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 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 1-3, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abraham (4,858,481).
RE claims 1 and 2, Abraham (4,858,481) discloses a linear actuator (See Figs. 1-13), comprising: a housing (12) (see Exhibit A of Fig. 1); a drive shaft (54) having a proximate end attached to the housing and a distal end which moves relative to the housing; a first attachment point [(28) (See Fig. 1) or a load connector (125) for connecting to a load, (See Fig. 1 and Col. 6, lines 56-64)] and on one of the housing or the distal end of the shaft; a second attachment point [(28) (See Fig. 1) or a load connector (125) for connecting to a load, (See Fig. 1 and Col. 6, lines 56-64)] which is the opposite side of the shaft, being connected to the other of the housing or the distal end of the shaft, and a drive motor (44, 93) operatively engaged with the shaft to drive the movement of the drive shaft (54) wherein the distal end of the shaft moves reciprocatingly relative to the housing (12) (RE claim 2). Note that Figs. 5-7 of Abraham’s linear actuator (4,858,481) also show a limit switch assembly (34) having springs (156 and 152) (see Fig. 5) wherein at least one of the first attachment point (28) or the second attachment point is connected by way of one or more springs (156 or 152) (See Fig. 5) to protect overload to a user (see Fig 9).
RE claim 3, Abraham’s linear actuator (4,858,481) teaches the shaft is attached to the housing by way of a nut (58) and a spindle (54) and wherein the spindle is rotated by the motor (44, 93) to cause the reciprocating movement of the shaft.
Exhibit A
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RE claims 6, 8, and 9, Figs.2 and 5-8 of Abraham’s linear actuator (4,858,481) disclose
the second attachment point (28) (see Fig. 1) is on a plate connected to the distal end of the shaft by the one or more springs (152, 156), which is positioned concentrically about the shaft and extends along the shaft to bias the plate away from the distal end of the shaft towards the proximate end.
RE claims 10-13, Figs.2 and 5-8 of Abraham’s linear actuator (4,858,481) (see Exhibit B) also shows a limit switch assembly (34) configured to detect the compression of the one or more springs and trigger the shut off of the motor, having a plurality of limit switches each configured to detect a different selected compression distance of the one or more springs and trigger the shut off of the motor(see Fig. 9 Flow Chart) at one of the selected compression distances wherein the shaft has a defined travel distance and wherein one or more limit switches are configured to detect when the shaft is approaching at least one end of its travel distance and trigger the shut off of the motor.
Exhibit B
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
RE claims 14-16, Abraham’s linear actuator (4,858,481) provides two level overload control operations as shown in Fig. 9 wherein the motor (54) is configured to produce a signal from potentiometer (19) (see Col. 8, lines 8-68) in response to the compression of the one or more springs and trigger the shut off of the motor wherein the motor is a servo motor and the signal is an increase in power consumption of the motor when moving the shaft and compressing the one or more springs, relative to the power consumption (supplied by a power source 216) of the motor when moving the shaft without compressing the one or more springs wherein the increase in power consumption of the motor varies depending on the compression distance of the one or more springs, and wherein the shut off of the motor may be triggered when the signal corresponds to a desired compression distance by providing front stop (108) and back stop (110) with thermal sensor (100) to a power switch (102) to shut down the linear actuator (10) (see Fig. 9 of Flow Chart and Col. 8, lines 8-68).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7, and 11 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant provides an amendment, filed July 13, 2026, by amending the claim rejection under 35 USC 112, second paragraph overcoming the claim language. The applicant also deletes some of the recited structure and adds new structural limitations of “wherein at least one of the first attachment point or the second attachment point is connected by way of one or more springs.”
It is pointed out that “Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims” as indicated allowable subject matter (see a non-final office action, mailed Feb 12, 2026). Also note that the dependent claim 11 (See below) depends on claim 10 which in turn depends on claim 2.
Claim 10. The linear actuator of claim 2, having a limit switch configured to detect the compression of the one or more springs and trigger the shut off of the motor.
Claim 11. The linear actuator of claim 10, wherein the second attachment point is on a plate connected to the housing by the one or more springs, and wherein the limit switch is positioned so as to be engaged by a pin attached to the plate when the one or more springs are compressed.
It is also pointed out that applicant adds a broader limitation in an independent claim 1, “wherein at least one of the first attachment point or the second attachment point is connected by way of one or more springs,” but fails to incorporating into claim 1 in combination with structural limitations from both claims 2, 10, and 11.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection by Abraham’s linear actuator (4,858,481). Therefore, applicant's amendment (the deletion of the recited structure and the addition of new limitations in claim 1) necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PAUL T CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-69226922. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-4:30 PM.
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 Hodge, can be reached on (571) 272-7097 The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL T CHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
