DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is responsive to claims filed for No. 19/475,793 on October 16, 2025. Please note Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 16, 2025 was filed. The submission 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 § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 4, 6, 9-11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stromberg ( US 2006/0279540 A1 ).
Stromberg teaches in Claim 1:
A flexible control cylinder (3), for a pointing device (1) for controlling a cursor on a display ( [0008] discloses a flexible cylinder for use with a pointing device ), comprising
a flexible or bendable carrier (6), consisting of a weave or fabric ( Figure 1, [0018] discloses cloth 24 (read as a carrier) ), and a plurality of strips (5a, b) arranged on the carrier (6) with an imaginary longitudinal axis of the strips (5a,b) arranged essentially in the same direction as an imaginary central axis of the control cylinder (3) ( Figure 1, [0018] disclose strips 7 and 9 arranged on opposite sides of cloth 24 and arranged in a longitudinal axis. Please note the cutout which shows the arrangement in a macro detail ), wherein:
the strips (5a,b) are made of a thin material ( [0018] discloses 1 millimetre (read as thin) ),
the strips (5a,b) are arranged on both sides of the carrier (6) to create a local sandwich effect that results in an increased axial stiffness of the control cylinder (3) ( Figure 1, [0018] discloses the cloth 24 is sandwiched by strips 7 and 9 to provide friction and stiffness against 3 and 4’ ), and an outer strip (5a) and an inner strip (5b) ( Figure 1 shows strip 9 (read as outer strip) and strip 7 (read as an inner strip) ) of each of the strips (5a,b) are arranged in pairs on the carrier (6) ( Figure 1 shows pairs of 7 and 9 ), and
wherein the outer strips (5a), arranged on an outside of the carrier (6), are centrally arranged in relation to the inner strips (5b), arranged on an inside of the carrier (6) ( Figure 1 shows strip 9 is arranged on an outside of cloth 24, as opposed to strip 7 which is arranged on an inside of the cloth 24 ), and that the pairs of strips (5a,b) are arranged at a distance relative to each other, whereby bending zones (10) are formed between the pairs of strips (5a,b). ( Figure 1, [0018] discloses area 8 between the stripes (read 8 as bending zones) )
Stromberg teaches in Claim 4:
The flexible control cylinder (3) according to claim l, wherein the outer strips (5a) are attached to the carrier (6) only along part of its surface directed towards the carrier in such a way that their outer longitudinal edge portions are freely arranged in relation to the carrier (6). ( Figure 1 shows strips 9 are attached to cloth 24 and not the entire surface area of 9. The outer parts extending away from cloth 24 are not attached, i.e. the outer longitudinal edge portions are not attached, i.e. freely arranged )
Stromberg teaches in Claim 6:
The flexible control cylinder (3) according to claim 4, wherein the outer strips (5a) are attached to the carrier (6) only along a surface that essentially corresponds to the surface of the corresponding inner strip's (5b) attachment to the carrier (6), regardless of the overall width of the outer strip (5a). ( Figure 1 shows strips 7 and 9 are attached to the carrier along/corresponding to each other, i.e. in the same areas/opposite sides of cloth 24 )
Stromberg teaches in Claim 9:
The flexible control cylinder (3) according to claim 1, wherein an outer or upper surface of the outer strips (5a) is completely or partially provided with a friction-increasing coating (11). ( [0018] discloses details on a friction material of considerable thickness is provided in the form of strips 9 )
Stromberg teaches in Claim 10:
The flexible control cylinder (3) according to claim 9, wherein the outer or upper surface of the outer strips (5a), or the friction- increasing coating (11) arranged on the outer strips (5a), is designed with an uneven, waved or profiled surface. ( Figure 1, [0018] discloses the curved surface of strip 9, i.e.. uneven, waved, etc )
Stromberg teaches in Claim 11:
The flexible control cylinder (3) according to claim 1, wherein, the carrier (6) consists of a strip of fabric arranged in a spiral way. ( Figure 1 shows a loop 1 including the fabric 24 (read loop as a spiral). Furthermore, Figure 6 shows a threaded nature as well and also please note [0038] and [0018] as well )
Stromberg teaches in Claim 13:
A method for manufacturing a flexible control cylinder (3); intended for a pointing device (1) for moving a cursor on a display ( [0008] discloses a flexible cylinder for use with a pointing device ), comprising
a flexible or bendable carrier (6) consisting of a weave or fabric ( Figure 1, [0018] discloses cloth 24 (read as a carrier) ), and a plurality of strips (5a,b) arranged on the carrier (6) with an imaginary longitudinal axes of the strips (5a,b) arranged essentially in the same direction as an imaginary central axis of the control cylinder (3) ( Figure 1, [0018] disclose strips 7 and 9 arranged on opposite sides of cloth 24 and arranged in a longitudinal axis. Please note the cutout which shows the arrangement in a macro detail ), wherein
the strips (5a,b) are made of a thin material ( [0018] discloses 1 millimetre (read as thin) ), and are mounted on both sides of the carrier (6) to achieve a local sandwich effect that results in an increased axial stiffness of the control cylinder (3) ( Figure 1, [0018] discloses the cloth 24 is sandwiched by strips 7 and 9 to provide friction and stiffness against 3 and 4’ ),
an outer strip (5a) and an inner strip (5b) ( Figure 1 shows strip 9 (read as outer strip) and strip 7 (read as an inner strip) ) of each of the strips (5a,b) are mounted in pairs on the carrier (6) ( Figure 1 shows pairs of 7 and 9 ),
whereby the outer strips (5a), mounted on the outside of the carrier (6), are centered in relation to the inner strips (5b), mounted on the inside of the carrier (6) ( Figure 1 shows strip 9 is arranged on an outside of cloth 24, as opposed to strip 7 which is arranged on an inside of the cloth 24 ), and the pairs of strips (5a,b) are mounted at a distance in relation to each other, whereby bending zones (10) are formed between the pairs of strips (5a,b). ( Figure 1, [0018] discloses area 8 between the stripes (read 8 as bending zones) )
Stromberg teaches in Claim 15:
The method according to claim 13, wherein the flexible carrier (6) is arranged or wrapped in a spiral. ( Figure 1 shows a loop 1 including the fabric 24 (read loop as a spiral). Furthermore, Figure 6 shows a threaded nature as well and also please note [0038] and [0018] as well )
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 3, 5, 7, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stromberg ( US 2006/0279540 A1 ).
As per Claim 3:
Stromberg does not explicitly teach “wherein the strips (5a,b) have a thickness of 0.02 mm to 0.20 mm, but preferably about 0.05 mm.”
Respectfully, Stromberg cites several aspects of millimetre designs for the strips, such as [0018]. In light of this and ordinary skill, one of skill would realize this is a design choice issue and could implement the thickness/sizing in a variety of thicknesses/sizing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the thickness/sizing, with the motivation that it is a design choice issue and not a patentable distinction.
As per Claim 5:
Stromberg does not explicitly teach wherein the outer strips (5a), located on the outside of the carrier (6), have a greater width than the inner strips (5b) which are arranged on the inside of the carrier (6).”
Respectfully, Stromberg cites several aspects of millimetre designs for the strips, such as [0018]. In light of this and ordinary skill, one of skill would realize this is a design choice issue and could implement the width of the strips to be modified.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the width sizing, with the motivation that it is a design choice issue and not a patentable distinction.
As per Claim 7:
Stromberg does not explicitly teach “wherein a gap (7) between the outer strips (5a), on the outer side of the carrier (6), is equal to or less than 0.5 mm.”
Respectfully, Stromberg cites several aspects of millimetre designs for the strips, such as [0018]. This design also impacts the gap between adjacent strips as well. In light of this and ordinary skill, one of skill would realize this is a design choice issue and could implement the width of the strips to be modified.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the width sizing, with the motivation that it is a design choice issue and not a patentable distinction.
As per Claim 8:
Stromberg does not explicitly teach “wherein a width of the inner strips (5b) is between 0.4-1.5 mm, but preferably about 0.8 mm.”
Respectfully, Stromberg cites several aspects of millimetre designs for the strips, such as [0018]. This design also impacts the gap between adjacent strips as well. In light of this and ordinary skill, one of skill would realize this is a design choice issue and could implement the width of the strips to be modified.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the width sizing, with the motivation that it is a design choice issue and not a patentable distinction.
As per Claim 12:
Stromberg does not explicitly teach “wherein a width of the strip of fabric is approx. 70% of the control cylinder's (3) circumference.”
Looking at Figure 1, it is clear the loop of cloth 24 takes up a significant amount of the circumference of the cylinder. The exact amount is a design choice issue and again, based on Stromberg’s focus on the sizing of elements and one of ordinary skill in the art, it is clear the width could be designed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the width sizing, with the motivation that it is a design choice issue and not a patentable distinction.
9. Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stromberg
( US 2006/0279540 A1 ), as applied to Claims 1 and 13, further in view of Nien
( US 2019/0369746 A1 ).
As per Claim 2:
Stromberg does not explicitly teach “wherein the strips (5a,b) are coated with a heat/melt glue.”
However, in the same field of endeavor, loop/casing devices for cursor control, Nien teaches of an akin support material 701, ( Nien, [0037] ). Notably, the support material is a long strip parallelly set on the casing 700, similar to Stromberg’s strips arranged on the cloth 24. Nien also teaches the support material 701 is a plastic and attaches with the casing 700 through glue. Respectfully, glue is well known to be used to adhere elements such as strips.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement glue, as taught by Nien, with the motivation by using glue, which again, is well known, the overall friction can be enhanced to provide a good sense of operation, ( Nien, [0037] ).
As per Claim 14:
Stromberg does not explicitly teach “wherein the strips (5a,b) are cut to size or punched out of a plastic or metal foil that is already coated with a heat/melt glue (9).”
However, in the same field of endeavor, loop/casing devices for cursor control, Nien teaches of an akin support material 701, ( Nien, [0037] ). Notably, the support material is a long strip parallelly set on the casing 700, similar to Stromberg’s strips arranged on the cloth 24. Nien also teaches the support material 701 is a plastic and attaches with the casing 700 through glue. Respectfully, glue is well known to be used to adhere elements such as strips.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement glue, as taught by Nien, with the motivation by using glue, which again, is well known, the overall friction can be enhanced to provide a good sense of operation, ( Nien, [0037] ).
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS P JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30 - 3:30 EST.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/DENNIS P JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights