motor 8) for driving the actuating arm connected to the output part, and with the coupling device (similarly to Haemmerle), the actuating arm can be coupled to and uncoupled from the electric motor according to a coupling intensity (similarly to the disclosure of Maas).
With respect to claim 16: Haemmerle, as modified, meets wherein the furniture drive has a mechanical force accumulator (Haemmerle’s energy storage mechanism 6) which can be connected or is connected to the actuating arm connected to the output part (connected to actuating arm 5 via deflection levers 32, 33), wherein with the coupling device, a force from the force accumulator and/or a force elicited by the electric motor can be exerted on the actuating arm connected to the output part corresponding to a coupling intensity (as modified, the force elicited by electric motor 8 can be exerted on the actuating arm 5 with the “coupling device” of Maas).
With respect to claim 17: Haemmerle, as modified, meets wherein the drive part has a drive shaft projecting axially centrally from the drive part (Maas Fig. 1: driveshaft 2 projects axially centrally to the left) for connection to a drive of the furniture drive (connected to Haemmerle’s motor 8).
With respect to claim 18: Haemmerle, as modified, meets wherein the furniture drive has an electric motor (Haemmerle’s electric motor 8) for driving the actuating arm and with the coupling device, the actuating arm can be coupled to and uncoupled from the electric motor corresponding to a coupling intensity (similarly to Maas’ disclosure).
Haemmerle’s motor 8 does not meet “wherein the electric motor can be operated as a generator for dampening the movement when the actuating arm moves - in particular in an end area of a limited movement of the actuating arm” as claimed.
Haemmerle [0044] discloses a linear damping device 11 as a closing damper, for soft closing of the movable furniture part 3. Alternatively, a rotary damper can be used. Haemmerle [0045]-[0051] discloses an opening damping device 10 for the movable furniture part 3.
Battlogg’s “Background of the Invention” teaches that in addition to being a clutch with variable output torque, magnetorheological devices are known to serve as a brake.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Haemmerle’s motor 8 to apply braking (dampening) force, in order to replace the functionality of Haemmerle’s damping device(s) 10 and/or 11 with the modified motor 8. This enables Haemmerle’s drive system 1 to be made without said device 10 and/or 11.
This meets, as claimed, wherein the electric motor can be operated as a generator for dampening the movement when the actuating arm moves - in particular in an end area of a limited movement of the actuating arm (during the opening and/or closing movement of movable furniture part 3).
With respect to claim 19: Haemmerle, as modified, meets a use of the furniture drive according to claim 1 in a piece of furniture (Haemmerle Figs. 1a-b: drive system 1 in a piece of furniture 27).
With respect to claim 20: Haemmerle, as modified, meets a piece of furniture (piece of furniture 27) with at least one furniture drive according to claim 1 (drive system 1, as modified), wherein at least one movable furniture part of the piece of furniture (movable furniture part 3) can be connected or is connected to the actuating arm of the furniture drive (Haemmerle Figs. 1a-b).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0063484 A1 (Haemmerle) in view of US 2012/0090938 A1 (Maas) and US 2016/0153508 A1 (Battlogg) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of US 2019/0380496 A1 (Poppenborg).
With respect to claim 21: Haemmerle discloses wherein the piece of furniture has a furniture body (furniture carcass 2) with at least one wall (Figs. 1a-b).
Haemmerle does not disclose “wherein the furniture drive in an installed position can be arranged or is arranged substantially completely in a recess in a wall of the furniture body” as claimed.
Poppenborg shows it is known in the art to have a furniture drive installed substantially completely in a recess in 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 Haemmerle’s system 1 and carcass 2 to have the drive system 1 mounted in a recess of a wall of the carcass 2, in order to not have the drive system 1 occupy storage space inside the piece of furniture 27.
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