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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A, drawn to Figs. 6A-6C in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “All identified species of the invention have a response to a force in a second direction where "the maximum displacement of any connection region relative to the support structure is greater than or equal to a second displacement which is at least five times the first displacement", with some differing in respect to what direction is meant by the second direction”. This is not found persuasive because different displacements in different directions are not a special technical feature. See Cybart et al (US 20100090814 A1), for example, wherein “boss members 215 can function as limited motion linkages or couplings when the localized haptic response is being delivered” [0034].
Furthermore, the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found. It has been held in such a situation, the Applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In this case, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensional ranges. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6 and 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/23/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 “support structure” and “connection regions” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because:
Details are indistinct in Figs. 1A-B and 4.
Numerous drawings lack any reference characters to direct the viewer’s attention to features discussed in the SPEC.
Solid black shading is not permitted. See 37 CFR 1.84(m).
Separate figures are not separately labeled. See Fig. 3. The Examiner suggests Figs. 3A-C.
It is unclear what is illustrated in Fig. 3, there being no labeled axes.
The meaning of arrows is unclear in Fig. 3. See 37 CFR 1.84(r).
A crowded aspect ratio makes features indistinct in Fig. 3.
Some views are not “grouped together and arranged on the sheet(s) without wasting space” as required by 37 CFR 1.84(h). The Examiner suggests enlarging and/or rotating some drawings to take up more of the available space on the sheet.
The appearance of 1 is inconsistent with its description in the SPEC (“white ledge/shelf 1”, emphasis added).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “4” has been used to designate multiple different parts.
Fewer than all letters, numbers, and reference characters measure at least 1/8 inch in height as required by 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3).
Numbering of views fails to conform to 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1), which requires “Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter.” See Fig. 6c (rather than Fig. 6C), for example.
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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 17, line 32, the SPEC recites “"petals" of the flow-shaped profile”. It is noted by the Examiner that a flow has no petals. The Examiner suggests --"petals" of the flower-shaped profile --.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 20 be found allowable, claim 24 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “µm.N-1.” This claim includes multiple periods. The Examiner suggests elevating one of the dots in order to connote multiplication.
A similar recitation in claim 13 is similarly objectionable.
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 1-4, 7-13, 16-17, 20-21, and 24-25 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.
Independent claim 1 recites “in preference to” in the last two lines. The limitation “preference” is subjective. Whose preference? Subjective limitations make it impossible for a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine the metes and bounds of a claim.
A similar recitation in independent claim 10 is similarly indefinite.
Independent claim 10 recites the limitation "the first direction" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Other elected claims are indefinite by virtue of dependency from at least one indefinite claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 7-13, 16-17, 20-21, and 24-25, to the extent understood, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art references of record are Patel et al (US 20160162030 A1) and Cybart et al (US 20100090814 A1). Patel et al neither show nor suggest deforming an input panel in a first direction rather than deforming a mounting structure (to the extent understood). Cybart et al neither show nor suggest deforming an input panel in a first direction rather than deforming a mounting structure (to the extent understood).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julie Anne Watko whose telephone number is (571)272-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 9AM-5PM, Wednesday 10:30AM-5PM, Thursday-Friday 9AM-5PM, and occasional Saturdays.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
JULIE ANNE WATKO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/Julie Anne Watko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
02/06/2026