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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the reference characters in some of the drawings are both small and fuzzy, and therefore difficult to read. See especially Figs. 1, 3, and 4.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification recites both the term “standard current” and “calibrated current”. It is unclear in the specification whether the terms “standard current” and “calibrated current” are synonymous terms or distinct terms with different meanings, and if so what those different meanings are. See also the 35 USC 112(b) rejection hereinbelow concerning these terms in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-10 each recite in lines 1 and/or 2 the phrase “characterized by” or “characterized in that”. These phrases do not add any limitation and so should be removed. For example, the phrase “characterized by comprising” can generally be replaced with the word “comprising”. The phrase “characterized in that” can generally be replaced with the word “wherein”.
Claims 2-10 each recite in their respective line 1 the phrase “[t]he linear actuator with a contact type safety nut”. Since there is already the antecedent basis of “a contact type safety nut” in parent claim 1, this is double inclusion of the “contact type safety nut”. Taking into account the 35 USC 112(b) rejection hereinbelow pertaining to the word “type”, the Examiner suggests each of these recitations in claims 2-10 should be amended to “the linear actuator with the [[a]] contact ”.
Claim 1 in particular, and other dependent claims where appropriate, should be amended to separate out some clauses onto separate lines and/or into separate paragraphs to improve readability. For example:
1. A linear actuator […] safety nut, the linear actuator comprising:
a central screw,
a driving nut mechanism,
a safety nut mechanism, and
a driving control assembly--;--[[,]]
wherein the central screw has a screw raceway, and
the safety nut mechanism comprises--:--
a safety nut seat sleeved at the periphery of the central screw,
limit hole channels pointing […],
[…]
[…] operation of the motor.
Claim 1, at lines 5-7 should be amended to “[[an]] respective elastic buffer element is arranged in each of the limit holes, a respective safety ball is arranged between each respective elastic buffer element and the central screw, each safety ball partially extends into the screw raceway […]”, or amended to similarly appropriate language, in order to make the number of claimed limit holes consistently agree with the number of claimed elastic buffer elements and safety balls, with similar appropriate corrections made in the remainder of claim 1 and the dependent claims.
Claim 4, at line 3, should be amended to “the standard current calculation module” in order to agree with the antecedent basis of “a standard current calculation module” recited in claim 4, line 2.
Claim 10, at lines 11 and 15, should amend “the database” to “the calibrated database” in order to agree with the antecedent basis in parent claim 3 at line 4.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the current platform" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be amended to “the ” to agree with the antecedent basis of “a platform” recited in parent claim 3. Likewise, claim 10 recites the limitation "the current platform" in each of steps S03, S04, and S05. These should be amended to “the ” to agree with the antecedent basis of “a platform” recited in parent claim 3.
The claims recite the term “current” both in the context of electrical context, and separately with the meaning of “present”. The Examiner suggests amending “current height” in step S04 of claim 10 to “present height”, and amending “current state of the linear actuator” in S07 of claim 10 to “current state of the linear actuator” in order to distinguish from electrical current.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,482 (hereinafter US’482) in view of Lombardo (US2020/0317493).
The copending claims are not overly complex and lie in the same general field as applicant's claimed invention (having overlapping inventorship and common ownership therewith). Accordingly, the pertinence of the copending claims to the current claims as well as what ordinary skill/knowledge in the art would suggest should be readily apparent and flows naturally from the claims. See 37 C.F.R. 1.104(c)(2) which states “In rejecting claims for want of novelty or for obviousness, the examiner must cite the best references at his or her command. When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified.” See also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) which states “There has never been a requirement for an examiner to make an on-the-record claim construction of every term in every rejected claim and to explain every possible difference between the prior art and the claimed invention in order to make out a prima facie rejection. This court declines to create such a burdensome and unnecessary requirement. […] “Section 132 merely ensures that an applicant at least be informed of the broad statutory basis for the rejection of his claims, so that he may determine what the issues are on which he can or should produce evidence.” Chester, 906 F.2d at 1578 (internal citation omitted). As discussed above, all that is required of the office to meet its prima facie burden of production is to set forth the statutory basis of the rejection and the reference or references relied upon...”
The instant application and the copending claims of the referenced patent (US’482) contain many of the same structural features and structural language and it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that they overlapped in scope and/or could be the same invention (see claim 1 of US’482 and compare with claims 1-2 of the instant application). The claims of the instant application and the claims of the referenced patent differ in that the referenced patent (US’482) does not further claim a driving control assembly comprising a motor for driving the central screw to rotate and a motor controller for controlling the motor to operate, and the motor controller is capable of directly receiving an external operation state signal and resolving the signal into an action command to control operation of the motor.
Lombardo teaches the additional claim limitations (see claim 1 of the instant application) that a driving control assembly comprises a motor (para. [0042] - “motor”) for driving the central screw to rotate and a motor controller for controlling the motor to operate, and the motor controller is capable of directly receiving an external operation state signal and resolving the signal into an action command to control operation of the motor (para. [0042] - “lift controller”), for the purpose of driving the actuator to lift the platform, to control the actuator, and to safely end operation of the actuator and the platform in the event of a failure of the actuator (para. [0042]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to modify the claimed device of Teyssier such that the driving control assembly comprises a motor for driving the central screw to rotate and a motor controller for controlling the motor to operate, and the motor controller is capable of directly receiving an external operation state signal and resolving the signal into an action command to control operation of the motor, as taught by Lombardo, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of driving the actuator to lift the platform, to control the actuator, and to safely end operation of the actuator and the platform in the event of a failure of the actuator.
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 1-10 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.
Claims 1-10 each recites in their respective line 1 the phrase “contact type safety nut”. Per MPEP § 2173.05(b.III.E), the addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955). Likewise, the phrase "ZSM-5-type aluminosilicate zeolites" was held to be indefinite because it was unclear what "type" was intended to convey. The interpretation was made more difficult by the fact that the zeolites defined in the dependent claims were not within the genus of the type of zeolites defined in the independent claim. Ex parte Attig, 7 USPQ2d 1092 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). The Examiner suggests removing the word “type”. E.g. “contact safety nut”.
Claim 4, dependent on claim 3, recites “a corresponding standard current”. Claim 3 recites at line 7 the term “a calibrated current”. Claim 4 at line 5 and claim 10 in steps S05 and S06 each recite “the standard current” or “the calculated standard current”. It is unclear whether, and if so how, the term “calibrated current” is different from the later recited “standard current” in claims 4 and 10, or whether the term “standard current” and “calibrated current” are synonymous. While the specification uses both terms, it is likewise unclear in the specification whether the terms “standard current” and “calibrated current” are synonymous terms or distinct terms with different meanings.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the wireless signal” in the last lines 35-36. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While parent claim 6 does recite “a wireless communication conversion module”, claim 6 does not recite a “wireless signal”. Furthermore, even if it assumed in claim 6 that the “external operation state signal” received by the “wireless communication conversion module” is a “wireless signal”, since that signal in claim 6 would be received by the “wireless communication conversion module” as recited by claim 6, then it would presumably not correspond to “the wireless signal” in step S08 of claim 10 that is transmitted to the “cloud server”, by the wireless transmission conversion module or otherwise, rather than received by the “wireless communication conversion module” as required in parent claim 6.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the after-sales service personnel" in penultimate line 35. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teyssier (US2018/0045291) in view of Lombardo (US2020/0317493).
Re claim 1
Teyssier discloses a linear actuator with a contact type safety nut, characterized by comprising
a central screw (11; see also annotated Fig. 3 below),
a driving nut mechanism (16)(The Examiner notes that in this interpretation of Teyssier, the claimed driving nut mechanism is mapped to 16 which Teyssier calls the “secondary nut,” and the claimed safety nut mechanism is mapped to 12 which Teyssier calls the primary nut. Nevertheless, 16 meets all claimed limitations of the driving nut mechanism and 12 meets all limitations of the claimed safety nut mechanism),
a safety nut mechanism (including 12), and
a driving control assembly (para. [0064]),
where the central screw has a screw raceway (See raceway in central screw 11)
the safety nut mechanism comprises a safety nut seat (12) sleeved at the periphery of the central screw, limit hole channels (15) pointing to the central screw are arranged on the safety nut seat, an elastic buffer element (30) is arranged in each of the limit hole channels, a safety ball (ball in line with spring 30 near screw 11 as seen in Fig. 3) is arranged between the elastic buffer element (30) and the central screw (11), the safety ball partially extends into the screw raceway to be partially positioned in the corresponding limit hole channel (See Fig. 3), and the safety ball is capable of rolling along the screw raceway (See Fig. 3) and moving along the corresponding limit hole channel (See Fig. 3; para. [0006] - once wear occurs between the ball bearings and the screw thread, the ball(s) will have more play along the channel) (The Examiner notes that claim 1 does not require direct contact between the elastic buffer element and the safety ball.).
PNG
media_image1.png
894
1141
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Teyssier is silent to wherein the driving control assembly (para. [0064]) comprises a motor for driving the central screw to rotate and a motor controller for controlling the motor to operate, and the motor controller is capable of directly receiving an external operation state signal and resolving the signal into an action command to control operation of the motor.
Lombardo teaches wherein the driving control assembly comprises a motor (para. [0042] - “motor”) for driving the central screw to rotate and a motor controller for controlling the motor to operate, and the motor controller is capable of directly receiving an external operation state signal and resolving the signal into an action command to control operation of the motor (para. [0042] - “lift controller”), for the purpose of driving the actuator to lift the platform, to control the actuator, and to safely end operation of the actuator and the platform in the event of a failure of the actuator (para. [0042]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to modify the device of Teyssier such that the driving control assembly comprises a motor for driving the central screw to rotate and a motor controller for controlling the motor to operate, and the motor controller is capable of directly receiving an external operation state signal and resolving the signal into an action command to control operation of the motor, as taught by Lombardo, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of driving the actuator to lift the platform, to control the actuator, and to safely end operation of the actuator and the platform in the event of a failure of the actuator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 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, if the claim objections hereinabove are corrected, and if the double patenting rejection is overcome by the filing of a terminal disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is Teyssier (US2018/0045291) in view of Lombardo (US2020/0317493).
While Teyssier does disclose that the thread teeth are provided on an inner wall of the safety nut seat (12) (see Fig. 3), Teyssier teaches away from additional combination of the thread teeth extending into the screw raceway and being spaced from the central screw for the following reasons.
In Teyssier, the thread teeth on 12 do not and cannot extend into the screw raceway, since the balls (see Fig. 3) between the safety nut (12) and the screw (11) occupy the screw raceway. Furthermore, the thread teeth on component 16 of the driving nut mechanism (16) likewise have balls located between the driving nut mechanism and the screw raceway of screw 11. Lastly, the Examiner notes “guide ring 17” located on the driving nut mechanism (16). While the guide ring 17 does extend into the screw raceway on central screw 11, paragraph [0074] states that the guide ring 17 is “wide enough to engage the thread 11 of the screw shaft at all times”, which means that the thread teeth of guide ring 17 are never spaced from the central screw (11) since those thread teeth are always in contact with the central screw 11. Even if Teyssier were modified such that the guide ring 11 and thread teeth thereon were moved to the safety nut mechanism (including 12), Teyssier would still teach that the thread teeth on guide ring 11 are engaged with the thread of the screw 11 at all times. Modifying Teyssier such that the thread teeth on the guide ring 11 are spaced from the central screw 11 would modify the principle of operation of the prior art invention.
Per MPEP 2143.01, “[i]f the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious.”
Therefore, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art to modify the prior art to have the missing claim limitations of claim 2, in combination with all other claim limitations, without the use of impermissible hindsight and without changing the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified.
Claims 3-10 depend upon claim 2, and so likewise require all limitations of claim 2.
The Examiner notes as an alternative embodiment to that relied upon hereinabove, Teyssier discloses in paragraph [0083] that nut 16 may use integral threads rather than balls to engage the threads of screw shaft 11. The Examiner further notes that Teyssier discloses in paragraph [0062] that as nut 12 beings to wear, nut 16 will be drawn into contact with the thread of screw shaft 11, which in conjunction with paragraph [0083] suggests that the threads of nut 16 prior to the wear of nut 12 will be spaced from the screw 11 while the threads of nut 16 would extend into the screw (11) raceway. However, the Examiner notes that while this alternate embodiment might meet certain limitations from claim 2, this embodiment of [0083] cannot be relied upon to meet the limitations of claim 1, since even if nut 16 is considered the claimed safety nut, then the safety nut 16 would lack the claimed safety balls arranged between the claimed elastic buffer elements and the limit hole channels. Furthermore, since claim 2 depends upon claim 1 and therefore requires all the limitations of claim 1, it would not meet all of the limitations of claim 2.
Medina (US2021/0062898) teaches in paragraph [0056] screw threads (110, 112) on a secondary nut (60) not making contact with screw threads (17) on screw (32) during normal operation. The Examiner notes however that Medina has the same problem as the alternate embodiment of Teyssier when considered for use as a secondary teaching reference for claim 2. if the balls in Teyssier are replaced with screw threads that directly engage each other as taught by Medina in an effort to meet claim 2 of the instant application, then Teyssier as modified would no longer meet the safety ball limitations of parent claim 1, and therefore all limitations of claim 2 would not be met since all the limitations of parent claim 1 are required by dependent claim 2.
Richard (US2020/0393027) in paragraph [0045] has a similar teaching to that of Medina (i.e. threads of a secondary nut not contacting the threads of the screw), and for similar reasons could not be used to modify Teyssier to meet of the limitations of dependent claim 2 without ceasing to meet the limitations of parent claim 1.
Again, therefore, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art to modify the prior art to have the missing claim limitations of claim 2, in combination with all other claim limitations, without the use of impermissible hindsight and without changing the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pluchon (US2024/0035551) discloses a screw actuator having both a primary nut and secondary nut.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY T PRATHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 AM - 5 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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-270-7778. 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.
/GREGORY T PRATHER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618