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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/11/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “a spacer serving as an end stop, which is arranged either on a face end of the first rod located in the first pressure chamber or on a wall of the second pressure chamber facing the end face of the first rod” as claimed in claim 30 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, the “wherein the spacer is screwed into the first rod or the first housing” as claimed in claim 31 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings do not show a spacer arranged on a wall of the second pressure chamber facing the end face of the first rod. A spacer 129 is shown in Fig. 3 arranged on the rod 120. The spacer is not shown to be arranged on or screwed into a wall of a pressure chamber facing a rod. The second pressure chamber does not contain the first rod.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 36, "a spacer serving as end stop" should read --a spacer serving as an end stop-- to remedy a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a restoring element arranged to counteract a force exerted on the first rod by the gas pressure” in claim 20.
The generic place holder “restoring element” is not preceded by a structural modifier and is paired with the functional language of “arranged to counteract a force exerted on the first rod by the gas pressure”
The specification states the corresponding structure for this restoring element is a spring 150 or the second chamber having an underpressure with the following passages:
The force F, caused by the compressed air pushes the two mounting plates 101 and 102 apart against the effect of a restoring force FR which can be generated by a spring 150, for example In the example shown. the spring 150 also acts between the two mounting plates 101 and 102and causes a restoring force FRwhich is dependent on the movement AL (see Fig. 2) of the rod 110 (Fa-k AL.where k denotes the spring constant)
In the example from Fig. 4. the combination of the second rod 120 and the second pressure chamber 124 arranged in the second housing I4) can function as a restoring element when the gas pressure p2 in the second pressure chamber 124 is an underpressure. Underpressure means a pressure pzwhich is lower than the atmospheric pressure outside the device A pressure chamber subjected to underpressure results in the respective combination of rod/housing/pressure chamber behaving practically like a spring which generates a restoring force. In this case, the closed-loop force control occurs by adjusting the (over)pressure in the respective other pressure chamber. since in practice overpressure can be regulated better than underpressure.
In addition, a spring 150 is arranged between the two mounting plates 101, 102 as a restoring element, which brings the linear actuator/handling device into a defined end position.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 30-31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 30 recites "or on a wall of the second pressure chamber facing the end of the first rod". Examiner believes there is a typo here. It is not understood how the spacer in the second pressure chamber can face the end face of the first rod when the first rod is located in the first pressure chamber, not the second pressure chamber. Examiner believes "or on a wall of the second pressure chamber facing the end of the first rod" should read --or on a wall of the second pressure chamber facing the end of the second rod-- to remedy this issue.
Claim 31 fails the written description requirement because it depends rom claim 30 that fails the written description requirement.
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 21 and 36 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.
Claim 21 recites "essentially" the same pressure is present. It is unclear what "essentially" requires as there are not examples or further discussion in the specification to determine what would constitutes "essentially" the same pressure. There are no tolerances to determine what would or would not be considered "essentially" the same pressure.
Claim 21 recites “a single pressure chamber”. It is unclear whether this “single pressure chamber” is the same as the previously recited “first pressure chamber”. As best understood, this claim is attempting to capture the concept that the first pressure chamber is the only pressure chamber within the first housing.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the facing wall" in line 5. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 36, line 3, "a wall" should read --a facing wall- to provide explicit antecedent basis for "the facing wall".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 20, 21, 25, 26, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ke (CN 102979781).
Ke discloses:
20. (New) A device, comprising: a first housing (1 and 2) with a first pressure chamber (4); a first rod (3) introduced from the outside into the first pressure chamber; a first rod seal (6) arranged around the first rod and sealing the first pressure chamber, wherein inside the first pressure chamber, an unsealed annular gap is present between the first rod and an inner wall of the first pressure chamber so that a gas pressure present in the first pressure chamber can propagate throughout the entire first pressure chamber up to the first rod seal (apparent from Fig. 3 and 4); a first rod guide (7) mounted on the first housing and configured to guide the first rod along a longitudinal axis of the first rod, wherein the first rod guide is spaced from the first rod seal; and a restoring element 9 arranged to counteract a force exerted on the first rod by the gas pressure (see Fig. 3 and 4, spring counteracts force of the gas pressure to retract the rod 3).
21. (New) The device of claim 20, wherein the first housing comprises a single pressure chamber, and wherein essentially the same pressure is present in the entire first pressure chamber (chamber 4 is the only chamber in the housing 1, the entire chamber has essentially the same pressure because it is all connected so the fluid is free to flow through the entire chamber to an equilibrium pressure).
25. (New) The device of claim 20, wherein the first rod seal is arranged in a groove of the first housing which extends around the first rod (seal 6 is arranged in a groove of the housing 2 that extends around the first rod 3).
26. (New) The device of claim 20, wherein the restoring element is a spring (9 is a spring).
35. (New) A pneumatic linear reactor, comprising:
a housing with a pressure chamber (4); a rod introduced from the outside into the pressure chamber;
a rod seal (6) arranged around the first rod and sealing the first pressure chamber, wherein inside the first pressure chamber, an unsealed annular gap is present between the rod and an inner wall of the pressure chamber so that a gas pressure present in the pressure chamber can propagate throughout the entire pressure chamber up to the rod seal (apparent from Fig. 3 and 4);
a rod guide (7) mounted on the housing and configured to guide the rod along a longitudinal axis of the rod and absorb bending moments (the rod guide 7 inherently absorbs bending moments by nature of its positioning and rigid structure; a force, that is transverse the longitudinal axis of the rod, that acts on the end of the rod will cause a bending moment that is absorbed by the rod guide 7); and
a restoring element arranged to counteract a force caused by the gas pressure on the rod (see Fig. 3 and 4, spring counteracts force of the gas pressure to retract the rod 3).
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.
Claim(s) 24 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ke (CN 102979781) in view of Clippard (US 4323003).
Regarding claims 24 and 38, Ke discloses the device of claim 20 and 35 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first housing outside of the first pressure chamber comprises a bushing and the first rod guide is arranged in the bushing as claimed in claim 24; or wherein the rod guide is arranged in a bushing of the housing outside of the pressure chamber and spaced from the rod seal as claimed in claim 38.
However, Clippard discloses a linear fluid actuator similar to Ke and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Clippard discloses a housing (16) outside of the pressure chamber (11) comprises a bushing and the first rod guide (27) is within the bushing (25). The seal (37) that delimits the pressure chamber (11) is positioned within the housing (16) and thus the rod guide is outside of the pressure chamber and has portions spaced form the rod seal.
Since it is known in the art to position a rod guide of a linear fluid actuator outside of the fluid chamber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Ke to have wherein the first housing outside of the first pressure chamber comprises a bushing and the first rod guide is arranged in the bushing, and wherein the rod guide is arranged in a bushing of the housing outside of the pressure chamber and spaced from the rod seal as taught by Clippard as a matter of design choice.
Further, since applicant has not disclose that having the rod guide outside of the fluid chamber solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the rod guide serves to guide the rod, and it appears that the guide rod of Ke in light of Clippard would perform equally well by positioning the rod guide outside the pressure chamber and comprising a bushing and the first guide rod arranged in the bushing as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the rod shaft location of Ke in light of Clippard by positioning rod guide is arranged in a bushing of the housing outside of the pressure chamber and spaced from the rod seal as claimed for the purpose of guiding the rod of the linear actuator.
Claim(s) 22-23, 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naderer (US 9375840) in view of Ke (CN 102979781).
Regarding claims 33-34, Naderer discloses:
33. (New) A system (Fig. 1), comprising: a manipulator (20); a device (30) mounted on an end effector flange (21) of the manipulator; and a tool (40) mounted on the device or a machine tool mounted on the device.
34. (New) A system (Fig. 1), comprising: a manipulator (20) configured to hold and position a workpiece (manipulator 20 can push around to position a work piece, and can hold down a work piece 50); a device (Fig. 1); and a tool (40) mounted on the device or a machine tool mounted on the device.
Naderer further discloses the cushion type pneumatic bellows 34 of the device 30 can be replaced with pneumatic cylinders using pistons, etc. which establishes obvious equivalence between these two structures (Naderer Col. 4 lines 26-47
Naderer does not explicitly disclose the device of claim 20.
However, Ke discloses the device of claim 20, comprising: a first housing (1 and 2) with a first pressure chamber (4); a first rod (3) introduced from the outside into the first pressure chamber; a first rod seal (6) arranged around the first rod and sealing the first pressure chamber, wherein inside the first pressure chamber, an unsealed annular gap is present between the first rod and an inner wall of the first pressure chamber so that a gas pressure present in the first pressure chamber can propagate throughout the entire first pressure chamber up to the first rod seal (apparent from Fig. 3 and 4); a first rod guide (7) mounted on the first housing and configured to guide the first rod along a longitudinal axis of the first rod, wherein the first rod guide is spaced from the first rod seal; and a restoring element 9 arranged to counteract a force exerted on the first rod by the gas pressure (see Fig. 3 and 4, spring counteracts force of the gas pressure to retract the rod 3).
The linear pneumatic cylinder piston actuator seen in the Figures of Ke performs the same function as the linear pneumatic actuator 34 of Naderer, the function being to linearly extend and retracting using pneumatic pressure from a single fluid inlet and are therefore obvious equivalents.
Since the linear pneumatic cylinder piston actuator of Ke is an obvious equivalent to the linear pneumatic bellows actuator 34 of Naderer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Naderer to have replaced the pneumatic linear actuator 34 of Naderer with the linear pneumatic actuator of Ke as a matter of simple substitution of one known pneumatic linear actuator for another to yield only expected results.
The combination of Naderer and Ke further renders obvious:
22. (New) The device of claim 20, further comprising: a first mounting plate; and a second mounting plate, wherein the first mounting plate is firmly connected to the first rod, wherein the first housing is firmly connected to the second mounting plate (Naderer discloses a first and second mounting plate 31 and 32; in light of the modification of the linear actuator of Ke replacing the pneumatic bellows of Naderer, the linear actuator would be coupled to both the first and second mounting plates at opposite ends of the linear actuator of Ke similar to the originally disclosed pneumatic bellows which would result in a housing coupled to a mounting plate and the rod coupled to the other mounting plate).
23. (New) The device of claim 22, wherein the restoring element is configured to generate a pulling force between the first mounting plate and the second mounting plate (the restoring element 8 within the linear actuator of Ke generates a pulling force between the first and second mounting plates because the linear actuator is coupled to the first and second mounting plates of Naderer when replacing the originally disclosed pneumatic bellows of Naderer).
Claim(s) 27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ke (CN 102979781) in view of Gottlieb (US 5263402), hereinafter ‘Gottlieb’402’.
Regarding claim 27, Ke discloses the device of claim 20, but does not disclose further comprising:
a second housing with a second pressure chamber;
a second rod introduced from the outside into the second pressure chamber;
a second rod seal arranged around the second rod and sealing the second pressure chamber, wherein inside the second pressure chamber, an unsealed annular gap is present between the second rod and an inner wall of the second pressure chamber so that a gas pressure present inside the second pressure chamber can propagate throughout the entire second pressure chamber up to the second rod seal; and
a second rod guide mounted in the second housing and configured to guide the second rod along a longitudinal axis of the second rod.
However, Gottlieb discloses a linear fluid actuator similar to Ke and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Gottlieb discloses using a plurality of fluid linear actuators (12) in parallel and connected to the same base and mounting plates (14, 16). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using multiple identical linear actuators in parallel with the same fluid pressure source to increase output power is a known technique in the art.
Since increasing an output power of the device would be desirable in certain scenarios, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Ke to have used two identical devices of claim 20, such that the system further comprises:
a second housing with a second pressure chamber;
a second rod introduced from the outside into the second pressure chamber;
a second rod seal arranged around the second rod and sealing the second pressure chamber, wherein inside the second pressure chamber, an unsealed annular gap is present between the second rod and an inner wall of the second pressure chamber so that a gas pressure present inside the second pressure chamber can propagate throughout the entire second pressure chamber up to the second rod seal; and
a second rod guide mounted in the second housing and configured to guide the second rod along a longitudinal axis of the second rod in light of the teaching from Gottlieb. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using two identical actuators in the form disclosed by Ke in parallel would also be obvious in light of a duplication of parts obviousness rationale, because the claimed structure in claim 27 is identical to the structure of claim 1; mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
29. (New) The device of claim 27, further comprising: a first mounting plate; and a second mounting plate, wherein the first mounting plate is firmly connected to the first rod, wherein the first housing is firmly connected to the second mounting plate, wherein the second mounting plate is firmly connected to the second rod, wherein the second housing is firmly connected to the first mounting plate (Gottlieb’402 discloses the plurality of linear actuators 12 coupled to a first mounting plate 14 via the rods, and a second mounting plate 16 via the housings)
Claim(s) 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ke in view of Gottlieb’402 and in further view of Odaka (US 11143214).
Regarding claim 30 and 31, the combination of Ke Gottlieb’402 renders obvious the device of claim 27, but does not disclose: a spacer serving as an end stop, which is arranged either on a face end of the first rod located in the first pressure chamber or on a wall of the second pressure chamber facing the end face of the first rod, wherein the spacer, in a retracted end position of the device, ensures a distance between the end surface of the first rod and the facing wall of the first pressure chamber;
wherein the spacer is screwed into the first rod or the first housing, or wherein the spacer is an integral component of the first housing or of the first rod.
However, Odaka discloses a linear fluid actuator similar to Ke and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Odaka discloses a device having a housing (12), a rod (20) introduced from the outside into the pressure chamber (13a,13b); a rod seal (30) arranged around the rod and sealing the pressure chamber, a rod guide (16), and teaches using a damper (40) that is an integral component of the rod (20), wherein the damper (40) serves as an end stop such that in a retracted end position of the device, ensures a distance between the end surface of the rod and the facing wall of the pressure chamber (see damper/spacer between end of rod (20a) and end wall (14) due to the damper/spacer 40). Odaka teaches that the damper (40) relieves the impact shock occurring when the rod member reaches the end of its stroke, and reduces impact noise (Odaka, Col. 7 lines 17-25).
Since relieving the impact shock and reducing impact noise is beneficial, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Ke in view of Gottlieb’402 to have used a damper coupled to the end of the rod of the pneumatic linear actuator as taught by Odaka which results in a spacer serving as an end stop, which is arranged on a face end of the first rod located in the first pressure chamber wherein the spacer, in a retracted end position of the device, ensures a distance between the end surface of the first rod and the facing wall of the first pressure chamber, wherein the spacer is an integral component of the first rod. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in the event of an external force acting on the rod of Ke such that the rod impacts the housing, the damper/spacer would provide the benefit of reducing the impact shock and reducing the impact noise.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ke in view of Takata et al. (US 4207807), hereinafter ‘Takata’.
Regarding claim 32, Ke discloses the device of claim 20, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first housing is made of a material which is more elastic than a material from which the first rod is made.
However, Takata discloses a pneumatic linear actuator similar to Ke and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Takata teaches using a plastic cylinder tube 1 and a metallic piston rod 6.
Since Ke remains silent as to the specific materials used, and since using a plastic cylinder tube and a metallic reciprocating linear rod is known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Ke to have used a plastic housing and a metal rod as taught by Takata which results in the first housing is made of a material which is more elastic than a material from which the first rod is made, as a matter of using suitable materials for analogous structures in the field of pneumatic linear actuators. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a plastic housing would decrease the weight of the device which is beneficial, and using a metallic rod allows for a stronger pressing of the rod without deformation of the rod.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ke in view of Odaka (US 11143214).
Regarding claim 36, Ke discloses the pneumatic linear reactor of claim 35, but does not disclose further comprising: a spacer serving as end stop, which is arranged either on a face end of the rod located in the pressure chamber or on a wall of the pressure chamber facing the end face of the rod and ensuring, in a retracted end position of the actuating element, a distance between the end face of the rod and the facing wall of the pressure chamber.
However, Odaka discloses a linear fluid actuator similar to Ke and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Odaka discloses a device having a housing (12), a rod (20) introduced from the outside into the pressure chamber (13a,13b); a rod seal (30) arranged around the rod and sealing the pressure chamber, a rod guide (16), and teaches using a damper (40) that is an integral component of the rod (20), wherein the damper (40) serves as an end stop such that in a retracted end position of the device, ensures a distance between the end surface of the rod and the facing wall of the pressure chamber (see damper/spacer between end of rod (20a) and end wall (14) due to the damper/spacer 40). Odaka teaches that the damper (40) relieves the impact shock occurring when the rod member reaches the end of its stroke, and reduces impact noise (Odaka, Col. 7 lines 17-25).
Since relieving the impact shock and reducing impact noise is beneficial, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Naderer in view of Ke to have used a damper coupled to the end of the rod of the pneumatic linear actuator as taught by Odaka which results in a spacer serving as end stop, which is arranged either on a face end of the rod located in the pressure chamber or on a wall of the pressure chamber facing the end face of the rod and ensuring, in a retracted end position of the actuating element, a distance between the end face of the rod and the facing wall of the pressure chamber. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in the event of an external force acting on the rod of Ke such that the rod impacts the housing, the damper/spacer would provide the benefit of reducing the impact shock and reducing the impact noise.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ke in view of Gottlieb (US 3994539).
Regarding claim 37, Ke discloses the pneumatic linear reactor of claim 35 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the rod guide is a linear ball bearing or a ball bushing.
However, Gottlieb discloses a pneumatic linear actuator similar to Ke and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Gottlieb discloses a pneumatic linear actuator (Gottlieb Figs. 1-4) using linear ball bearings disposed between the housing and the piston rod to guide the piston rod and discloses equivalence to other guide structures such as bushings and the like (Gottlieb Col. 3 lines 44-63). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the linear ball bearing (Gottlieb 7, 8) in between the housing (Gottlieb 2) and the linearly moving rod (Gottlieb 4) correspond to equivalent structures in Ke of the bearing (Ke 7) in between the housing (Ke 1) and linearly moving rod (Ke 3), and both the linear ball bearing of Gottlieb and the bearing of Ke perform the same function of guiding the linearly moving rod, and are therefore obvious equivalents used in the same manner in the same type of device.
Since simple substitution is an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Ke to have simply substituted its guide sleeve (Ke, 7) with a linear ball bearing (Gottlieb, 7, 8) as taught by Gottlieb to yield the expected result of a rod guide between the housing and the linearly reciprocating rod with decreased friction due to the linear ball bearing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 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 does not appear to disclose nor render obvious a device wherein the restoring element is formed by a combination of the second pressure chamber and the second rod, and wherein the gas pressure present in the second pressure chamber is an underpressure as claimed in claim 28 in combination with its base claim limitations of claims 27 and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wood (US 7118452) discloses a pertinent pneumatically actuated flexible coupling end effectors
Yonaha et al. (US 5299389) discloses a pertinent automatic grinding apparatus
Ollefs (US 2005/0047849) discloses a pertinent linear adjustment element
Amano et al. (US 6390888) discloses a pertinent grinder pressing device
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dustin T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-0163. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/DUSTIN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 February 11, 2026