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 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) 1-11 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarty, II et al. (US 2020/016643 A1) in view of Curtis (US 5,224,386), and further, in view of Kohn et al. (US 5,619,135).
Regarding claim 1, McCarty discloses a testing machine (10; fig. 1) for testing at least one material sample (film sample) comprising: a loading station (110; fig. 18) for receiving the at least one material sample (delivery system 110 includes trays to deliver samples; ¶ [0063]); a testing station (22) to test a testing property of the at least one material sample (tensile testing apparatus 22 tests properties of the samples; ¶ [0078]); a pick-and-place (PP) apparatus (12) to transfer the at least one material sample between the loading station (110) and the testing station (robotic system 12 transfers a sample between delivery system 110 and tensile testing apparatus 22; ¶ [0063]); and a control system (26; fig. 1) to control the testing station (22) and the PP apparatus (12) and to collect data associated with the testing station (computer system 26 controls tensile testing apparatus 22 and robotic system 12 and collects data associated with tensile testing apparatus 22; ¶¶ [0030, 0084]).
Regarding claims 15-17, McCarty discloses a method of automated testing of at least one material sample comprising: receiving the at least one material sample (at loading station 110; fig. 18); determining testing parameters for the at least one material sample (computer system 26 and a user interface determines testing parameters; ¶ [0084]); and testing the at least one material sample with the determined testing parameters (¶ [0030]); a set of grips (80, 82).
Regarding claims 2-6, McCarty discloses further comprising at least one measurement station (20) for measuring the measurement property of the at least one material sample (material thickness measurement system 20 measures a thickness of a sample; ¶ [0046]); wherein the loading station (110) comprises: a loading tray or a magazine loading system (¶ [0063]); wherein the testing station comprises a pair of grips (80, 82); wherein the pair of grips (80, 82) comprises: a stationary grip (80); and a mobile grip (82; ¶ [0053]); wherein the mobile grip (82) moves with respect to the stationary grip (80) to test the at least one material sample (lower grip 82 moves with respect to upper grip 80 to test a sample; ¶ [0053]).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14, McCarty discloses wherein a strain and stress of the at least one material sample is tested (yield stress, yield strain, break stress, break strain; ¶ [0085]); wherein each of the pair of grips (80, 82) comprises an actuator for enabling the grip to grip the at least one material sample (pneumatic actuator enables grips 80 and 82 to close; ¶ [0075]); wherein the pair of grips (80, 82) further comprises a set of sensors (load cell 84 senses force and some displacement means measures a displacement data for each sample; ¶ [0078]); wherein the set of sensors sense slip (line grips 90 and 92 must have some force sensing means to ensure the proper force is applied to the sample to prevent slipping or breaking; ¶ [0057]).
Regarding claims 18-20, McCarty discloses further discloses testing the at least one material sample comprises: performing a tensile test on the at least one material sample (tensile testing apparatus 22 performs a tensile test on a sample; ¶ [0053]); measuring a stress force (yield stress, break stress; ¶ [0085]) applied to the at least one material sample; measuring a strain force (yield strain, break strain; ¶ [0085]) applied to the at least one material sample.
Although McCarty discloses controlling test parameters (computer system 26 controls test parameters; ¶ [0084]), McCarty is silent on the testing parameters being associated with grip characteristics of the set of grips.
Curtis teaches controlling testing parameters associated with grip characteristics of a set of grips (a computerized servomechanism controls grip characteristics of grip bars 48 and 50 by actuating pumps 100 using sensor data as input; c. 9, ll. 22-31); wherein the grip characteristics comprise grip strength or grip force (grip force is controlled actuation of adjusting shafts by actuating pumps 100; c. 9, ll. 22-31); determining at least one measurement property of at least one material sample (sensors monitor a specimen for deformation, creep, or slippage; c. 9, ll. 22-28); and processing the at least one measurement property (deformation, creep, slippage) to determine the testing parameters (sensor signals are input to a computerized servomechanism which outputs control signals for actuating pumps 100 to control grip bars 48 and 50; c. 9, ll. 22-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of McCarty to control grip characteristics as taught by Curtis to provide an effective testing of a wide range of materials without creep, slipping, or damage to the test specimen (Curtis, c. 9, ll. 4-10).
McCarty is further silent on using artificial intelligence.
However, the use of artificial intelligence algorithms and machines are well known in the art of measuring and testing devices. Kohn et al. teaches an automated artificial intelligence (AI) driven testing machine (processing unit 36 may use artificial intelligence to adjust or control parameters of universal testing machine 38 via a feedback control loop; fig. 2 and c. 9, l. 50 - c. 10, l. 3) and wherein a sample (22) is gripped by a tensile testing apparatus (38) to apply stress to the sample (c. 8, ll. 48-51). Kohn et al. further teaches the hardness of a sample is provided to a feedback control loop to adjust various control parameters (c. 9, ll. 57-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of McCarty in view of Curtis to be controlled by artificial intelligence as taught by Kohn et al. to optimize testing control in universal testing machine (Kohn et al., c. 9, l. 66 c. 10, l. 3). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the AI feedback control loop of Kohn et al. would improve control of grip characteristics as disclosed in McCarty in view of Curtis et al., resulting in more effective testing of a wide range of materials without creep, slipping, or damage to the test specimen (Curtis, c. 9, ll. 4-10). As AI is a means of self-learning, when modifying the apparatus of McCarty in view of Curtis with that of Kohn et al., one of ordinary skill would have known that the grips of McCarty in view of Curtis would be self-learning.
Regarding claim 9, McCarty in view of Curtis, and further, in view of Kohn et al. disclose the invention as set forth above.
McCarty in view of Curtis, and further, in view of Kohn et al. are silent on the grip actuator being a stepper motor.
However, stepper motors are well known actuating means in the art of measuring and testing devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of McCarty in view of Curtis, and further, in view of Kohn et al. with a stepper motor as it is a simple substitution of a known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the process of Kohn et al. “relates to the production of metal” and that “[t]here is no suggestion or indication in Kohn that artificial intelligence is used to assist in the testing of a sample” (Response, p. 6). However, Kohn et al. discloses that signal processing unit 36 provides real-time indication of determined sample hardness to a feedback control loop “by means of which various parameters may be adjusted or controlled as a function of the hardness of sample 22, or other mechanical or magnetic properties” (c. 9, ll. 57-61). Kohn et al. further discloses signal processing unit 36 may use artificial intelligence “to make the optimum use of the mechanical or magnetic properties determined in accordance with the apparatus and method” (c. 9, l. 66 – c. 10, l. 3). Therefore, signal processing unit 36 may use artificial intelligence to provide information to the feedback control loop, which adjusts and controls universal testing machine 28 (fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of McCarty in view of Curtis to be controlled by artificial intelligence as taught by Kohn et al. to optimize testing control in universal testing machine (Kohn et al., c. 9, l. 66 c. 10, l. 3). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the AI feedback of Kohn et al. would improve control of grip characteristics as disclosed in McCarty in view of Curtis et al., resulting in more effective testing of a wide range of materials without creep, slipping, or damage to the test specimen (Curtis, c. 9, ll. 4-10).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erika J. Villaluna whose telephone number is (571)272-8348. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached on (571) 272-3555. 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.
/ERIKA J. VILLALUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852