Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/452,343

ACTUATOR WITH ROTATABLE PUSH STRUCTURE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 18, 2023
Examiner
LARGI, MATTHEW THOMAS
Art Unit
3746
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
521 granted / 678 resolved
+6.8% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
710
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.4%
-36.6% vs TC avg
§103
46.3%
+6.3% vs TC avg
§102
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
§112
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 678 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. 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. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Merwe et al. (US 2021/0038467) in view of Rudduck (US 2010/0212312). In Reference to Claim 1 (See Van Der Merwe, Figure 4) Van Der Merwe et al. (Van) discloses: An actuator, comprising: an outer body member (11); and a push structure (6,7) operatively connected to the outer body member (11), the push structure (6,7) being configured to rotate (See Van, Paragraph [0042]), when activated, the actuator is configured to morph into an activated configuration in which a dimension of the actuator increases and such that a position of the push structure (6,7) changes. (See Van, Paragraphs [0042]-[0043]). Van discloses the claimed invention except: Wherein the outer body member including a first and second outer body member and the activated configuration has the first and second outer body members extending outward and away from each other to actuate linear motion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the actuator or Rudduck as the linear actuator of Van, as both references are directed towards devices with linear actuation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the linear actuator of Rudduck would have been a simple substitution of one known linear actuator for another that would yield the predictable result of linearly and accurately actuating the push structure of Van. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the actuator of Rudduck would have been a silent and low weight option as the linear actuator of Van. (See Rudduck, Paragraph [0021]). In Reference to Claim 2 (See Van Der Merwe, Figure 4) The Van-Rudduck combination discloses: Wherein the push structure (6,7) is configured to rotate independently of the morphing of the actuator. (See Van, Paragraphs [0042]-[0043]). The Examiner notes that the rotation can be independent of actuator morphing (i.e.-movement). In Reference to Claim 4 The Van-Rudduck combination discloses: Further including one or more contracting members, when an activation input is provided to the one or more contracting members, the one or more contracting members contract, thereby causing the actuator to morph into an activated configuration. (See Rudduck, Figure 11, Paragraph [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the actuator or Rudduck as the linear actuator of Van, as both references are directed towards devices with linear actuation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the linear actuator of Rudduck would have been a simple substitution of one known linear actuator for another that would yield the predictable result of linearly and accurately actuating the push structure of Van. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the actuator of Rudduck would have been a silent and low weight option as the linear actuator of Van. (See Rudduck, Paragraph [0021]). In Reference to Claim 5 The Van-Rudduck combination discloses: wherein the one or more contracting members are one or more shape memory material members. (See Rudduck, Paragraphs [0038]-[0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the actuator or Rudduck as the linear actuator of Van, as both references are directed towards devices with linear actuation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the linear actuator of Rudduck would have been a simple substitution of one known linear actuator for another that would yield the predictable result of linearly and accurately actuating the push structure of Van. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the actuator of Rudduck would have been a silent and low weight option as the linear actuator of Van. (See Rudduck, Paragraph [0021]). In Reference to Claim 10 (See Van Der Merwe, Figure 4) The Van-Rudduck combination discloses: wherein the push structure (6,7) is configured to rotate simultaneously with the morphing of the actuator. (See Van, Paragraphs [0042]-[0043]). The Examiner notes that the rotation can be simultaneous of actuator morphing (i.e.-movement). In Reference to Claim 11 (See Van Der Merwe, Figure 4) The Van-Rudduck combination discloses: wherein the push structure (6,7) is configured to rotate after the actuator morphs into the activated configuration. (See Van, Paragraphs [0042]-[0043]). The Examiner notes that the rotation can rotate after actuator morphing (i.e.-movement) into position. In Reference to Claim 15 (See Van Der Merwe, Figure 4) The Van-Rudduck combination discloses: wherein the actuator further includes a motor (10) operatively connected to the push structure (6,7), and wherein rotation of the push structure (6,7) is caused by activating the motor (10). (See Van, Paragraphs [0042]-[0043]). In Reference to Claim 17 (See Van Der Merwe, Figure 4) Van discloses: A method for an actuator, the actuator including an outer body member (11), the actuator including a push structure (6,7) operatively connected to the outer body member (11), the push structure (6,7) being configured to rotate, the method comprising: causing the actuator to morph into an activated configuration in which a dimension of the actuator increases and such that a position of the push structure (6,7) changes (See Van, Paragraphs [0042]-[0043]); and causing the push structure (6) to rotate (See Van, Paragraphs [0042]-[0043]). Van discloses the claimed invention except: Wherein the outer body member including a first and second outer body member and the activated configuration has the first and second outer body members extending outward and away from each other to actuate linear motion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the actuator or Rudduck as the linear actuator of Van, as both references are directed towards devices with linear actuation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the linear actuator of Rudduck would have been a simple substitution of one known linear actuator for another that would yield the predictable result of linearly and accurately actuating the push structure of Van. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the actuator of Rudduck would have been a silent and low weight option as the linear actuator of Van. (See Rudduck, Paragraph [0021]). In Reference to Claim 18 (See Van Der Merwe, Figure 4) The Van-Rudduck combination discloses: Wherein the push structure (6,7) is configured to rotate independently of the morphing of the actuator. (See Van, Paragraphs [0042]-[0043]). The Examiner notes that the rotation can be independent of actuator morphing (i.e.-movement). In Reference to Claim 20 (See Van Der Merwe, Figure 4) The Van-Rudduck combination discloses: wherein the push structure (6,7) is configured to rotate simultaneously with the morphing of the actuator. (See Van, Paragraphs [0042]-[0043]). The Examiner notes that the rotation can be simultaneous of actuator morphing (i.e.-movement). Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Merwe et al. (US 2021/0038467) in view of Rudduck (US 2010/0212312), further in view of Gummin et al. (US 2002/0185932). In Reference to Claim 13 The Van-Rudduck combination discloses the claimed invention except: Further including a shape memory material member being wrapped around an outer peripheral surface of the push structure, whereby, when activated, the shape memory material member contracts and causes the push structure to rotate. Gummin et al. (Gum) disclose a shape memory alloy rotational motor. (See Gum, Abstract). Wang discloses a rotational motor which utilizes a shape memory alloy wrapped around a driving portion of a shaft. (See Gum, Paragraph [0043] & Paragraph [0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the SMA wrapped driven shaft as the push structure shaft, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the driving mechanism of Gum would have been a simple substitution of one known rotational inducing mechanism for another that would yield the predictable result of rotating the push structure. In Reference to Claim 14 The Van-Rudduck combination discloses: further including a shape memory material member, wherein, when an activation input is provided to the shape memory material member, the shape memory material member contracts, thereby causing the actuator to morph into an activated configuration. (See Rudduck, Figure 11, Paragraph [0042]). The Van-Rudduck combination discloses the claimed invention except: wherein a portion of the shape memory material member is wrapped around an outer peripheral surface of the push structure, whereby, the contraction of the shape memory material member contracts causes the push structure to rotate. Gummin et al. (Gum) disclose a shape memory alloy rotational motor. (See Gum, Abstract). Gum discloses a rotational motor which utilizes a shape memory alloy wrapped around a driving portion of a shaft. (See Gum, Paragraph [0043] & Paragraph [0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the SMA wrapped driven shaft as the push structure shaft, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the driving mechanism of Gum would have been a simple substitution of one known rotational inducing mechanism for another that would yield the predictable result of rotating the push structure. The Examiner notes that the Van-Rudduck combination as modified by Gum includes shape memory alloy for both linear and rotational actuation. The separate actuators constitute the total shape memory material member with each actuator constituting “a portion” of the shape memory material member. Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Merwe et al. (US 2021/0038467) in view of Rudduck (US 2010/0212312), further in view of Le et al. (US 2021/0161755). In Reference to Claim 6 The Van-Rudduck combination discloses the claimed invention except: further including one or more processors operatively connected to the one or more contracting members, whereby the one or more processors are configured to selectively activate the one or more contracting members, thereby causing the actuator to morph in the activated configuration. Le et al. (Le) discloses a massaging apparatus. (See Le, Abstract). Le discloses one or more processors to control the massaging apparatus. (See Le, Paragraphs [0270] & [0275]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the processor of Le in the device of Van, as both references are directed towards massaging apparatuses. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the processor of Le would have allowed processing of inputs from the controller of Van and accurate control of the massaging device from the controller. (See Le, Paragraphs [0270] & [0275]). In Reference to Claim 7 (See Van Der Merwe, Figures 1-2) The Van-Rudduck combination as modified by Le discloses: further including one or more power sources (3) operatively connected to supply electrical energy to the one or more contracting members, wherein the one or more processors are operatively connected to the one or more power sources (3), wherein the one or more processors are configured to selectively control a supply of electrical energy to the one or more contracting members. (See Van, Paragraph [0040] & Le, Paragraphs [0270] & [0275]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the processor of Le in the device of Van, as both references are directed towards massaging apparatuses. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the processor of Le would have allowed processing of inputs from the controller of Van and accurate control of the massaging device from the controller. (See Le, Paragraphs [0270] & [0275]). The Examiner notes that the Van-Rudduck combination as modified by Le utilizes electrical power from the power source to run the processor and actuate the contracting members. In Reference to Claim 8 The Van-Rudduck combination as modified by Le discloses: further including one or more sensors configured to acquire sensor data, wherein the one or more sensors being operatively connected to the one or more processors, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to selectively cause the push structure to rotate based on sensor data acquired by the one or more sensors. (See Van, Paragraph [0040] & Le, Paragraphs [0270] & [0275]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the processor of Le in the device of Van, as both references are directed towards massaging apparatuses. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the processor of Le would have allowed processing of inputs from the controller of Van and accurate control of the massaging device from the controller. (See Le, Paragraphs [0270] & [0275]). In Reference to Claim 9 (See Van, Figures 1-2) The Van-Rudduck combination as modified by Le discloses: further including one or more user input interfaces (2), wherein the one or more user input interfaces (2) are operatively connected to the one or more processors, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to selectively cause the push structure to rotate in response to an input provided on the one or more user input interfaces. (See Van, Paragraph [0040] & Le, Paragraphs [0270] & [0275]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the processor of Le in the device of Van, as both references are directed towards massaging apparatuses. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the processor of Le would have allowed processing of inputs from the controller of Van and accurate control of the massaging device from the controller. (See Le, Paragraphs [0270] & [0275]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3, 12, 16 and 19 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest “wherein the morphing of the actuator induces the rotation of the push structure, whereby the rotation of the push structure is dependent upon the morphing of the actuator.” in claims 3 and 19, respectively; “wherein the actuator further includes a spring loaded spindle operatively positioned between the push structure and the outer body member.” in claim 12; and “wherein the actuator further includes a threaded rod operatively connected to the push structure, wherein, when morphing of the actuator causes the threaded rod and the push structure to rotate.” in claim 16. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Langbein shows an actuator device within the general state of the art of invention. 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 MATTHEW THOMAS LARGI whose telephone number is (571)270-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:00 M-F. 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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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. /MATTHEW T LARGI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 18, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 03, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 21, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 22, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 27, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 02, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 09, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 14, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595757
ENGINE CONTROL SYSTEM INCLUDING DUAL CONTINUOUS VARIABLE VALVE DURATION DEVICE AND GPF FORCED REGENERATION METHOD USING THE ENGINE CONTROL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590574
POWDER SUPPLY PUMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586691
NETWORK AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SHIPYARD MANUFACTURED AND OCEAN DELIVERED NUCLEAR PLATFORM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584659
CERAMIC PARTICLES FOR USE IN A SOLAR POWER TOWER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571310
POWER SYSTEM WITH CARBON DIOXIDE WORKING FLUID, GENERATOR, AND PROPULSION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+15.8%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 678 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month