DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Amended claims 1 and 11 now recite “wherein the electromechanical transducer device is configured to detect rectilinear motions in response to the material measurement device being in contact with and moving along a surface of the preform material”. This limitation is newly presented.
Newly discovered prior art, Sartain US 7127951, will be used on combination with the previously cited prior art.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartain US 7127951 in view of Saeedkia US 20190041200.
As to claim 1, Sartain teaches “A system for measuring (Abstract) a thickness of a material (Column 1, lines 6-14 teaches the importance of softness of tissues which is related to the thickness. Therefore if the softness is measured by the system, the thickness is a factor, which is also measured), the system comprising: a material detection device (Figure 2, 16; Column 7, lines 53-58), wherein the material detection device is at least one of a sensor or a switch (Figure 2, 16, Column 7, lines 53-55); a material measurement device (Figure 2, 22; Column 6, line 60 to Column 7 line 2); an electromechanical transducer device (Figure 2, 26 is a load cell, such as a strain gauge), wherein a distal end of the electromechanical transducer device is movably affixed to the material measurement device (Figure 2, 26 is connected to one end of 22) and wherein the electromechanical transducer device is configured to detect rectilinear motions in response (Figure 2, 26 is a strain gauge which is a type of rectilinear sensor since it measures strain/stress along a single axis) to the material measurement device being in contact with and moving along a surface of the material (Figure 2, 22 is the roller element that is contact with the moving surface of 12); and a controller (Column 2, line 66 to Column 3 line 3), wherein the controller is configured to: receive, from the material detection device, a signal indicating a presence of the material; responsive to receiving the signal, receive, from the electromechanical transducer device (Figure 1, 54 shows the controller being connected to sensors 16, 22 and 26, therefore it receives information from these sensors), a first set of measurements along at least a portion of a length of the material (Figure 2, 22 is a roller element that interacts with the material causing the force on 26 as the first measurement of a firmness); convert the first set of measurements into a second set of measurements; and record the second set of measurements (Column 10, line 64 to Column 11 line 14. Although this measurement system measures the firmness of the material, it has been established that the thickness has a role in the firmness, therefore the thickness is indirectly measured).” Sartain does not explicitly teach that the material under test is a preform material.
Saeedkia teaches “a preform material ([0003]; [0004]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Sartain with Kurita. It is known and obvious to implement a known testing method on different materials with expected results. The method and apparatus to measure thickness as seen in Sartain and Saeedkia is well known and can be used to test a variety of materials including preform materials.
As to claims 4 and 14, Sartain teaches “wherein measurements in the first set of measurements are at least one of electrical current signals or electrical voltage signals (Figure 2, 26 is a load cell which is a current or voltage signal).”
As to claims 6 and 16, Sartain teaches “wherein the electromechanical transducer device is a linear variable differential transducer (Abstract teaches that displacement is measured and a LVDT measures linear displacement. Based on this teaching, Sartain does teach a LVDT).”
As to claim 7, Sartain teaches “a roller coupled to a distal end of the material measurement device, wherein the electromechanical transducer device is coupled to the roller and wherein the roller is configured to roll along a top layer of the preform material. (Figure 2, 22).”
As to claim 8, Sartain teaches “wherein the material measurement device controls contact of the roller with the material (Figure 2, 22).”
As to claims 9 and 19, Sartain teaches “wherein measurements in the second set of measurements are thickness measurements (Column 10, line 64 to Column 11 line 14. Although this measurement system measures the firmness of the material, it has been established that the thickness has a role in the firmness, therefore the thickness is indirectly measured).”
As to claim 11, Sartain teaches “A method measuring a thickness of a material (Abstract; Column 1, lines 6-14 teaches the importance of softness of tissues which is related to the thickness. Therefore if the softness is measured by the system, the thickness is a factor, which is also measured), comprising :receiving, by a controller (Column 2, line 66 to Column 3 line 3) from a material detection device (Figure 2, 16; Column 7, lines 53-58), a signal indicating a presence of the material, wherein the material detection device is at least one of a sensor or a switch (Figure 1, 54 shows the controller being connected to sensors 16, 22 and 26, therefore it receives information from these sensors); responsive to receiving the signal, receiving, by the controller from an electromechanical transducer device (Figure 2, 26 is a load cell, such as a strain gauge), a first set of measurements along at least a portion of a length of the material (Figure 2, 22 is a roller element that interacts with the material causing the force on 26 as the first measurement of a firmness), wherein a distal end of the electromechanical transducer device is movably affixed to a material measurement device (Figure 2, 26 is connected to one end of 22) and wherein the electromechanical transducer device is configured to detect rectilinear motions in response to the material measurement device being in contact with and material (Figure 2, 26 is a strain gauge which is a type of rectilinear sensor since it measures strain/stress along a single axis); converting, by the controller, the first set of measurements into a second set of measurements; and recording, by the controller, the second set of measurements (Column 10, line 64 to Column 11 line 14. Although this measurement system measures the firmness of the material, it has been established that the thickness has a role in the firmness, therefore the thickness is indirectly measured).” Sartain does not explicitly teach that the material under test is a preform material.
Saeedkia teaches “a preform material ([0003]; [0004]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Sartain with Kurita. It is known and obvious to implement a known testing method on different materials with expected results. The method and apparatus to measure thickness as seen in Sartain and Saeedkia is well known and can be used to test a variety of materials including preform materials.
As to claim 17, Sartain teaches “wherein the electromechanical transducer device is coupled to a roller that is configured to roll along a top layer of the preform material (Figure 2, 26 is the electromechanical device coupled to the roller 22).”
As to claim 18, Sartain teaches “wherein a material measurement device controls contact of the roller with the preform material (Figure, 22).”
Claim(s) 3, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartain US 7127951 in view of Saeedkia US 20190041200 and in further view of Mosca US 20230124802.
As to claim 3, the prior arts do not teach a separate embodiment in which the sensor is a camera.
Mosca teaches “wherein the material detection device is a full spectrum sensor that is configured to detect a color associated with the preform material ([0060]; [0067]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Mosca with Saeedkia and Sartain. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to use alternative sensing means. This design choice would be based on the type of preform testing, location of preform testing and budget for preform testing. Choosing one type of sensor over another involves routine skill in the art.
As to claim 13, the prior arts do not teach a separate embodiment in which the sensor is a camera.
Mosca teaches “wherein the sensor is a full spectrum sensor that is programmed to detect a color associated with the preform material ([0060]; [0067]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Mosca with Saeedkia and Kurita. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to use alternative sensing means. This design choice would be based on the type of preform testing, location of preform testing and budget for preform testing. Choosing one type of sensor over another involves routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartain US 7127951 in view of Saeedkia US 20190041200 and in further view of Ihara US 4160387.
As to claims 10 and 20, the prior arts teach the concept of a first measurement, second measurement and the measurement of a preform material. The prior arts do not teach the exact location within a conveyance system as to when the measurement occurs.
Ihara teaches “wherein the second set of measurements is recorded in real-time as the preform material moves in either a first direction or a second direction, wherein the first direction is the preform material advancing into a loom of a preform forming machine, and wherein the second direction is the preform material retracting out of the loom of the preform forming machine (Figure 1 shows a conveyance system in which the subject under test, 3, is moved in a direction from 20 towards 40 and measurement rollers 2 scan the subject under test for any defects).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Ihara with Saeedkia and Sartain. The concept of moving a subject under test relative to a stationary sensor is known in the art. This allows for the sensor to be in a singular position as a conveyance system rolls subjects for testing into and then away from the stationary sensors. This is used in manufacturing lines to ensure that all products are tested.
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 TARUN SINHA whose telephone number is (571)270-3993. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM 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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571)270-0349. 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.
/TARUN SINHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863
Prosecution Insights