DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-20, 23-17,34 & 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strothmann et al. (US patent application publication 2013/0293173) (hereinafter Strothmann).
Regarding claim 16, Strothmann discloses An adjustment device for a piece of furniture, comprising: a first component (1); a second component (3); and a multi-layered dampening element (42, 43), wherein the second component is in contact with the first component via at least parts of the dampening element; wherein the dampening element includes at least one outer layer (43) and at least one dampening layer (42); and wherein the at least one outer layer comprises an elastomer material and the at least one dampening layer comprises a dampening material being softer than the elastomer material of the outer layer ([0042-0043]).
Regarding claim 17, Strothmann discloses an adjustment device wherein the adjustment device includes a static component (32), and wherein the first component, the second component and the dampening element are movable with respect to the static component.
Regarding claim 18, Strothmann discloses an adjustment device further comprising: a static component (32), wherein the first component is mounted movably to the static component.
Regarding claim 19, Strothmann discloses an adjustment device further comprising: a telescopic support column (3), wherein at least the first component is part of the telescopic support column.
Regarding claim 20, Strothmann discloses an adjustment device wherein at least one of the elastomer material comprises rubber and the dampening material comprises a polyurethane elastomer (0042-0043]).
Regarding claim 23, Strothmann discloses an adjustment device wherein the at least one dampening layer is arranged between the outer layer and the first component (Fig. 4b).
Regarding claim 24, Strothmann discloses an adjustment device wherein the first component comprises a sensor (41).
Regarding claim 25, Strothmann discloses an adjustment device wherein the outer layer includes a protrusion extending through the dampening layer, and the protrusion is in contact with the sensor (Fig. 4b).
Regarding claim 26, Strothmann discloses an adjustment device wherein the outer layer includes a protrusion extending through the dampening layer (Fig. 4b).
Regarding claim 27, Strothmann discloses an adjustment device wherein the dampening element includes at least one of a through hole and a cutout (Fib. 4b).
Regarding claim 34, Strothmann discloses an adjustable piece of furniture comprising the adjustment device of claim 16 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 35, Strothmann discloses an adjustment device wherein the piece of furniture comprises at least one of a tabletop and a beam fixed to the second component (Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21 & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strothmann.
Regarding claim 21, Strothmann discloses the adjustment device as claimed. Strothmann does not disclose an adjustment device wherein the elastomer material of the at least one outer layer has a hardness between 50 to 70 Shore A. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the of the filing to modify Strothmann wherein the elastomer material of the at least one outer layer has a hardness between 50 to 70 Shore A., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 22, Strothmann discloses the adjustment device as claimed. Strothmann does not disclose an adjustment device wherein the dampening material has a hardness between 5 and 50 Shore A. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the of the filing to modify Strothmann wherein the dampening material has a hardness between 5 and 50 Shore A., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-33 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it gives a general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J ROHRHOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-7624. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dan Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL J ROHRHOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
