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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 18 and 20 contain claim element numbering (e.g. Claim 18 Line 4: “(10)”, Claim 20 Line 4: “(3)”, etc.) that are not present in the other claims, and accordingly appear to be typos carried over from the original Claims 1-10. The Examiner recommends removing these numberings for consistency with Claims 1-17 and 19.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “D1” (NPL: Anonymous, “3D Catoms | Programmable matter, 01/27/2022) in view of “D2” (NPL: Programmable Matter Project: “POHD Defense of Pierre Thalamy” 10/15/2020), “D3” (NPL: Programmable Matter Project: “catoms 3d assembly” 11/20/2020), “D4” (NPL: Programmable Matter Project: “Datom: A deformable modular robot for building self-reconfigurable programmable matter” 05/27/2021), and “D6” (NPL: Piranda Benoit ET AL: “Design of Quasi-Spherical Modules for Building Programmable Matter, 11/09/2016).
The current application is related to EPBR22SREARP and the current claims (Claims 11-20) are substantially similar in scope to the corresponding EP claims (Original Claims 1-10). By adopting and incorporating herein by reference the explanations of the closest prior art as set forth in the Search Report (dated 01/07/2026), the examiner meets the burdens of 35 U.S.C. 132(a) [e.g., insomuch as the reasons for rejection and references are stated and the Search Report provides such information as may be useful in judging the propriety of continuing the prosecution of this application] and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(2) [e.g., insomuch as the explanations of the Search Report are sufficient to make the pertinence of each reference apparent]. See the copy of the Search Report filed in this current application on 04/13/2026.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D2, D3, D4, D6, and “D9” (NPL: Mustafa Emre Karagozler et al.: “Electrostatic and control of micro robots using a post-processed high-voltage SOI CMOS chip”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
D1-D4 and D6 are considered the closest prior art.
Regarding Claim 18, the cited references do not disclose a multiplexer, per electrode with negative polarity, arranged so as to, starting from a negative output voltage of the charge-pump converter, generate a high negative voltage and a multiplexer, per electrode with positive polarity.
It would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the multiplexer and electrode arrangement as claimed without impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY WEBER whose telephone number is (571)272-3307. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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.
/GREGORY ROBERT WEBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights