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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 16-19, 22-28, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Newnham et al. (US 5729077).
With respect to claim 16, Newnham et al. discloses a device (Fig 2) comprising: a piezoelectric multilayer element (item 34) having a top surface and being configured to change its extension in a first direction in response to an applied voltage (Fig 3); a mechanical amplifying element (items 30 and 32) having an end portion fixed to the top surface of the piezoelectric multilayer element and an active portion movable relative to the piezoelectric multilayer element (Fig 3), wherein the mechanical amplifying element is configured such that the active portion is movable in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction when an extension of the piezoelectric multilayer element changes (Fig 3), the second direction being parallel to a surface normal of the top surface (Fig 3); and a mechanical stop limiting a distance by which the active portion is movable towards the top surface (Figs 2-3, wherein the surfaces of the piezoelectric element 34 and the amplifying elements 20 and 32 act as mechanical stops when they contact each other).
With respect to claim 17, Newnham et al. discloses the device according to The device according to wherein, in a rest state of the device, the active portion is spaced from the top surface by a free height, and wherein the mechanical stop is configured in such a way that the distance by which the active portion is movable from the rest state towards the top surface has a length which is not more than 50% of the free height (Figs 2-3)
With respect to claim 18, Newnham et al. discloses the device according to claim 16, wherein the limitation of the distance is affected by the mechanical stop striking against the top surface thereby preventing further movement of the active portion towards the top surface, or wherein the limitation of the distance is affected by the mechanical stop striking the piezoelectric multilayer element thereby preventing further movement of the active portion towards the top surface (Figs 2-3).
With respect to claim 19, Newnham et al. discloses the device according to claim 16, wherein the mechanical stop is the active portion (Figs 2-3).
With respect to claim 22, Newnham et al. discloses the device according to claim 16, wherein the mechanical stop is formed by shaping a partial area of the active portion (Figs 2-3).
With respect to claim 23, Newnham et al. discloses the device according to claim 16. The language “wherein the mechanical stop is formed by deep drawing or punching a partial area of the active portion” is product-by-process language that does not further limit the structural features of the apparatus claim. It has been held that where a claimed product is the same as or obvious over a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even if the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964).
With respect to claim 24, Newnham et al. discloses the device according to claim 16, wherein the mechanical stop is an element fixed to the top surface of the piezoelectric multilayer element (Figs 2-3, wherein the amplifying element in its entirety, including the mechanical stop, is fixed to the top surface of the piezoelectric element).
With respect to claim 25, Newnham et al. discloses the device according to claim 24, wherein the element is bonded or screwed to the top surface of the piezoelectric multilayer element (Figs 2-3, wherein the amplifying element in its entirety, including the mechanical stop, is bonded to the top surface of the piezoelectric element).
With respect to claim 26, Newnham et al. discloses the device according to claim 16, wherein the mechanical stop is configured in such a way that the distance by which the active portion is movable towards the top surface is limited to a length at which damage to the device is prevented (Figs 2-3, wherein this language merely states a goal of the invention without further limiting the structural features of the apparatus claim).
With respect to claim 27, Newnham et al. discloses the device according to claim 16, wherein the mechanical stop is configured such that the distance by which the active portion is movable towards the top surface is limited to a length at which a damage of the mechanical amplifying element is prevented (Figs 2-3, wherein this language merely states a goal of the invention without further limiting the structural features of the apparatus claim).
With respect to claim 28, Newnham et al. discloses the device according to claim 16, wherein the mechanical stop is configured such that the distance by which the active portion is movable towards the top surface is limited to a length at which it is prevented that the mechanical amplifying element is damaged by an excessive force (Figs 2-3, wherein this language merely states a goal of the invention without further limiting the structural features of the apparatus claim).
With respect to claim 31, Newnham et al. discloses the device according to claim 16, wherein the device is an actuator (Abstract).
With respect to claim 32, Newnham et al. discloses the device according to claim 16, wherein the device is a sensor configured to measure a pressure exerted on the active portion of the mechanical amplification element (Abstract).
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 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newnham et al. in view of Jaenker (DE 19625921).
With respect to claim 20, Newnham et al. discloses the device according to claim 16.
Newnham et al. does not disclose that the mechanical stop is an element fixed to the active portion.
Jaenker teaches a piezoelectric element (Fig 1) having an amplifying portion in which the mechanical stop is an element (item 14) fixed to the active portion (items 10.1-10.4).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the element fixed to the active portion of Jaenker with the piezoelectric device of Newnham et al. for the benefit of providing an adjustable amplifying portion (column 2, lines 42-63 of Jaenker).
With respect to claim 21, the combination of Newnham and Jaenker discloses the device according to claim 20. Jaenker discloses that the element is bonded, screwed or welded to the active portion (column 2, lines 42-63).
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newnham et al. in view of Puria et al. (US 6629922).
With respect to claim 29, Newnham et al. discloses the device according to claim 16.
Newnham et al. does not disclose that the piezoelectric multilayer element has a cuboid base body with a rectangular base surface, and wherein the mechanical amplifying element is bow-shaped.
Puria et al. teaches a piezoelectric device having an amplifying portion in which the piezoelectric multilayer element has a cuboid base body with a rectangular base surface, and wherein the mechanical amplifying element is bow-shaped (Figs 1A-1B).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cuboid shape and accompanying shape of the amplifying element of Puria et al. with the piezoelectric device of Newnham et al. as it has been held that a mere change in shape is obvious (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47).
With respect to claim 30, Newnham et al. discloses the device according to claim 16.
Newnham et al. does not disclose that the piezoelectric multilayer element has a cuboid base body with a square base surface, and wherein the mechanical amplifying element is frustoconical.
Puria et al. teaches a piezoelectric device having an amplifying portion in which the piezoelectric multilayer element has a cuboid base body with a square base surface, and wherein the mechanical amplifying element is frustoconical (Figs 1A-1B).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cuboid shape and accompanying shape of the amplifying element of Puria et al. with the piezoelectric device of Newnham et al. as it has been held that a mere change in shape is obvious (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Derek John Rosenau whose telephone number is (571)272-8932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am to 5:30 pm Central Time.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/DEREK J ROSENAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights