DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits of Application No. 19/119,045. Claims 68-87 are currently pending.
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 April 7, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on April 7, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
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.
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 68-87 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 68, line 3, recites “a first plate and second plate coupled to the shaft”. This appears to be inconsistent with page 8, lines 18-28, of the specification which describes the first plate 12 as being rotationally fixed to the output shaft 20 while the second plate 14 is journaled to the output shaft 20 via the bearing 16 and rotationally fixed to the input shaft 30. It is not clear how both the first plate and second plate can both be said to be coupled to the same shaft as recited in the claim.
Claims 69-87 are indefinite since they are dependent on claim 68.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 68, 69 and 84-86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,663,016 (Schmitz) in view of GB 1118627 (Donelan).
Regarding claims 68 and 69, Schmitz discloses a device for electroadhesion control of rotary motion (electrostatic rotary clutch 100, see e.g. Figs. 1A and 1B and column 4, lines 38-42). The device comprises a shaft (104), a first plate (300), and second plate (500) coupled to the shaft (see e.g. Figs. 8 and 9). As best seen in Fig. 12, a first surface (1202) of the first plate (300) is aligned in substantially parallel facing opposition to a second surface (504) of the second plate (500). The first surface and second surface forming a dry sliding friction contact pair that defines an electroadhesion interface therebetween (see e.g. column 7, line 65 to column 8, line 5). A dielectric material (1206 and/or 1208, see e.g. column 8, lines 65-67) is disposed on at least one of the first surface (1202) or the second surface (504). The contact pair of the first surface and second surface exhibiting electroadhesion based in part on a sufficient electrical field generated across the contact pair and the electroadhesion interface to achieve electrostatic attraction between the contact pair to cause a frictional force therebetween (see e.g. column 7, line 65 to column 8, line 12). A third plate (i.e. a spring as described in column 7, lines 39-55) exerts a constant pressure on at least one of the first plate (300) or the second plate (500) to bias the first and second plate towards each other. While Schmitz describes a voltage controller 2204 (see e.g. column 15, line 50 to column 16, line 10) for controlling the voltage difference across the first and second plates to regulate the amount of electrostatic adhesion between the plates, Schmitz does not disclose a polarity modulator alternating the electrical field multiple times per revolution of the contact pair.
Donelan provides evidence that before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it was known to operate an electrostatic clutch by supplying alternating current. Donelan teaches that operation of an electrostatic clutch by supplying alternating current is advantageous in comparison to direct current operation because the production of the Johnsen-Rahbek effect is independent of the polarity of the connections of the supply to the clutch components, and because it is possible to employ a relatively low voltage supply (see page 2, lines 51-97). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to operate the electrostatic clutch of Schmitz by supplying an alternating current signal, which alternates the electrical field multiple times per revolution of the contact pair, to the clutch components in order to realize the advantages taught by Donelan.
Regarding claim 84, the electroadhesion of the surfaces of the electrostatic clutch of Schmitz as modified by Donelan is adjustable by changing the magnitude of the applied voltage. When the magnitude of the applied voltage is sufficiently high, the electroadhesive force causes the clutch plates to engage and when the voltage is low or zero the plates slip. See e.g. page 1, lines 18-40.
Regarding claims 85 and 86, note that both Schmitz (at column 9, lines 55-63) and Donelan (page 1, lines 52-61) teach that the electrostatic clutch can be used as a brake if one of the clutch components is fixed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 70-82, 83 and 87 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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:
None of the prior art taken alone or in combination discloses or suggests a device for electroadhesion control of rotary motion wherein: the polarity modulator is a source of pulse width modulation activation signal providing alternating pulses of negative and positive voltage as recited in claim 70; the polarity modulator is a segmentation of at least one of the first surface or the second surface into a plurality of segments having alternating positive and negative charge as recited in claim 71; or electroadhesion of the first surface and second surface is adjustable by changing a duty cycle of an applied voltage as recited in claim 83. Claims 72-82 and 87 which are dependent on claim 71 are allowable for at least the same reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 3,343,636 discloses an electrostatic clutch including a component 34 with a plurality of segments 51, however there is no disclosure that the segments have alternating negative and positive charge as required by presently pending claim 71.
JP 48-41469 discloses an electrostatic clutch including a shaft 2, a first plate 7, a second plate 10, and a third plate 12 exerting biasing the first plate 7 toward the second plate 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard M. Lorence whose telephone number is 571-272-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Thursday from 11:00 AM-7:00 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, John R. Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/RICHARD M LORENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights