Notice of 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 .
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed August 28, 2025 have been fully considered and required extra care in understanding given both the “threaded nut” and “locking lever” are denoted by reference numeral (16).
Applicant’s remarks on page 7, first full paragraph starting with “To be clear,” serves to support withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections pertaining to items 1-4 in the previous Non-Final office action.
Examiner acknowledges that Applicant’s remarks on page 8, 2nd para. goes into great length to substantiate support of the “blocking element”. A disclosure using clear, concise and exact terms would have simply stated a “locking lever” which is clearly shown and identified in the figures. As such there remains an objection to the claimed feature not being shown in the drawings.
Applicant did not remark on or amend claim 6 with regard to “the predetermined breaking point” lacking antecedent basis.
The Terminal Disclaimer filed August 28, 2025 was reviewed and disapproved in a decision with mail date September 2, 2025. The terminal disclaimer identifies a party who is not the applicant.
Applicant’s arguments starting on page 9 alleging impermissible hindsight in order to ascertain the claimed invention from the teachings of DE 10 2006 029 788 in view of Korthaus et al. are not persuasive.
Applicant’s 2nd point, page 10, 1st para. asks;
“Why would a person of ordinary skill in the art decide starting with the '788 patent look to covert rotational movement to linear translation? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest such an assertion.”
DE 10 2006 029 788 Figure 4 shows a mechanical drive (22) that includes a motor (24) a gear (260 and a toothed rack (28) with which rotary movement of the motor is converted into translational movement of a contact pin (20).
Applicant’s 3rd point relies on the 2nd point which has been refuted.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “blocking element” must be shown and identified as such or the feature cancelled from claims 3 and 4.
See MPEP § 608.02(d)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in response to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
No new matter should be entered in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(e).
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 Objection
Claim 6 states in part; ‘the predetermined breaking point” which lacks antecedent basis. Correction or clarification is required.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action
can be found in a prior Office Action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. (PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26)
An web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 342, 135 because
PATENTED CLAIM READS ON PENDING CLAIM
1 * NOTE BELOW
1
2
2
5
3
6
4
3
5
4
6
7
7
8
8
* NOTE Patented Claim 1 further includes a “predetermined breaking point” which is not present in pending Claim 1. Although pending Claim 6, which depends from pending Claim 1 requires antecedent basis for “the predetermined breaking point”; which if amended to include the predetermined breaking point in the same manner as stated in patented Claim 1, would then invoke a statutory double patenting rejection for which a terminal disclaimer would not suffice.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2006 029 788 [machine translation provided in previous action] in view of Korthaus et al. (US 3,161,074).
With respect to Claims 1 and 7; DE 10 2006 029 788 shows a device 22 for switching an electrical load circuit from a voltage source [Fig. 3] in an electrically powered transportation means by a drive 24 operated at low voltage 250, a contact stud (push rod) 20 of a linear drive stepping motor [0033], the contact stud being operable to move into at least two positions [0031] in a switch housing 40, the switch housing has at least three contact rings 30.0-30.3 on its internal wall, with a first contact ring 30.0 coupled to the voltage source 60 and a second contact ring 30.1-30.3 coupled to the load circuit 50 and a third contact ring [0030] connected to ground.
DE 10 2006 029 788 further teaches the load circuit may be operated at high voltage from a voltage source [0041].
However DE 10 2006 029 788 does not show or teach any of the details pertaining to the linear drive stepping motor.
Korthaus et al. shows a linear drive comprising a rotor 4 having a threaded nut 8 for moving the push rod 12 designed as a threaded rod, the push rod 12 is secured against rotation [Col. 3, lines 2-9] and the threaded nut 8 against rotation relative to the rotor 4.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the device shown within DE 10 2006 029 788 devised as a stepping motor would comprise the details illustrated in Korthaus et al. which illustrate a well-known principle of converting rotational movement to linear translation.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2006 029 788 [machine translation provided in previous action]] and Korthaus et al. (US 3,161,074) in view of Marlin et al. (US 9,418,807).
DE 10 2006 029 788 shows the contact stud 20 is coupled to the load circuit 50 and voltage source 60 in the closed position [Fig. 4 uppermost portion of range W].
However DE 10 2006 029 788 does not show the contact stud is coupled to the load circuit in an open position.
Korthaus et al. is relied upon to show the details pertaining to the linear stepping motor.
Marlin et al. shows an analogous switching device 11A with a linear actuator where in one position [Fig. 3A] the contact stud 14 is connected to one circuit 13 and in a second position [Fig. 3B] the contact stud is connected to two circuits 13, 50.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit configurations of DE 10 2006 029 788 where an alternate position of the contact stud would result in coupling solely with the load circuit as shown by Marlin et al. There appears to be no evidence of unique intuition or genius that distinguishes the claimed invention from being a mere permutation of that which is known and further derived from ordinary mechanical skill or craftsmanship whereby there is a novel and/or unobvious result which would have patentable significance.
Claim 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2006 029 788 and Korthaus et al. (US 3,161,074) in view of Marlin et al. (US 9,418,807) and Froschl (US 6,078,108).
DE 10 2006 029 788 as Korthaus et al. modified by shows a device for switching an electric load using a linear stepping motor as discussed in claim 1.
However DE 10 2006 029 788 as modified by Korthaus et al. does not show or teach a gas generator is coupled to the switch housing.
Marlin et al. shows an analogous switching device 11A having a gas generator 23 coupled to the switch housing with a linear actuator where in one position [Fig. 3A] the contact stud 14 is connected to one circuit 13 and in a second position [Fig. 3B] the contact stud is connected to two circuits 13, 50.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the switching device and circuit configuration of DE 10 2006 029 788 to include a gas generator to serve in moving the linear drive as shown by Marlin et al. thereby providing a near instantaneous switching response within the device.
As for various circuit configurations, specific circuit assignment is a mere permutation of that which is known and further derived from ordinary skill or craftsmanship there is evidence of there being a novel and/or unobvious result which would have patentable significance.
However Marlin et al. does not show the switching device coupled to an impact sensor via a controller.
Froschl shows a switching device with a gas generator 4 coupled to an impact sensor via a controller [Col. 2, lines 15-21].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the switching device of DE 10 2006 029 788 such that the switching device is coupled to an impact sensor via a controller as taught by Froschl to provide a fast-acting switch that can avert fires or explosions in the case of an automobile accident thereby expanding the applications of the switch shown by DE 10 2006 029 788.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 communications from the examiner should be directed to
Vanessa Girardi: Office phone 571.272.5924
Mon-Fri 9am-5pm est
Vanessa.Girardi@USPTO.Gov
Authorization for Email Communication — In the event Applicant wishes to communicate with the Examiner via electronic mail, written authorization should be provided in Applicant’s next response. See MPEP § 502.03. The following is a sample authorization statement which may be used by Applicant:
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, we hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with any authorized representative concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. We understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor Renee S. Luebke can be reached at 571.272.2009.
The central fax phone number for the organization 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 about filing in DOCX format.
[AltContent: textbox (VANESSA GIRARDI )]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.
/VANESSA GIRARDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833