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 .
Examiner Comments
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 18-27 and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marth et al. (US 2019/0074778 A1).
As per claim 16, Marth et al. (US 2019/0074778 A1) discloses an electromechanical drive comprising: two units (e.g., 3, 4) which are movable relative to each other; and a coupling element (e.g., 2) which has: a flat reinforcement body (e.g. 211); and at least two connection sections (e.g., 210, 220, 215, 225, 216, 226) which are attached to said reinforcement body (e.g., 211) in an articulated manner (e.g. see Fig. 2), wherein at least one of said connection sections (e.g., 210, 220) is firmly connected to one of said units (e.g., 3) and at least one other of said connection sections (e.g., 4) is firmly connected to the other of said units (e.g., 215, 225, 216, 226) or configured to be firmly connected to an element to be driven (e.g., see, inter alia, Figs. 1, 2).
More concretely, as per amended claim 16, the connection section (e.g., 210, 220) is considered to be firmly connected to one units (e.g., 3) by virtue of being frictionally engaged. If the connection section (210, 220) were not firmly connected to the unit (3 – driven member), it would be loose and the driven member (3) would not be able to be driven in the manner set forth by the disclosure of Marth et al. (US 2019/0074778 A1).
Under the broadest reasonable interpterion, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, unless the patent application explicitly defines them otherwise.
The instant specification, does not expressly define the term “firmly connected.” As such, the Examiner has interpreted the term “firmly connected” to include a temporary, high-friction, structural engagement between (210, 220) and member (3) where force is directly transmitted between the two elements (e.g., 210, 220) and (3).
The connections sections (e.g., 210, 220) are linked (connected) to the driven member (3), such that the frictional engagement during the drive stroke functionally creates a “firm connection” between parts (210, 220) and (3). Since elements(210, 220) and (3) are structurally engaged during the pushing phase, the limitation is seen to be anticipated.
Additionally, as per amended claim 16, at least one other of said connection sections (e.g., 4) is firmly connected to the other of said units (e.g., 215, 225, 216, 226) - see, inter alia, paragraphs [0047, 0050] - via adjustable screws or the flexure hinges (222, which include (215, 225)) being integrally formed with the base frame (4), etc. See also Figs. 1(a) with the base frame 4.
As per claim 18, wherein said units (e.g., 3, 4) are movable relative to each other along a direction of motion (3 is a "drive member") and said flat reinforcement body (e.g., 211) extends in a plane parallel or perpendicular to said direction of motion.
As per claim 19, wherein at least said connection sections (e.g., 210, 220, 215, 225, 216, 226) of said coupling element (e.g., 2) extend in the same plane as said flat reinforcement body (e.g., 211) - see Fig. 2.
As per claim 20, wherein each connection section (e.g., at least two of 210, 220, 215, 225, 216, 226, i.e., 215, 225 or 216, 226) is attached to said flat reinforcement body (211) by at least one flexure hinge (e.g., 212).
As per claim 21, wherein said flat reinforcement body (211) is "ring-shaped" - closed loop .
As per claim 22, wherein said connection sections (e.g., at least two of 210, 220, 215, 225, 216, 226) are arranged outside said flat reinforcement body (2) - see Fig. 2 ("outside", that is, not incorporated into the body of (2) as seen in Figs. 1, 2, etc.).
As per claim 23, wherein said connection sections (e.g., at least two of 210, 220, 215, 225, 216, 226, i.e., 215, 225 or 216, 226) are mirror-symmetrical with respect to a central axis of said flat reinforcement body (e.g., 211) , where said central axis extends in the plane of said flat reinforcement body (211) - see Figs. 1a, 1b.
As per claim 24, wherein said coupling element (e.g., 2) comprises four connection sections including two first connection sections (e.g., 215, 225 and/or 216, 226) and two second connection sections (e.g., sections 210, 220), the first connection sections (e.g., 215, 225 and/or 216, 226) being coupled to one of said units (e.g. 4), the two second connection sections (e.g., sections 210, 220) being coupled to the other of said units (3) or configured to be coupled to the element to be driven.
As per claim 25, wherein a line connecting said first connection sections (e.g., 215, 225 and/or 216, 226) and a line connecting said second connection sections (e.g., sections 210, 220) run parallel to each other (see Fig. 2 - lines run parallel and are perpendicular to the surface of (211)) or intersect at a right angle.
As per claim 26, wherein each connection section (e.g., at least two of 210, 220, 215, 225, 216, 226, i.e., 215, 225 or 216, 226) comprises an opening (e.g. the incision opening that forms the hinges (212) (Fig. 2) and/or wherein (211) is fastened to base frame 4 via the screws as depicted in Figs. 1a, b) for coupling to one of said units (3, 4) or to the element to be driven.
As per claim 27, wherein said connection sections (e.g., 215, 225 and/or 216,. 226) are arranged in tabs (distal legs (215, 225, 216, 226 that turn inward and point toward section (211a - see Fig. 2) which are integrally connected to said flat reinforcement body (211), and flexure hinges (212) are formed by recesses (incision recesses as depicted in Fig. 2) in said tabs (that allow the formation of the flexure hingers (212)).
As per claim 29, wherein said two units (3, 4) comprise a stator (e.g., 4 which is a stationary base frame) and a rotor (3 - which is an element that is imparted with motion, with movement from the piezos that give rise to oscillatory-type motion to move (3)), wherein said rotor (3) is movable relative to said stator 4) by way of one or more guide elements (e.g., the portions of (2) in contact with (3) and which causes or gives rise to movement of (3).
As per claim 30, wherein said connection sections (e.g., 210, 220, 215, 225, 216, 226) are double mirror-symmetrical with respect to two central axes, where said two central axes extend in the plane of said flat reinforcement body (211) (see Figs. 1a, 1b).
As per claim 31, wherein said connection sections (e.g., 210, 220, 215, 225, 216, 226) are double mirror symmetrical with respect to two central axes intersecting at a right angle, where said central axes extend in the plane of said flat reinforcement body (211) (see Figs. 1a, 1b).
As per claim 32, wherein each connection section (e.g., 215, 225 and/or 216, 226) comprises an opening (e.g. the opening in (211) through which a screw is inserted for attachment to base frame (4) - see Figs. 1a, b) in a circular shape (e.g., opening into which the screws as depicted in Figs. 1a, b) are inserted) for coupling to one of said units (e.g., unit (4)) or to the element to be driven.
As per claim 33, wherein each connection section (e.g., 215, 225 and/or 216, 226) comprises an opening in a circular shape (e.g. the opening in (211) through which a screw is inserted for attachment to base frame (4) - see Figs. 1a, b) in a circular shape (e.g., opening into which the screws as depicted in Figs. 1a, b) are inserted) with a circumferential web (e.g., see Figs. 1a-2 - the structure of the driving apparatuses (2) as a whole) for coupling to one of said units (e.g. 4) or to the element to be driven.
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 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marth et al. (US 2019/0074778 A1) in view of Applicant’s admitted prior art (AAPA).
See the description of Marth et al. (US 2019/0074778 A1), supra.
As per claim 28, although Marth et al. (US 2019/0074778 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein said coupling element (2) is a one-piece flat metal sheet or is composed of several assembled flat metal sheets, Official notice is taken that coupling elements (made of metal) that include flexures, are notoriously old and well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed made to provide the coupling element (2) (at least parts thereof - note that the claim does not recite that the coupling element consists solely of metal) of Marth et al. (US 2019/0074778 A1) as being a one-piece flat metal sheet or is composed of several assembled flat metal sheets, in order to advantageously simplify the construction of the coupling element, which a known material (metal in lieu of plastic) that also has elasticity for flexural supports and movement of bodies to be driven, as is well-known, established and appreciated in the art, and capable of instant demonstration.
It is noted that Applicant has not traversed the Examiner’s position regarding the Official notice’s taken, supra, in preceding rejection, as it pertains to the limitations set forth in claim 28 (i.e., wherein said coupling element is a one-piece flat metal sheet or is composed of several assembled flat metal sheets). This is taken to be an admission of prior art by the Applicant. See MPEP § 2144.03 which states in part:
To adequately traverse such a finding, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b). See also Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241 (“[I]n the absence of any demand by appellant for the examiner to produce authority for his statement, we will not consider this contention.”). A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the examiner’s assertion of official notice would be inadequate. If applicant adequately traverses the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the examiner must provide documentary evidence in the next Office action if the rejection is to be maintained. See 37 CFR 1.104(c)(2). See also Zurko, 258 F.3d at 1386, 59 USPQ2d at 1697 (“[T]he Board [or examiner] must point to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings” to satisfy the substantial evidence test). If the examiner is relying on personal knowledge to support the finding of what is known in the art, the examiner must provide an affidavit or declaration setting forth specific factual statements and explanation to support the finding. See 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2).
If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate.
Emphasis added.
Since Applicant failed to specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art (other than a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the examiner’s assertion of official notice), the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art, in accordance with MPEP 2144.03(c).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant opines that the amendments to claim 1, are not anticipated by Marth et al. (US 2019/0074778 A1).
The Examiner disagrees. As set forth in the rejection, supra, as per amended claim 16, Marth et al. (US 2019/0074778 A1) discloses the connection section (e.g., 210, 220), which is considered to be “firmly connected” to one units (e.g., 3) by virtue of being frictionally engaged. If the connection section (210, 220) were not firmly connected to the unit (3 – driven member), it would be loose and the driven member (3) would not be able to be driven in the manner set forth by the disclosure of Marth et al. (US 2019/0074778 A1).
Under the broadest reasonable interpterion, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, unless the patent application explicitly defines them otherwise.
The instant specification, does not expressly define the term “firmly connected.” As such, the Examiner has interpreted the term “firmly connected” to include a temporary, high-friction, structural engagement between (210, 220) and member (3) where force is directly transmitted between the two elements (e.g., 210, 220) and (3).
The connections sections (e.g., 210, 220) are linked (connected) to the driven member (3), such that the frictional engagement during the drive stroke functionally creates a “firm connection” between parts (210, 220) and (3). Since elements(210, 220) and (3) are structurally engaged during the pushing phase, the limitation is seen to be anticipated.
Additionally, as per amended claim 16, at least one other of said connection sections (e.g., 4) is firmly connected to the other of said units (e.g., 215, 225, 216, 226) - see, inter alia, paragraphs [0047, 0050] - via adjustable screws or the flexure hinges (222, which include (215, 225)) being integrally formed with the base frame (4), etc. See also Figs. 1(a) with the base frame 4.
“[T]he PTO gives claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324, (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). “Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
The Examiner has interpreted the term “firmly connected” in a consistent, broad, yet reasonable, manner in which one of ordinary skill in the art, would interpret such a term (based on the Applicant’s specification and the scope thereof), given the lack of a limiting express definition within the specification, for the reasons articulated above. As such, claim 16 (as amended) remains anticipated by Marth et al. (US 2019/0074778 A1).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, ET.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights