DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the various elements of applicant’s invention impart a frictional engagement with each other and bend under the influence of the relative movement, and that this bending and friction is clearly a damping (page 6-7 of applicant’s remarks).
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner points out that no such wording is presented or discussed in the specification or claims. These arguments are essentially new matter and are unsupported by the original disclosure. The examiner notes that no new matter rejection is made because applicant has not amended the specification or claims (See MPEP 608.04(a)).
Applicant argues that Plumptre teaches a stop, and not a rotary movement damper. In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner first points to the remarks and objections made above regarding applicant’s use of the erm “damp(er/ing)”. Additionally, the examiner points out the bearing surfaces coming into contact with each other to form the stop involves at least some amount of friction, and the materials have a non-zero Poisson’s ratio (see MPEP 608.02 IX regarding drawing graphic symbols) meaning that the stop would have at least some “bending” and therefore damping imparted to relative movement of the elements. The rejection is therefore maintained.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification discloses that both the first and second parts are made of steel (PGpub par. 0053) and that they are fixed to their relatively movable components of the rotary actuator (numerous locations - Abstract, PGpub par. 006+). Therefore, the device, as best understood, appears to be a slanted stop for a rotary actuator device of an aircraft spoiler, and does not provide any appreciable “damping”, as both parts are non-displaceable and formed of generally recognized non-compressible steel material. The specification needs to be amended to recite as much. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: The device, as best understood, appears to be a slanted stop for a rotary actuator device of an aircraft spoiler, and does not provide any appreciable “damping”. Appropriate correction of this term is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As discussed above, the device, as best understood, appears to be a slanted stop for a rotary actuator device of an aircraft spoiler. It is unclear how to fixed steel components contacting each other provides any appreciable “damping” effect. For the purpose of continuing examination, the examiner will interpret the invention as a rotary motion stop.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear how the two abutting parts would “slide” along each other when both components are fixed to their relative components, which do not have any elasticity.
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.
Claims 1 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a)(1) as being anticipated by Plumptre (US 2013/0211343).
In Re claim 1, Plumptre discloses, a device (fig. 2) for stopping rotary motion of a component (fig. 1), comprising: a first part (20) mounted to rotatable and axially movable components (5,8); and a second part (19) fixed such that the two parts are movable relative to each other and towards each other when the component is actuated in a first direction, wherein the first and second parts includes angled surfaces (22) that move into contact with each other along the corresponding movement direction (see pars. 0094-0095 and fig. 2). The two parts are angled with respect to the rotational axis (4) of the component.
In Re claim 10, see support beams (7, 21).
In Re claim 11, see approximately 45-degree angle (see 22) with respect to the rotational axis (4).
In Re claim 12, see rotatable drive element (5) and fixed component (8).
In Re claim 13, the device is a drug delivery drive mechanism, understood to encompass the term “actuator”, as it is actuated.
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.
Claims 2-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plumptre (US 2013/0211343).
In Re claim 2, Plumptre further disclose that there exists at least one of the stop devices, but fails to specifically disclose two symmetrically spaced stop devices. The examiner asserts that It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stop device of Plumptre to include at least two oppositely disposed stop devices, as a matter of engineering design choice, so as to even the stop force on either side of the screw actuator element, to prevent a twisting or binding action. The examiner notes that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP2144.04).
In Re claims 3, 6, and 8, the angled parts come into angled contact with each other and are made to stop in a similar fashion as applicant’s invention.
In Re claims 4 and 5, see bottom of 7.
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 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 THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616