DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action in response to the above identified patent
application filed on May 5, 2025.
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.
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 “the force compensation device comprises a lever transmission device” (claim 20) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the implied phrase “The invention relates” (line 1) should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Each section of the specification must have a heading (i.e. “Brief Summary of the Invention”, “Brief Description of the Drawings”, and “Detailed Description of the Invention”).
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The reference to specific claims , such as “claim 10” (section [0001]), must be removed because the claim numbering may change during prosecution.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 26-29 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.
Claim 26, the claim langue “The positioning device according to claim 14 for positioning an object with at least one positioning module according to” is not fully understood and appears to be incomplete.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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) 14-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Gao et al. (CN1258589) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gao et al. (CN1258589) in view of Marcroft (USPat 8,215,199).
Gao teaches a positioning module with a base (3) and a positioning element (1) which is movable relative to the base, wherein the positioning element is coupled to the base via a leg element (2) of constant length, and wherein the leg element is connected to the positioning element via a joint device, and wherein the leg element is assigned a drive module (5) arranged on the base, wherein the drive module comprises a drive unit (piezoelectric device), a drive element (4) that is displaceable along a direction of movement by the drive unit, which is connected to the leg element via a joint device, and a force compensation device (the elastic plate portions connecting 4 to 3) connected to the drive element, wherein a defined force (inherent) along the direction of movement of the drive element (due to the elasticity of the plate portions) can be (depending on the position of the piezoelectric device) exerted on the latter by means of the force compensation device.
Alternatively, Marcroft teaches a positioning module with a base (12) and a positioning element (28) which is movable relative to the base, a drive module (134) arranged on the base, wherein the drive module comprises a drive unit (136,138), a drive element (142) that is displaceable along a direction of movement by the drive unit, which is connected to the positioning element by a joint device, and a force compensation device (111) connected to the drive element, wherein a defined force along the direction of movement of the drive element can be exerted on the latter by means of the force compensation device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to replace the drive module of Gao et al. with a drive module having a force compensation device, as taught by Marcroft, motivation being to overcome the force of gravity, allows smaller linear servo motors to be used, and/or prevent the positioning element from falling during an interruption of electrical power.
Claim 15: Marcroft teaches the defined force which acts on the drive element by means of the force compensation device is generated by magnets or by compressed air or by hydraulic fluid.
Claim 16: Gao and/or Marcroft teaches the force compensation device comprises a force compensation module which is directly or indirectly connected to the base.
Claim 17: Marcroft teaches the defined force which acts on the drive element by means of the force compensation device is generated by magnets or by compressed air or by hydraulic fluid.
Claim 18: Marcroft teaches the force compensation module comprises a sleeve (138) made of a magnetic or magnetizable material (motor coil) and a rod (142) made of a magnetic or magnetizable material which extends at least partially into the sleeve, the sleeve and the rod each being mounted so as to be rotatable relative to one another.
Claim 19: Marcroft teaches the defined force which acts on the drive element by means of the force compensation device is generated by magnets or by compressed air or by hydraulic fluid and wherein the force compensation module comprises a sleeve (138) made of a magnetic or magnetizable material (motor coil) and a rod made (142) of a magnetic or magnetizable material which extends at least partially into the sleeve, the sleeve and the rod each being mounted so as to be rotatable relative to one another.
Claim 20: Marcroft teaches the force compensation device comprises a lever transmission device, inasmuch as the instant arrangement includes a lever.
Claim 21: Gao and/or Marcroft teaches the drive unit comprises an electromagnetic drive.
Claim 22: Gao teaches at least one of the joint devices is designed in such a way that a tilting of the leg element about two tilting axes arranged perpendicular to one another and a rotation of the same leg element about its own longitudinal axis is possible.
Claims 23 and 25: Gao and/or Marcroft teaches the at least one joint device is designed as a solid-state joint.
Claim 24: Marcroft teaches the at least one joint device comprises a cardan joint (56) and a rotary joint (110).
Claim 27: Gao illustrates (Fig. 1) with three positioning modules, each of the positioning modules having two leg elements forming a pair of legs, the positioning modules being arranged relative to one another in such a way that one pair of legs extends through another pair of legs and each pair of legs is arranged perpendicular to the other pairs of legs, and the positioning element of each positioning module is connected to the positioning elements of the respective two other positioning modules and the three positioning elements together form a positioning body which comprises six degrees of freedom of movement.
Claim 28: Gao illustrates (Fig. 1) each of the positioning elements corresponds to a platform with a substantially flat platform surface, wherein the respective platform assigned to a pair of legs is arranged substantially perpendicular to its leg element, and wherein the three platforms which are interconnected with each other together form a positioning body in which each of the platform surfaces is arranged substantially perpendicular to the other two platform surfaces and thereby form part of a cube.
Claim 29: Gao illustrates (Fig. 1) each of the positioning elements corresponds to a platform with a substantially flat platform surface, wherein the respective platform assigned to a pair of legs is arranged substantially perpendicular to its leg elements, wherein the three platforms which are interconnected with each other together form a positioning body in which each of the platform surfaces is arranged substantially perpendicular to the other two platform surfaces and thereby form part of a cube, and wherein the three positioning modules are arranged such that their bases together form a cube-like base body with a recess, and in that within this recess the partial- cube-shaped positioning body is arranged such that the respective corresponding edges of the base body and the positioning body run parallel to one another.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the positioning module of CN 1257770 and CN113799104.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C JOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-270-7778. 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 C JOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights