DETAILED ACTION
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 1-9, and 21 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 21, the applicant’s recitation of tensile strength as with the unit measurement of lbf isn’t understood as tensile strength is measure as a force over a unit of area (e.g. in2). As the applicant’s disclosure provides no clear scale or any meaningful way to determine size, with only the total load, it’s unclear as to what the true tensile strength of the applicant’s disclosed device is.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goupil (US Pat No 11,686,340).
Regarding claim 1, Goupil discloses a linkage comprising:
a body (2) formed by 3D printing, said body comprising,
a main body portion (39);
a first arm extending from a first side of the main body portion;
a second arm spaced apart from the first arm and extending from the first side of the main body portion;
a third arm extending from second side of the main body portion opposite the first side;
a fourth arm spaced apart from the third arm and extending from the second side of the main body portion (each arm being each of 3, extending from both ends shown in figure 5);
a first opening formed through the first arm;
a second opening formed through the second arm, said second opening being axially aligned with the first opening;
a third opening formed through the third arm; and
a fourth opening formed through the fourth arm, said fourth opening axially aligned with the third opening (e.g. each of the holes provided in 3), wherein the body has a tensile strength of at least 9000 lbf.
Note: Given the 112, the tensile strength of a like art is evidenced by Carrere (US2014/0112700).
Note: The applicant’s claim is directed to the final product, wherein the applicant’s inclusion of the process in which the product was made in an apparatus claim doesn’t require the prior art to disclose the process but shifts to burden to the applicant (see MPEP section 2113).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, it is noted that Goupil is silent about the method to produce the product. As noted above, the applicant’s claim is directed toward the final product, which is taught by Goupil, the burden is now on the applicant.
Regarding claim 7, Goupil discloses an opening penetrating from one side to an opposite side of the main body portion.
Regarding claim 8, Goupil discloses ach distal end of each arm is rounded defining an arc when viewed along a plate perpendicular to the axis the openings (shown in figure 6).
Regarding claim 9, Goupil discloses the body is not tubular.
Regarding claim 10, Goupil discloses A linkage comprising:
a 3D printed body extending from a first end to a second end;
a first insert (17) within the body proximate the first end, said first insert not extending beyond the first end, wherein said first insert is not inserted into said body through said first end;
a second insert (17 of the other side, see fig 6) within the body proximate the second end, said second insert not extending beyond the second end, wherein said second insert is not inserted into said body through said second end;
a first connecting member (7) penetrating the first end and connected to the first insert; and
a second connecting member (7, of the other side, see figure 6) penetrating the second end and connected to the second insert.
Note: The applicant’s claim is directed to the final product, wherein the applicant’s inclusion of the process in which the product was made in an apparatus claim doesn’t require the prior art to disclose the process but shifts to burden to the applicant (see MPEP section 2113).
Regarding claim 15, Goupil discloses the body comprises a first side extending from the first end to the second end and a second side extending from the first end to the second end and wherein each insert is sandwiched between the first and second sides of the body.
Regarding claim 16, Goupil discloses the body comprises a first side extending from the first end to the second end and a second side extending from the first end to the second end and wherein each insert extends at least from the first side to the second side of the body.
Regarding claim 17, Goupil discloses the first and second ends are arcuate.
Regarding claim 18, Goupil discloses the portion of each end of the body penetrated by its corresponding connecting member is rounded.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, it is noted that Goupil is silent about the method to produce the product. As noted above, the applicant’s claim is directed toward the final product, which is taught by Goupil, the burden is now on the applicant.
Regarding claim 22, Goupil discloses an opening penetrating from one side to an opposite side of the main body portion.
Regarding claim 23, Goupil discloses the body is not tubular.
Regarding claim 24, Goupil discloses each of said first and second inserts has a longitudinal axis extending in a direction from its first end to its second end, and wherein each of said first and second inserts each insert has a non-circular outer surface shape in cross-section perpendicular to such insert longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 25, Goupil discloses A linkage comprising:
a 3D printed body extending from a first end to a second end;
a first insert (17) within the body proximate the first end, said first insert not extending beyond the first end;
a second insert (17 of the other end) within the body proximate the second end, said second insert not extending beyond the second end;
a first connecting member (7) penetrating the first end and connected to the first insert; and
a second connecting member (7 of the other end) penetrating the second end and connected to the second insert, wherein each of said first and second inserts has a longitudinal axis extending in a direction from its first end to its second end, and wherein each of said first and second inserts has a non-circular outer surface shape in cross-section perpendicular to such insert longitudinal axis (as shown in figure 4).
Note: The applicant’s claim is directed to the final product, wherein the applicant’s inclusion of the process in which the product was made in an apparatus claim doesn’t require the prior art to disclose the process but shifts to burden to the applicant (see MPEP section 2113).
Claim(s) 10, 12-17, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hill et al (US Pat No 10,119,563).
Regarding claim 10, Hill discloses A linkage comprising:
a 3D printed body (202) extending from a first end to a second end;
a first insert (300) within the body proximate the first end, said first insert not extending beyond the first end, wherein said first insert is not inserted into said body throuqh said first end;
a second insert (300) within the body proximate the second end, said second insert not extending beyond the second end, wherein said second insert is not inserted into said body throuqh said second end;
a first connecting member (402) penetrating the first end and connected to the first insert; and
a second connecting member (402) penetrating the second end and connected to the second insert.
Regarding claim 12, Hill discloses the inserts are press- fitted in the body.
Regarding claim 13, Hill discloses each insert has a first end opposite a second end defining a height therebetween, wherein an opening extends transversely through said height between the first and second ends of the insert for receiving its corresponding connecting member.
Regarding claim 14, Hill discloses at least part of the first end of each insert and part of the second end of each insert is covered by a portion of the body.
Regarding claim 16, Hill discloses the body comprises a first side extending from the first end to the second end and a second side extending from the first end to the second end and wherein each insert extends at least from the first side to the second side of the body.
Regarding claim 17, Hill discloses the first and second ends are arcuate.
Regarding claim 23, Hill discloses the body is not tubular.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bernard (EP Pub No 3,133,298).
Regarding claim 10, Bernard discloses a linkage comprising:
a 3D printed body (2) extending from a first end to a second end;
a first insert (32) within the body proximate the first end, said first insert not extending beyond the first end, wherein said first insert is not inserted into said body throuqh said first end;
a second insert (32, of the other end) within the body proximate the second end, said second insert not extending beyond the second end, wherein said second insert is not inserted into said body through said second end;
a first connecting member (12) penetrating the first end and connected to the first insert; and
a second connecting member (12 of the other end) penetrating the second end and connected to the second insert.
Regarding claim 11, Bernard discloses the first connecting member is threaded to the first insert and the second connecting member is threaded to the second insert (see [0098]).
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(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goupil.
Regarding claim 2, Goupil discloses a first bearing (13) in the first opening; a second bearing (14) in the second opening; a third bearing in the third opening; and a fourth bearing in the fourth opening (as the prior art in figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the configuration of the disclosed figure 5 with the teachings of multiple bushings of figure 1 to achieve a similar result with a slightly different construction.
Regarding claim 3, Goupil discloses a first pin (17) penetrating the first and second openings; and a second pin (17) penetrating the third and fourth openings (see figures 5 and 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Cicchino whose telephone number is (571)270-1954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM to 5PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/Patrick Cicchino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights