DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 5 in the reply filed on 07/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/05/2026.
Claims 1-12 and 18-19 remain pending in the application for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement was (IDS) submitted on 08/05/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12 and 18-19 are 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.
The term “low coefficient of friction material” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low coefficient of friction” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what sort of structure or element has a surface roughness or material in order for it to be considered a “low coefficient of friction material”. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitation in question as “low coefficient of friction material” being any sort of material that is attached or abuts the microstructured device.
Claims 2-12 and 18 are also rejected due to dependency on claim 1.
Claim 3 states “wherein the protuberances or the voids are in the shape of a cylinder, cone, sphere, or polytope”. However, both the first and the second microstructures have protuberances or voids. It is unclear whether the protuberances or the voids are of the first microstructure, of the second microstructure or both the first and second microstructure. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitation in question as “wherein the protuberances or the voids of the second microstructure are in the shape of a cylinder, cone, sphere, or polytope”.
Claim 6 states “wherein the gripping surface comprises a coefficient of static adhesion in excess of 3”. However, the coefficient of static adhesion is a characteristic that is achieved when 2 surfaces/structures are coupled or abutted to each other. Based on how claim 6 is written, it seems that that the gripping surface by itself has a coefficient of static adhesion in excess of 3. The gripping surface by itself cannot have a coefficient in excess of 3. The claim is indefinite that that extent. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitation in question as “wherein the gripping surface comprises a coefficient of static adhesion in excess of 3 when in contact with the target surface”.
The term “low coefficient of friction material” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low coefficient of friction” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what sort of structure or element has a surface roughness or material in order for it to be considered a “low coefficient of friction material”. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitation in question as “low coefficient of friction material” being any sort of material that is attached or abuts the microstructured device.
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 are 1-4, 7, 10-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bluecher et al. (US 2021/0338405; hereinafter “Bluecher”).
Regarding claim 1, Bluecher teaches a microstructured device (500; Figure 5; [0121-0126]) for gripping coefficient of friction material (512; [0122, 0124-0125 and 0126]; Figure 5) comprising:
a substrate (514; Figure 5; [0121-0123]), the substrate (514) further comprising a gripping surface (516; Figure 5; [0121-0123]), the gripping surface (516) comprising a first microstructure (520; Figure 5; [0122]) and a second microstructure (522; Figure 5; [0122]),
wherein the first microstructure (520) and second microstructure (522) comprise protuberances (Figure 5 demonstrates the microstructure 520 and 522 extending from the surface of the substrate 514; therefore, they are considered protuberances; [0122]), the protuberances (Figure 5 demonstrates the microstructure 520 and 522 extending from the surface of the substrate 514; therefore, they are considered protuberances; [0122]) being arranged to generate a Wenzel-Cassie state when in contact with a target surface (512; Figure 5; [0041, 0050, 0120, 0122]).
Regarding claim 2, Bluecher teaches wherein the gripping surface (516) further comprises a third microstructure (526; Figure 5; [0122]).
Regarding claim 3, Bluecher teaches wherein the protuberances of the second microstructure (522) are in the shape of a cylinder (the pillars 522 have a diameter and height; and based on Figure 5, it can be concluded that the pillars 522 have the shape of a cylinder).
Regarding claim 4, Bluecher teaches wherein the first microstructure (520; Figure 5) is a two-dimensional sinusoid microstructure (the microstructure 520 is a three-dimensional structure that has length, height and width; therefore, it is considered having a sinusoid pattern across the page and into the page that has Figure 5; [0122]).
Regarding claim 7, Bluecher teaches wherein the second microstructure (522; [0122]) is hierarchically ([0122]; See Figure 5) disposed of on the first microstructure (520; [0122]).
Regarding claim 10, Bluecher teaches wherein the first microstructure (520; Figure 5) gradually tapers to the target surface (Figure 5 demonstrate that the first microstructure 520 tapers towards the target surface 512).
Regarding claim 11, Bluecher teaches wherein the first microstructure (520) gradually taper as described by a trigonometric function (Figure 5 demonstrate that the first microstructure 520 is a sinusoid pattern; therefore, the first microstructure 520 tapers towards the top as described by a trigonometric function, since a sine patter is directly based on a trigonometric function).
Regarding claim 19, Bluecher teaches a microstructured device (500; Figure 5; [0121-0126]) for gripping low coefficient of friction material (512; [0122, 0124-0125 and 0126]; Figure 5) comprising:
a substrate (514; Figure 5; [0121-0123]), the substrate (514) further comprising a gripping surface (516; Figure 5; [0121-0123]), the gripping surface (516) comprising a first microstructure (520; Figure 5; [0122]), a second microstructure (522; Figure 5; [0122]), and a third microstructure (526; Figure 5; [0122]),
wherein the first microstructure (520), the second microstructure (522), and the third microstructure (526) comprise protuberances (Figure 5 demonstrates the microstructures 520, 522 and 526 extending from the surface of the substrate 514; therefore, they are considered protuberances; [0122]), the protuberances (Figure 5 demonstrates the microstructures 520, 522 and 526 extending from the surface of the substrate 514; therefore, they are considered protuberances; [0122]) being arranged to generate a Wenzel-Cassie state (512; Figure 5; [0041, 0050, 0120, 0122]).
Claims 1, 8-9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bluecher.
Regarding claim 1, Bluecher teaches a microstructured device (500; Figure 5; [0121-0126]) for gripping low coefficient of friction material (512; [0122, 0124-0125 and 0126]; Figure 5) comprising:
a substrate (514; Figure 5; [0121-0123]), the substrate (514) further comprising a gripping surface (516; Figure 5; [0121-0123]), the gripping surface (516) comprising a first microstructure (522; [0122]; Figure 5) and a second microstructure (526; [0122]; Figure 5),
wherein the first microstructure (522) and second microstructure (526) comprise protuberances (Figure 5 demonstrates the microstructure 522 and 526 extending from the surface of the substrate 514 through the interface of element 520; therefore, they are considered protuberances; [0122]), the protuberances (Figure 5 demonstrates the microstructure 522 and 526 extending from the surface of the substrate 514 through the interface of element 520; therefore, they are considered protuberances; [0122]) being arranged to generate a Wenzel-Cassie state when in contact with a target surface (512; Figure 5; [0041, 0050, 0120, 0122]).
Regarding claim 8, Bluecher teaches wherein the first microstructure (522) and second microstructure (526) are disposed with a pitch of 1 to 1000% (For microstructure 522: 35/45*100= 77%; for microstructure 526: 3/6*100=50%), a height of 1 to 1000 microns (microstructure 522 has a height of 45µm and microstructure 526 has a height of 4µm), and a diameter of 1 to 1000 microns (microstructure 522 has a diameter of 35µm and microstructure 526 has a diameter of 3µm).
PNG
media_image1.png
151
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Bluecher teaches wherein the first microstructure (522/Layer 2; Table 1) is disposed of with a pitch of 45 to 185% (For microstructure 522: 35/45*100= 77%), a height of 50 to 250 microns (height in the range of 10-300 microns; [0122]) and a diameter of 35 to 125 microns (microstructure 522 has a diameter of 35µm).
Regarding claim 18, Bluecher teaches wherein the first microstructure (522) comprises pillars of graduated heights (See annotated Figure 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
789
735
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bluecher in view of Hulseman et al. (US 20180043546; hereinafter “Hulseman”).
Regarding claim 5, Bluecher teaches the first and second microstructures but does not expressly teach that the microstructures are configured with a percentage contact area of the target surface of 50% or less.
However, Hulseman teaches that is known in the art to configure microstructures to have a desired contact area of the target surface of 0.25% to 25% ([0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Hulseman’s structural contact area percentage relative to the target surface implemented on Bluecher’s microstructured device in order to accomplish sufficient friction between the target surface and the object (See Hulseman [0046]).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bluecher.
Regarding claim 6, Bluecher teaches having the gripping surface in contact with the target surface, thus resulting in having a coefficient of static adhesion between them. However, Bluecher does not expressly teach that the coefficient of static adhesion being in excess of 3.
The Examiner takes the position that one of ordinary skill in the art would the requisite skill to modify the arrangement of the first and second microstructures in order to obtain a desired coefficient of static adhesion between the device and the target surface, including having a coefficient of static adhesion being in excess of 3, so that a desired adhesion or attachment is obtained between the device and target surface depending on the type of target surface that is used.
Furthermore, the courts have ruled that the configuration of a structure is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that said claimed configuration was significant/critical. In the instant case, the applicant has failed to state why the claimed coefficient of static adhesion is critical/significant (See MPEP 2144.04 ).
Regarding claim 12, Bluecher teaches the gripping surface having a surface area and the substrate having a surface area but does not expressly wherein the surface area of the gripping surface is 10 times or more than the surface area of the substrate.
However, the Examiner takes the position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have the requisite skill to modify the surface area of the gripping surface relative to the surface area of the substrate, including the surface area of the gripping surface is 10 times or more than the surface area of the substrate, in order to increase the surface area that comes into contact with the target surface and thus achieve proper attachment between the device and target surface.
Furthermore, the courts have ruled that the configuration of a structure is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that said claimed configuration was significant/critical. In the instant case, the applicant has failed to state why the claimed surface area of the gripping surface is critical/significant (See MPEP 2144.04).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY W MEGNA FUENTES whose telephone number is (571)272-6456. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-4PM.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/ANTHONY W MEGNA FUENTES/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights