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 . Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 16, line 1, the term “computer” should be changed to “non-transient computer” or similar language. Currently, Claim 16 is directed to a computer readable medium which can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission. See, e.g., ¶ [0073], which states a “computer readable storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se…” for support of the proposed amendment.
Regarding Claim 16, line 2, the term “by” should be changed to “by a” or similar language.
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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 10 of Doyle et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,411,165, hereinafter “Doyle ´165”). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations in present Claim 1 are within the scope of subject matter claimed in Claim 1 of Doyle ´165.
Claims 11, 12, and 14, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Doyle in view of Doyle et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0198053 A1, hereinafter “Doyle”). See the rejection of Claims 11, 12, and 14, below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Doyle with those Doyle ´165 to provide feedback oriented variable adjustment for a switching device.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10, and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Childers (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 5,260,848) in view of Price et al. (PCT Pat. No. WO 2014/202687 A1, hereinafter “Price”).
Specifically, regarding Claim 1, Childers discloses a method (inherent) comprising: determining a target state of a conductive particle interconnect (CPI; a “very low electrical resistance” of binder material 23, inherently disclosed at, e.g., col. 4, l. 66 - col. 5 l. 4, col. 6, l. 27-29), a voltage source [to cause] an electroactive polymer (EAP) disposed around the CPI to apply a force on the CPI, the force causing the CPI to transition to the target state (via application of a voltage greater than the clamping voltage; col. 6, ll. 29-32). Childers does not disclose the claimed (i) generating and transmitting an input signal, as recited in Claim 1.
However, Price discloses generating an input signal based on a target state (inherently generated via converter/ECU configuration 20; p. 7, ll. 7-8, FIG. 4), and transmitting the input signal to a voltage source (22, 23; as shown in, e.g., FIG. 4, an output of 20 is provided to driving circuit 22).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Price with those of Childers to provide a switching apparatus that is electronically controllable and not requiring manual operation.
Regarding Claim 2, Childers inherently discloses determining a target voltage (threshold voltage) associated with the target state (low resistance state), wherein the target voltage is a voltage that causes the EAP to move to a position associated with the target state, and applying, by the voltage source, the target voltage to the EAP (col. 2, ll. 17-25).
Regarding Claim 3, Childers inherently discloses monitoring, after transmitting the input signal to the voltage source, an output of the CPI, and determining, based on the monitoring, whether the CPI is in the target state (col. 6, ll. 48-51, col. 8, ll. 26-29).
Regarding Claim 7, Childers discloses an elastomeric carrier and a plurality of conductive particles dispersed therein (col. 4, l. 66 - col. 5, l. 4; FIG. 2).
Claims 10 and 15 include language similar to that of Claims 1 and 3, respectively, and are rejected for reasons at least similar to those discussed above.
Claims 4-6, 8, 11, 12, and 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over the combination of Childers and Price in view of Doyle.
The combination of Childers and Price discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed method, comprising monitoring, determining, and configurations.
However, Doyle inherently discloses a method including that (i) monitoring the output of the CPI includes determining a resistance of the CPI (e.g., an infinite resistance via no electrical conductivity, a switch open state), the method further comprising: adjusting, in response to determining that the CPI is not in the target state (e.g., a low resistance state), a voltage applied to the EAP (providing a voltage at 106, 108; ¶ [0021], FIG. 1A), wherein the adjusting includes: in response to the resistance of the CPI being too high, increasing the voltage applied to the EAP to cause further compression of the CPI (to adjust from the position in FIG. 1A to that of FIG. 1B; ¶ [0021]), and in response to the resistance of the CPI being too low, decreasing the voltage applied to the EAP to reduce compression of the CPI (removing a voltage application at 106, 108; ¶ [0021], FIG. 1A), as recited in Claim 4, (ii) the output of the CPI includes determining a resistance of the CPI (¶ [0024]), the method further comprising: adjusting, in response to determining that the CPI is not in the target state, a voltage applied to the EAP, wherein the adjusting includes in response to the resistance of the CPI being too high (uncompressed state; FIG. 3A), decreasing the voltage applied to the EAP to cause further compression of the CPI (as shown in FIG. 3B), in response to the resistance of the CPI being too low (FIG. 3B), increasing the voltage applied to the EAP to reduce compression of the CPI (FIG. 3A; ¶¶ [0037], [0038], [0041]), as recited in Claim 5, (iii) the CPI is configured to act as a switch having two or more states, each of the two or more states having an associated position of the EAP, and transmitting the input signal to the voltage source causes the EAP to move into a position associated with the target state (FIGS. 3A, 3B; ¶ [0041]), as recited in Claim 6, (iv) the EAP is configured to move between a first position (FIG. 1A) and a second position (FIG. 1B) in response to an electrical field (applied at 106, 108; see, e.g., FIG. 1A), and the CPI is configured to exhibit a first electrical resistance when the EAP is in the first position and to exhibit a second electrical resistance when the EAP is in the second position (¶ [0021]), a recited in Claim 8, (v) the CPI is configured to act as a switch having two or more states, each of the two or more states having an associated position of the EAP (FIGS. 1A, 1B) and transmitting the input signal to the voltage source causes the EAP to move into a position associated with the target state (¶¶ [0014], [0019]), as recited in Claim 11, (vi) the EAP is configured to move between at least a first position (FIG. 1A) and a second position (FIG. 1B) in response to an electrical field, and the CPI is configured to exhibit a first electrical resistance (R1; FIG. 1A) when the EAP is in the first position and to exhibit a second electrical resistance (R2; FIG. 1B) when the EAP is in the second position, as recited in Claim 12, and (vii) that the CPI includes an elastomeric carrier and a plurality of conductive particles dispersed therein (¶ [0012]), as recited in Claim 14.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Doyle with those of the combination of Childers and Price to provide feedback oriented variable adjustment for a switching device.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over the combination of Childers and Price in view of Kapps et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0253482 A1, hereinafter “Kapps”).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Childers and Price discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention, and inherently discloses the claimed method (see Claim 1 above), but does not disclose the claimed product. However, Kapps discloses a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by processor to cause the processor to perform a method (¶ [0040]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kapps with those of the combination of Childers and Price to provide a computer controlled feedback switching device.
Regarding Claim 17, Childers inherently discloses determining a target voltage (threshold voltage) associated with the target state (low resistance state), wherein the target voltage is a voltage that causes the EAP to move to a position associated with the target state, and applying, by the voltage source, the target voltage to the EAP (col. 2, ll. 17-25).
Regarding Claim 18, Childers inherently discloses monitoring, after transmitting the input signal to the voltage source, an output of the CPI, and determining, based on the monitoring, whether the CPI is in the target state (col. 6, ll. 48-51, col. 8, ll. 26-29).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over the combination of Childers, Price, and Kapps, in view of Doyle.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Childers, Price, and Kapps, discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention, but does not disclose the monitoring and configuration. However, Doyle discloses a method wherein monitoring the output of the CPI includes determining a resistance of the CPI (e.g., an infinite resistance via no electrical conductivity, a switch open state), the method further comprising: adjusting, in response to determining that the CPI is not in the target state (e.g., a low resistance state), a voltage applied to the EAP (providing a voltage at 106, 108; ¶ [0021], FIG. 1A), wherein the adjusting includes: in response to the resistance of the CPI being too high, increasing the voltage applied to the EAP to cause further compression of the CPI (to adjust from the position in FIG. 1A to that of FIG. 1B; ¶ [0021]), and in response to the resistance of the CPI being too low, decreasing the voltage applied to the EAP to reduce compression of the CPI (removing a voltage application at 106, 108; ¶ [0021], FIG. 1A), as recited in Claim 19, and (ii) the CPI is configured to act as a switch having two or more states, each of the two or more states having an associated position of the EAP, and transmitting the input signal to the voltage source causes the EAP to move into a position associated with the target state (FIGS. 3A, 3B; ¶ [0041]), as recited in Claim 20.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Doyle with those of the combination of Childers, Price, and Kapps, to provide real-time computer controlled feedback oriented variable adjustment for a switching device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 13 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. The prior art fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, either alone or in combination, the method comprising the claimed detecting that a temperature of the EAP is below a threshold, applying, in response to detecting that the temperature of the EAP is below the threshold, a DC bias voltage to the EAP, the DC bias voltage being a voltage that causes expansion of the EAP so as to offset constriction caused by the temperature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY R. JIMENEZ whose telephone number is 313-446-6518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 1030am - 9pm.
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, Renee Luebke, can be reached at (571) 272-2009.
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.
/ANTHONY R JIMENEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833