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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2023 and 02/15/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 2, 3, 6 and 9 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.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 6 and 9, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(a) as being anticipated by Seepersad et al. (US 2016/0032997 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Seepersad et al. discloses a reset unit (figs. 1-12B; [0034]) for resetting rotational and/or translational deflection movements, which has at least one ordered mesostructure (the structures in figs. 1-2) consisting of an ordered arrangement of at least two elementary cells (note the single cell 100 in fig. 1 and plurality of cells in fig. 2), wherein the elementary cells each have at least one pore (note the central opening of the cell 100 in fig. 1), which allows the elementary cells to be reversibly compressed and expanded through exposure to force, wherein a reset force of the reset unit can be at least partially generated by deforming the mesostructured (note the abstract).
Re-claim 2, Seepersad et al. discloses the reset unit has at least two mesostructures, in particular identical mesostructures, which are connected in parallel in terms of force application (note fig. 2; [0028]).
Re-claim 3, Seepersad et al. discloses an elastic element, in particular a spring or an elastomer, or an adaptive element, in particular an actuator or an MRF element, is placed upstream and/or downstream from at least one elementary cell in terms of force application (note fig. 2; [0002]-[0003]).
Claims 1-5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(a) as being anticipated by Jahromi et al. (US 2018/0348025 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Jahromi et al. discloses a reset unit (figs. 1-9D; the abstract) for resetting rotational and/or translational deflection movements, which has at least one ordered mesostructure (the structures in figs. 2A-2C) consisting of an ordered arrangement of at least two elementary cells (note the cells in fig. 1), wherein the elementary cells each have at least one pore (note the central opening of the cell 110), which allows the elementary cells to be reversibly compressed and expanded through exposure to force, wherein a reset force of the reset unit can be at least partially generated by deforming the mesostructured (note the abstract and [0036]-[0037]).
Re-claim 2, Jahromi et al. discloses the reset unit has at least two mesostructures, in particular identical mesostructures, which are connected in parallel in terms of force application (note fig. 1; [0036]).
Re-claim 3, Jahromi et al. discloses an elastic element, in particular a spring or an elastomer, or an adaptive element, in particular an actuator or an MRF element, is placed upstream and/or downstream from at least one elementary cell in terms of force application (note figs. 1-2C; [0035]-[0037]).
Re-claim 4, Jahromi et al. discloses at least one mesostructure has at least two different elementary cells , which vary with respect to their structure, shape, material and/or arrangement (note figs. 2A-2C).
Re-claim 5, Jahromi et al. discloses the reset unit has different mesostructures, which are interchangeable in use (note the switchable interactions of the cells and links [0035]-[0037]).
Re-claim 7, Jahromi et al. discloses at least one mesostructure has at least one signal generator (note the controller signals to drive the switchable link).
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, 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.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villing (DE 102007018891 B4) in view of Jahromi et al. (US 2018/0348025 A1).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7 and 8, Villing discloses a reset unit (fig. 1) for resetting rotational and/or translational deflection movements, which has at least one ordered mesostructure (the structures in figs. 1-2) consisting of an ordered arrangement of at least two elementary cells (14a and 14c in fig. 2) but fails to disclose the elementary cells each have at least one pore, which allows the elementary cells to be reversibly compressed and expanded through exposure to force, wherein a reset force of the reset unit can be at least partially generated by deforming the mesostructured as recited in the claims. However, as set forth above, Jahromi et al. discloses a reset unit (figs. 1-9D; the abstract) for resetting rotational and/or translational deflection movements, which has at least one ordered mesostructure (the structures in figs. 2A-2C) consisting of an ordered arrangement of at least two elementary cells (note the cells in fig. 1), wherein the elementary cells each have at least one pore (note the central opening of the cell 110), which allows the elementary cells to be reversibly compressed and expanded through exposure to force, wherein a reset force of the reset unit can be at least partially generated by deforming the mesostructured (note the abstract and [0036]-[0037]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to modify the reset unit of Villing with the teaching of Jahromi et al. will provide more reliable and efficient resetting operation of the device.
Re-claim 9, Villing discloses the operating device has a control lever (3), wherein the reset unit (note the unit comprising 14a and 14c in fig. 2) is mounted in the control lever, in particular in an element of the control lever that scans a motion link (note the sensors 20a and 20b monitor the position of a marker of a link 15).
Re-claim 10, Villing discloses the operating device has a motion link (15) into which a control lever (3) is guided, wherein the reset unit (note the unit comprising 14a and 14c in fig. 2) resets the motion link.
Re-claim 11, Villing discloses the motion link (15, 14a, 14c, 17, 20a, 20b, 21) consists of multiple parts, wherein at least one of these motion link parts is reset by a reset unit (note the unit comprising 14a and 14c in fig. 2).
Re-claim 12, Villing discloses the operating device has a contact surface (note the top end portion of the lever 3) contacted by a user, which is reset by the reset unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUR RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-7218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 10pm EST.
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 5712727124. 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.
/MAHBUBUR RASHID/ Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616