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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-7 remain withdrawn from further consideration.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 3,067,301) in view of Clark et al. (US 2020/036357).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a bistable switch for an aircraft, the bistable switch comprising: a frame (12) and a rotary button (6 / 14-15) which is intended to be operated by a user, the rotary button being movable relative to the frame between a first control position (solid lines of 1 in Fig 3) and a second control position (dashed lines of 1 in Fig. 3), characterized in the bistable switch further comprises a leaf spring (1) which is mechanically connected to the frame and to the rotary button, the leaf spring being arranged in a buckling state and being configured to adopt a first stable buckling position (solid lines of 1 in Fig 3) when the rotary button is in the first control position and to adopt a second stable buckling position (dashed lines of 1 in Fig. 3) when the rotary button is in the second control position and to switch in each of the two first and second buckling positions; the first buckling position and the second buckling position are diametrically opposed positions relative to an axis of rotation (17) of the rotary button (i.e. on opposite sides of the axis of rotation, see Figs. 3 and 4); the rotary button (6) being located on an exterior of the frame, whereas the finger is located inside the frame.
Clark teaches a rotary button comprising a rotary button (18, 16) capable of pivoting relative to the frame around a direction perpendicular to a direction of flexion of the leaf spring; the switch comprising an intermediary part (152, Figs. 4 and 5) movable in translation relative to the frame and interposed between the rotary button and the leaf spring, the intermediary part including a rectilinear groove (170) receiving an excentric finger (156) provided in the rotary button, the intermediary part being fixed to the frame through a sliding connection allowing movement of the second part in a direction perpendicular to the rectilinear groove, the rotary button and the intermediary part being configured to transform a rotational movement of the rotary button relative to the frame into a translational movement of the intermediary part relative to the frame; the intermediary pat (152) crosses (from side to side of) the axis of rotation of the rotary button (18, 16) when the rotary button is move between the first control position (Fig. 9A) and the second control position (Fig. 10A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a rotary button, as taught by Clark, in order to provide the desired user interface.
Regarding claim 2, to the extent that Yamamoto does not disclose the specific thickness of the leaf spring, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the leaf spring with a thickness comprised between 0.05 mm and 0.25 mm, in order to provide the desired resistance / feedback, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as applied.
In response to Applicant's arguments against Yamamoto, please note that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to Applicant's arguments that Yamamoto fails to teach or suggest the first and second buckling positions being diametrically opposed positions relative to the axis of rotation of the rotary button, please note the buckling positions (shown in Figure 3) are determined by 10 and 11, which are diametrically opposed (left and right) relative to the axis of rotation of the rotary button (6).
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 FELIX O FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-2003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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 on (571)727-2009. 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.
/FELIX O FIGUEROA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833
Prosecution Insights