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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 23-24 remain withdrawn.
Newly submitted claims 25-26 are directed to an invention that lacks unity with the invention originally elected for the following reasons:
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
The Examiner notes that group II, claim(s) 15-22, drawn to a measurement unit, were cancelled via entry of the reply filed 1/8/2026.
Group I, claim(s) 1 and 3-14, drawn to a measurement unit.
Group III, claim 23, drawn to a measurement unit.
Group IV, claim 24, drawn to a measurement unit.
Group V, claim 25, drawn to a measurement unit.
Group VI, claim 26, drawn to a measurement unit.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of various limitations of claims 1, 10 and/or 14, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of:
Sugihara et al. (US 20100089155 A1)
Imura et al. (JP 07260495 A, hereinafter Imura2) in view of Sugihara et al. (US 20100089155 A1)
Specifically, claim 1 is obvious in view of the modified Sugihara, and claims 1, 10 and 14 are obvious in view of Imura2 in view of Sugihara. See the rejections of claims 1, 10 and 14 below. Accordingly, groups I and III lack unity of invention.
Groups I and IV lack unity of invention for substantially the same reasons as groups I and III discussed above.
Groups I and V lack unity of invention for substantially the same reasons as groups I and III discussed above.
Groups I and VI lack unity of invention for substantially the same reasons as groups I and III discussed above.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 25-26 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites that the studs have a circular cross-section. However, claim 1 recites that each stud has a width of 6 mm and a length of 10 mm, which makes the cross-section non-circular. Accordingly, there is no support in the originally filed specification for the stud having the claimed dimensions and having a circular cross-section at the same time.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites that the studs have a circular cross-section. However, claim 1 recites that each stud has a width of 6 mm and a length of 10 mm, which makes the cross-section non-circular. Accordingly, it is unclear how studs have a circular cross-section and the claimed dimensions at the same time.
Claim 9 is so indefinite that no prior art rejection will be applied at this time.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 fails to include all the limitations of claim 1 because it recites that the studs have a circular cross-section, which negates the limitations in claim 1 that each stud has a width of 6 mm and a length of 10 mm.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugihara et al. (US 20100089155 A1, hereinafter Sugihara).
As to claim 1, Sugihara teaches a measurement unit, comprising a block 12 and a plate 23 of an inertial sensor 23-24, the block being provided with studs 18, 20 that project from a surface of the block and that each have a terminal surface (side surface of bushing 20) against which a bearing surface (side surface of notch 23a) of the plate 23 is applied under a force substantially normal to said terminal surface and bearing surface, wherein the force is exerted by at least one clamping element 22 (¶27 teaches that the clamping element 22 deforms the bushing 20 as it is tightened, and the outward deformation provides the force), the block including the studs being of a material (aluminum ¶20) different from a material constituting the plate 23 (¶26 teaches that the plate/second element 23 is a circuit board, meaning it inherently comprises an insulator for preventing short circuits, the insulator being a different material than the aluminum of the block 12).
Sugihara does not explicitly teach wherein each stud has a height of 3 mm, a width of 6 mm and a length of 10 mm.
It has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, there is no persuasive evidence of record to show that the claimed dimensions would cause the claimed device to perform differently than the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Sugihara such that each stud has a height of 3 mm, a width of 6 mm and a length of 10 mm, since such modifications would have been a mere change of dimensions/proportions of the apparatus of Sugihara for the predictable result that the studs still successfully provide support.
As to claim 3, Sugihara teaches a plurality of inertial sensors 16, 24 mounted on the block.
As to claim 4, Sugihara teaches wherein the inertial sensors comprise at least one linear sensor 16 and at least one angular sensor 24.
As to claim 5, Sugihara teaches wherein the angular sensor 24 comprises a vibrating resonator (¶30-31).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-8, 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imura et al. (JP 07260495 A, hereinafter Imura2) in view of Sugihara et al. (US 20100089155 A1, hereinafter Sugihara).
As to claim 1, Imura2 teaches a measurement unit, comprising a block 1 (figs. 1a-b) and a plate 3 (¶22 teaches that there is a circuit, a resistor, an amplifier, and the like on the plate; it will be interpreted that these elements are parts of the plate) of an inertial sensor 3-4 (¶22), the block being provided with studs 7a-b (¶22) that project from a surface of the block and that each have a terminal surface (upper surface in fig. 1b) against which a bearing surface (lower surface in fig. 1b) of the plate is applied under a force (from screws 6a-b) substantially normal to said terminal surface and bearing surface, wherein the force is exerted by at least one clamping element 6a-b.
Imura2 does not explicitly teach the block including the studs being of a material different from a material constituting the plate (Imura2 is silent as to the material of the block),
wherein each stud has a height of 3 mm, a width of 6 mm and a length of 10 mm.
Sugihara teaches a block formed of aluminum (¶20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Imura2 such that the block is made of aluminum as taught by Sugihara for the predictable result that metal has good strength and would strongly support and protect the apparatus components.
It has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, there is no persuasive evidence of record to show that the claimed dimensions would cause the claimed device to perform differently than the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Imura2 as modified such that each stud has a height of 3 mm, a width of 6 mm and a length of 10 mm, since such modifications would have been a mere change of dimensions/proportions of the apparatus of Imura2 as modified for the predictable result that the studs still successfully provide support.
Imura2 as modified teaches wherein the block and the studs being of a single material (aluminum of Sugihara; note that at least fig. 1b of Imura2 teaches wherein the block and studs are the same material and integrally formed; accordingly, in view of Sugihara’s teachings, the studs and body are formed of aluminum) different from a material of the plate 3 (Imura teaches in at least ¶22 that sensitive element 4 is mounted and fixed by soldering, meaning the plate 3 inherently comprises insulation so as to avoid short circuits).
As to claim 3, Imura2 teaches a plurality of inertial sensors 4a-4b mounted on the block.
As to claim 7, Imura2 teaches wherein the studs 7a-b are parts of the block 1 (fig. 1b).
As to claim 8, Imura2 as modified teaches wherein the studs have a cross-section that is oblong (due to the dimensions established in claim 1) and curved in shape (fig. 1a of Imura2).
As to claim 10, Imura2 teaches a measurement unit, comprising:
a block 1 (figs. 1a-b) provided with projecting studs 7a-b (¶22); and
an inertial sensor 3-4 (¶22) comprising a plate 3 having a surface applied against a terminal surface of the studs under a force (from screws 6a-b) substantially normal to said surfaces (see fig. 1b and ¶22), wherein the force is exerted by screws 6a-b received with clearance in holes of the plate to be engaged in the studs to exert on the plate said force substantially normal to said surfaces (see figs. 1a-b).
Imura2 does not explicitly teach wherein the body and the studs being of a single material different from a material of the plate,
wherein each stud has a height of 3 mm, a width of 6 mm and a length of 10 mm.
Sugihara teaches a block formed of aluminum (¶20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Imura2 such that the block is made of aluminum as taught by Sugihara for the predictable result that metal has good rigidity and would strongly support and protect the apparatus components.
It has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, there is no persuasive evidence of record to show that the claimed dimensions would cause the claimed device to perform differently than the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Imura2 as modified such that each stud has a height of 3 mm, a width of 6 mm and a length of 10 mm, since such modifications would have been a mere change of dimensions/proportions of the apparatus of Imura2 as modified for the predictable result that the studs still successfully provide support.
Imura2 as modified teaches wherein the body and the studs being of a single material (aluminum of Sugihara; note that at least fig. 1b of Imura2 teaches wherein the block and studs are the same material and integrally formed; accordingly, in view of Sugihara’s teachings, the studs and body are formed of aluminum) different from a material of the plate 3 (Imura teaches in at least ¶22 that sensitive element 4 is mounted and fixed by soldering, meaning the plate 3 inherently comprises insulation so as to avoid short circuits).
As to claim 11, Imura2 as modified teaches wherein the body and the studs are in metal (from Sugihara).
As to claims 12-13, Imura2 as modified teaches wherein the plate is in metal (Imura2 teaches in at least ¶22 that sensitive element 4 is mounted and fixed by soldering, meaning the plate 3 is at least partially in metal).
As to claim 14, Imura2 teaches a measurement unit, comprising:
a block 1 (figs. 1a-b) provided with projecting studs 7a-b (¶22); and
an inertial sensor 3-4 (¶22) comprising a plate 3 having a surface applied against a terminal surface of the studs under a force (from screws 6a-b) substantially normal to said surfaces (see fig. 1b and ¶22), wherein the force is exerted by screws 6a-b received with clearance in holes of the plate to be engaged in the studs to exert on the plate said force substantially normal to said surfaces (see figs. 1a-b).
Imura2 does not teach wherein the body and the studs being of a single material different from a material of the plate (i.e. Imura is silent as to the material of the camera body 1 having the studs),
wherein each stud has a height of 3 mm, a width of 6 mm and a length of 10 mm.
Sugihara teaches a block formed of aluminum (¶20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Imura2 such that the block is made of aluminum as taught by Sugihara for the predictable result that metal has good rigidity and would strongly support and protect the apparatus components.
It has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, there is no persuasive evidence of record to show that the claimed dimensions would cause the claimed device to perform differently than the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Imura2 as modified such that each stud has a height of 3 mm, a width of 6 mm and a length of 10 mm, since such modifications would have been a mere change of dimensions/proportions of the apparatus of Imura2 as modified for the predictable result that the studs still successfully provide support.
Imura2 as modified teaches wherein the body and the studs being of a single material (aluminum of Sugihara; note that at least fig. 1b of Imura2 teaches wherein the block and studs are the same material and integrally formed; accordingly, in view of Sugihara’s teachings, the studs and body are formed of aluminum) different from a material of the plate 3 (Imura2 teaches in at least ¶22 that sensitive element 4 is mounted and fixed by soldering, meaning the plate 3 inherently comprises insulation so as to avoid short circuits).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imura2 in view of Sugihara as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Takasaki (JP 2005265448 A).
As to claim 4, Imura2 teaches wherein the inertial sensors comprise at least one angular sensor 4a.
Imura2 as modified does not teach wherein the inertial sensors comprise at least one linear sensor.
Takasaki teaches a film camera (fig. 1; in the translation, see pg. 6 lines 7-10) comprising a lens having a linear sensor (being at least one accelerometer as taught in pg. 6 lines 7-10 of the translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Imura2 as modified to have a lens comprising at least one linear sensor as taught by Takasaki so as to beneficially provide improved lens focus (abstract of Takasaki).
Imura2 as modified teaches wherein the inertial sensors comprise at least one linear sensor (accelerometer of Takasaki).
As to claim 6, Imura2 as modified teaches wherein the linear sensor (accelerometer of Takasaki; figs.1, 3 and 4 of Takasaki, as well as the translation on line 32 of pg. 4 to line 2 of pg. 5, teach that the camera of fig. 1 comprises three of the accelerometer in fig. 3 in order to detect acceleration along three axes, wherein each of the accelerometers is made of single crystal silicon and piezoresistors) and the angular sensor (which inherently has one material different from at least one of the single crystal silicon and piezoresistors of Takasaki’s linear sensor) are made up of different materials and the block is a part made of a single material (aluminum of Sugihara).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 112 and 102/anticipation rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) for rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the stud dimensions in Sugihara, Imura and Imura2 (pg. 11) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) for rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Maeda, whether alone or in combination with another reference, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) for rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 11 that
“- In Sugihara, the support rods (18) are rigid posts, and the rubber bushings (20) are separate, removable elastomeric rings.
- A removable, multi-piece assembly consisting of a metal rod and a rubber ring does not constitute a "projecting stud" provided on a block.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive since Applicant failed to articulate why the metal projection and rubber bushing together cannot be considered a projecting stud on a block. Sugihara’s projections and bushings together can be considered studs as studs on a block, as broadly recited. Furthermore, Sugihara does not teach that the projections, per se, are removable.
Applicant’s argument (pg. 12) that Sugihara does not teach claim 7, is irrelevant since claim 7 was not rejected with Sugihara.
Applicant argues on pg. 12 that
“2. Sugihara Fails to Disclose a Clamping Force "Substantially Normal to Said Surfaces"
Claim 1 requires that "a bearing surface of the plate is applied under a force substantially normal to said surfaces, wherein the force is exerted by at least one clamping element."
In Sugihara, the clamping mechanism operates on an entirely different mechanical principle:
- As described in paragraph [0027] of Sugihara, and acknowledged by the Examiner (Office Action, page 10), the tightening of the screw (22) deforms the rubber bushing (20) such that its "outward deformation provides the force."
- This "outward deformation" is a *radial expansion force** directed laterally against the inner walls of the notches (23a) of the printed circuit board (23).
- There is no axial clamping force pressing the flat bearing surface of the board (23) *against* a terminal surface of a stud in a direction normal to their abutting interfaces. Instead, the board (23) is held in place by radial friction/interference fit within the notches (23a).”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 above states “that each have a terminal surface (side surface of bushing 20) against which a bearing surface (side surface of notch 23a) of the plate 23 is applied under a force substantially normal to said terminal surface and bearing surface, wherein the force is exerted by at least one clamping element 22 (¶27 teaches that the clamping element 22 deforms the bushing 20 as it is tightened, and the outward deformation provides the force).” Accordingly, the radial force acknowledged by Applicant is the claimed force.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., axial clamping force pressing the flat bearing surface of the board) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on pg. 12 that “The studs of Claim 1 must be "of dimensions and shape adapted to allow the studs to deform under an effect of a thermomechanical stress… so as to avoid any slip of said surfaces."
In Sugihara, the rubber bushings (20) are designed exclusively to suppress "external vibration caused, for example, by a motor servo" (Sugihara, paragraph [0027]). Sugihara is completely silent regarding any adaptation of the dimensions and shapes of the rods (18) or bushings (20) to deform under differential thermal expansion to prevent interfacial slip between clamped surfaces.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “The studs of Claim 1 must be "of dimensions and shape adapted to allow the studs to deform under an effect of a thermomechanical stress… so as to avoid any slip of said surfaces."”) are not recited in claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to claim 8, Applicant argues on pg. 14 that
“The concentric, oblong, and curved shape of the studs (where the curvature is centered on the geometrical center of the face, as recited in Claim 8 and newly presented Claim 24) is a highly engineered solution designed to align the studs' direction of maximum flexibility with the radial path of differential thermal expansion. This specific geometry drastically reduces the shear stresses transmitted to the sensor plate while maintaining structural rigidity in other axes. Because neither Imura nor Maeda addresses radial thermal expansion or proposes any structured orientation of projecting studs to resolve such stresses, this configuration cannot be considered a mere "matter of choice."”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the curvature is centered on the geometrical center of the face) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, the originally filed specification does not have support for “a highly engineered solution designed to align the studs' direction of maximum flexibility with the radial path of differential thermal expansion. This specific geometry drastically reduces the shear stresses transmitted to the sensor plate while maintaining structural rigidity in other axes.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights