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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/23/2024 was filed and 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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurewiez (US 2018/0231222, of record) in view of Katsumata (US 3,918,500, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Jurewiez discloses a system for dynamically repositioning a portion of an elastomeric or rigid screen (see Fig 1) wherein a portion of the elastomeric or rigid screen centered around a node to be moved distally away from a remaining portion of the elastomeric or rigid screen (see Fig 1; Para [0048-0049]; LED module 316 centered around node connecting to a linear actuator 318 moves away from the portion of the screen). Jurewiez does not disclose the system comprising: at least one knife moveable between a first position and a second position; a hook moveable between: an open position in which the hook is disengaged from the at least one knife; and a closed position in which the hook is removably engaged with the at least one knife; a node located on a back surface of the elastomeric or rigid screen; and a linkage between the node and a distal end of the hook; wherein when the hook is in the closed position and the at least one knife is moved from the first position to the second position, the linkage pulls the node. Jurewiez and Katsumata are related because both disclose actuation mechanism for movable devices.
Katsumata discloses an actuation mechanism (see Fig 1) comprising: at least one knife moveable between a first position and a second position (see Fig 1; Col 4, lines 11-35; knife 18 is liftable from a resting position to a lifted position); a hook moveable between: an open position in which the hook is disengaged from the at least one knife; and a closed position in which the hook is removably engaged with the at least one knife (see Fig 1; Col 4, lines 11-35; hooks 11 can be in an engaged position where hook is coupled to knife or disengaged position where hook is not coupled to knife); a node located on a back surface of the elastomeric or rigid screen (see Fig 1; Col 4, lines 11-35; node located to where harness cords 15 meet warp yarns; Jurewiez discloses the screen); and a linkage between the node and a distal end of the hook (see Fig 1; Col 4, lines 11-35; harness cords 15 provide linkage); wherein when the hook is in the closed position and the at least one knife is moved from the first position to the second position, the linkage pulls the node (see Fig 1; Col 4, lines 11-35; harness chords connecting hook 11 and yarns 10 pulls the yarns 10; Jurewiez disclose the screen at the node end).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jurewiez with comprising: at least one knife moveable between a first position and a second position; a hook moveable between: an open position in which the hook is disengaged from the at least one knife; and a closed position in which the hook is removably engaged with the at least one knife; a node located on a back surface of the elastomeric or rigid screen; and a linkage between the node and a distal end of the hook; wherein when the hook is in the closed position and the at least one knife is moved from the first position to the second position, the linkage pulls the node of Katsumata for the purpose of providing a desired pattern for improving the visual appeal of a surface (Col 1, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 2, Jurewiez in view of Katsumata discloses the system of claim 1 (Katsumata: see Fig 1), further comprising: a comber board adapted or configured to guide the linkage between the node and the distal end of the hook (Katsumata: see Fig 1; Col 2, line 54-68; comber board 14 guides harness cords 15 between node 10 and hook 11).
Regarding claim 3, Jurewiez in view of Katsumata discloses the system of claim 1 (Katsumata: see Fig 1), further comprising: a rear frame positioned between the hook and the back surface of the elastomeric or rigid screen (Katsumata: see Fig 1; Col 2, lines 54-68; a lattice plate 13 acts as a rear frame and is positioned between the hook 11 and the node; Jurewiez discloses the screen attached to the node); wherein the linkage further comprises: a first portion linking the distal end of the hook and the rear frame; and a second portion linking the rear frame and the node (Katsumata: see Fig 1; Col 2, lines 54-68; harness cords 15 has a first portion linking the hook 11 and the lattice plate 13 and a second portion linking the lattice frame and the warp yarn 10).
Regarding claim 6, Jurewiez in view of Katsumata discloses the system of claim 1 (Katsumata: see Fig 1), further comprising: an actuator for moving the at least one hook from the first position to the second position (Katsumata: see Fig 1; Col 2, line 55-69; prime mover of a power loom is used to drive knife box with engaged hooks).
Regarding claim 9, Jurewiez in view of Katsumata discloses a method for dynamically repositioning the portion of the elastomeric or rigid screen of claim 1 (Katsumata: see Fig 1), the method comprising: moving the hook from the open position to the closed position (Katsumata: see Fig 1; Col 4, lines 11-35; hooks 11 can be in an engaged position where hook is coupled to knife or disengaged position where hook is not coupled to knife); and moving the at least one knife from the first position to the second position (Katsumata: see Fig 1; Col 4, lines 11-35; knife 18 is liftable from a resting position to a lifted position); wherein the linkage subsequently pulls the node causing the portion of the elastomeric or rigid screen centered around the node to be moved distally away from the remaining portion of the elastomeric or rigid screen (Katsumata: see Fig 1; Col 4, lines 11-35; harness chords connecting hook 11 and yarns 10 pulls the yarns 10; Jurewiez disclose the screen at the node end).
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurewiez (US 2018/0231222, of record) in view of Katsumata (US 3,918,500, of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of machine translation of Tang (CN 2069421, of record).
Regarding claim 4, Jurewiez in view of Katsumata discloses the system of claim 3. Jurewiez in view of Katsumata does not disclose wherein the second portion of the linkage further comprises a spring. Jurewiez in view of Katsumata and Tang are related because both disclose actuation systems.
Tang disclose an actuation system (see Fig 1) wherein the second portion of the linkage further comprises a spring (see Fig 1; Page 2 of translation, Para 3, lines 1-8; elastic returning 9 acts as spring in a second portion of linkage 7 that connects the base to board 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jurewiez in view of Katsumata with wherein the second portion of the linkage further comprises a spring of Tang for the purpose of improving speed and reducing the electrical needs of the device (Page 1 of translation, Para 2, lines 1-4 – Para 3, lines 1-3)
Regarding claim 10, Jurewiez in view of Katsumata discloses the method of claim 9. Jurewiez in view of Katsumata does not disclose wherein moving the hook from the open position to the closed position further comprises: activating or deactivating a magnet located in proximity to the hook. Jurewiez in view of Katsumata and Tang are related because both disclose methods of controlling an actuation system.
Tang discloses a method of controlling an actuation system (see Fig 1) wherein moving the hook from the open position to the closed position further comprises: activating or deactivating a magnet located in proximity to the hook (Page 2 of translation, Para 3, line 1 – Para 4, line 8; electromagnet 3 acts as mechanism to move from an open to closed position the hook).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jurewiez in view of Katsumata with wherein moving the hook from the open position to the closed position further comprises: activating or deactivating a magnet located in proximity to the hook of Tang for the purpose of improving speed and reducing the electrical needs of the device (Page 1 of translation, Para 2, lines 1-4 – Para 3, lines 1-3)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurewiez (US 2018/0231222, of record) in view of Katsumata (US 3,918,500, of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dewispelaere (US 5,671,784, of record).
Regarding claim 5, Jurewiez in view of Katsumata discloses the system of claim 1. Jurewiez in view of Katsumata does not disclose further comprising: a second knife moveable between a third position and a fourth position, wherein when the hook is in the closed position and the second knife is moved from the third position to the fourth position, the linkage pulls the node causing the portion of the elastomeric or rigid screen centered around the node to be moved distally away from the remaining portion of the elastomeric or rigid screen to a different distance away from the remaining portion respective to when the at least one hook is moved from the first position to the second position; and a third or more knives acting in a similar manner to the first and second knife, wherein the third or more knives move the elastomeric or rigid screen to a different distance away from an original position. Jurewiez in view of Katsumata and Dewispelaere are related because both disclose actuation systems.
Dewispelaere discloses an actuation system (see Fig 2A-D) further comprising: a second knife moveable between a third position and a fourth position (see Fig 2A-D; Col 7, lines 44-52; a second knife 12 is used and moveable between a third and fourth see Fig 1A and 2A), wherein when the hook is in the closed position and the second knife is moved from the third position to the fourth position (see Fig 2A-D; Col 7, lines 44-52; hook 1 is engaged with the knife 12), the linkage pulls the node causing the portion of the elastomeric or rigid screen centered around the node to be moved distally away from the remaining portion of the elastomeric or rigid screen to a different distance away from the remaining portion respective to when the at least one hook is moved from the first position to the second position (see Fig 2A-D; Col 7, lines 44-52; lifter cord 7 pulls on end 9 to a middle distance M between a top B and bottom state O; Jurewiez discloses the screen); and a third or more knives acting in a similar manner to the first and second knife, wherein the third or more knives move the elastomeric or rigid screen to a different distance away from an original position (see Fig 2A-D; Col 7, lines 44-52; four knives in totally are used to create the deice that is capable of having three positions of height for element 9; Jurewiez discloses the screen).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jurewiez in view of Katsumata with further comprising: a second knife moveable between a third position and a fourth position, wherein when the hook is in the closed position and the second knife is moved from the third position to the fourth position, the linkage pulls the node causing the portion of the elastomeric or rigid screen centered around the node to be moved distally away from the remaining portion of the elastomeric or rigid screen to a different distance away from the remaining portion respective to when the at least one hook is moved from the first position to the second position; and a third or more knives acting in a similar manner to the first and second knife, wherein the third or more knives move the elastomeric or rigid screen to a different distance away from an original position of Dewispelaere for the purpose of reducing the cost and complexity of the device (Col 2, lines 17-19)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurewiez (US 2018/0231222, of record) in view of Katsumata (US 3,918,500, of record) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Shaw (US 6,247,503, of record).
Regarding claim 7, Jurewiez in view of Katsumata discloses the system of claim 6. Jurewiez in view of Katsumata does not disclose further comprising: a power source connected to the actuator, wherein the power source is independent from the actuator. Jurewiez in view of Katsumata and Shaw are related because both disclose electronic systems.
Shaw discloses an electronic system (see Fig 1) further comprising: a power source connected to the actuator, wherein the power source is independent from the actuator (see Fig 1; Col 3, lines 6-57; electric drive motor 5 provides power to loom through the main drive shaft 2 thus is independent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jurewiez in view of Katsumata with further comprising: a power source connected to the actuator, wherein the power source is independent from the actuator of Shaw for the purpose of improving the drive system by eliminating energy losses and improving compactness (Col 1, line 39- Col 2, line 14)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurewiez (US 2018/0231222, of record) in view of Katsumata (US 3,918,500, of record) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Palau (US 5,927,347, of record).
Regarding claim 8, Jurewiez in view of Katsumata discloses the system of claim 1. Jurewiez in view of Katsumata does not disclose wherein: the system comprises a plurality of hooks; and any of the plurality of hooks can simultaneously engage with the at least one knife. Jurewiez in view of Katsumata and Palau are related because both disclose actuation systems.
Palau discloses an actuation system (see Fig 1) wherein: the system comprises a plurality of hooks; and any of the plurality of hooks can simultaneously engage with the at least one knife (see Fig 1; Col 3, line 55 – Col 4, line 32; multiple hooks 40 disclosed on a single knife 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jurewiez in view of Katsumata with wherein: the system comprises a plurality of hooks; and any of the plurality of hooks can simultaneously engage with the at least one knife of Palau for the purpose of improving device efficiency and removing complexity (Col 1, line 66 – Col 2, line 13)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gorthala (US 6,189,246) discloses a 3D display with individual moving sections in order to form images.
Langdon (US 3,270,447) discloses a 3D display with individual moving units which contain springs and hooks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANDRES SANZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3844. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am -5:30 pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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.
/G.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights