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Claims 13 and 20 remain withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 5-12, 14-19 and 21-22 are 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 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the test apparatus performs an impact resistance test on the test object by setting an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the folding evaluation area to be different from an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the first and second non-folding evaluation areas.”
There is no support in the originally filed specification for the test apparatus, per se, setting an impact resistance evaluation standard, let alone setting an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the folding evaluation area to be different from an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the first and second non-folding evaluation areas.
Accordingly claim 1 contains new matter.
Claim 15 has been amended similarly to claim 1 and contains new matter for substantially the same reason.
Claims 5-12, 14, 16-19 and 21-22 contain new matter for depending from one of claims 1 and 15.
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 1, 5-12, 14-19 and 21-22 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 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the test apparatus performs an impact resistance test on the test object by setting an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the folding evaluation area to be different from an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the first and second non-folding evaluation areas.”
Www.dictionary.com defines “standard” as “something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model” or “a rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment.” Accordingly, a standard is a concept or social construct. The test apparatus, per se, does not have structure for creating/setting a concept or social construct which can be used as the claimed standard. Instead, the disclosed test apparatus is merely an apparatus that drops an object onto something to be tested. Accordingly, it is unclear how the structure of the test apparatus, per se, sets an impact resistance evaluation standard, let alone sets an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the folding evaluation area to be different from an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the first and second non-folding evaluation areas.
For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted that the test apparatus performs an impact resistance test on the test object, wherein the test object is evaluated based on an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the folding evaluation area to be different from an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the first and second non-folding evaluation areas.
Claim 15 has been amended similarly to claim 1 and is indefinite for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted that the test apparatus performs an impact resistance test on the test object, wherein the test object is evaluated based on an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the folding evaluation area that is different from an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the first and second non-folding evaluation areas.
Claims 5-12, 14, 16-19 and 21-22 are indefinite for depending from one of claims 1 and 15.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (JP 5486412 B2, hereinafter Ko) in view of Stamy (US 3266289 A), Xiao et al. (CN 108414372 A, hereinafter Xiao), Han et al. (CN 209356334 U, hereinafter Han) and Ambur et al. (US 5457984 A, hereinafter Ambur).
As to claim 1, Ko teaches a test apparatus (fig. 1) comprising:
a stage 2, 3, 3 on which a test object including a first non-folding evaluation area, a second non-folding evaluation area, and a folding evaluation area disposed between the first non-folding evaluation area and the second non-folding evaluation area (the test object is not positively recited as a part of the claimed apparatus; accordingly, the prior art apparatus is capable of being used with the claimed test object) is disposed (the test object is capable of being disposed on the stage of Ko);
a first support part (a left portion of frame 6 in fig. 1) extending in a first direction (normal to the plane of fig. 1);
a second support part (a right portion of frame 6 in fig. 1) extending in the first direction and spaced apart from the first support part in a second direction (horizontal in fig. 1) crossing the first direction with the stage interposed therebetween;
a falling body providing part 9-11 configured to provide a falling body 8 to the test object,
wherein the falling body providing part comprises:
an insertion module 9 into which the falling body is inserted and defining a penetration hole through which the falling body passes (this is because element 9 is a guide tube – see the first paragraph of pg. 5 of the translation),
wherein the test apparatus performs an impact resistance test on the test object by setting an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the folding evaluation area to be different from an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the first and second non-folding evaluation areas (the test apparatus is capable of being used to perform an impact resistance test on the test object wherein the test is used to evaluate the test object with respect to an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the folding evaluation area that is different from an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the first and second non-folding evaluation areas - see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim).
Ko does not teach a first height guide part movably coupled with the first support part and extending in a third direction crossing the first direction and the second direction;
a second height guide part movably coupled with the second support part and extending in the third direction;
a horizontal guide part movably coupled with the first height guide part and the second height guide part;
wherein the falling body providing part 9-11 is movably coupled with the horizontal guide part and is configured to be moved in the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction to provide the falling body to the test object,
wherein the falling body providing part comprises:
an opening and closing module disposed under the insertion module and configured to operate in a closing state to fix the falling body and operate in an opening state to drop the falling body, and
a support module disposed between the insertion module along the third direction and the opening and closing module and supporting the insertion module thereon, the support module defining a through-hole aligned with the penetration hole along the third direction,
wherein the insertion module is cylindrical, and
wherein the support module is directly disposed on a movable portion of the opening and closing module that opens and closes.
Stamy teaches a guide tube 2 that is cylindrical (figs. 1 and 3).
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 Ko such that the guide tube is cylindrical, as taught by Stamy, since such a modification would be a mere change in the shape of the guide tube, for the predictable result that drop tests are still successfully carried out.
Xiao teaches a test apparatus comprising:
[AltContent: textbox (20X)][AltContent: textbox (3X)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 1)]
PNG
media_image1.png
513
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a frame having:
a first support part (one of elements 3X, 20X in fig. 1 above) extending in a first direction;
a second support part (the other one of elements 3X, 20X in fig. 1 above) extending in the first direction and spaced apart from the first support part in a second direction crossing the first direction;
a first height guide part (one of elements 9, 14) movably coupled with the first support part (¶56) and extending in a third direction crossing the first direction and the second direction;
a second height guide part (the other one of elements 9, 14) movably coupled with the second support part (¶56) and extending in the third direction; and
a horizontal guide part 21 movably coupled with the first height guide part (¶56) and the second height guide part; and
wherein the test apparatus further comprises
a falling body providing part 5 (¶62; fig. 2) movably coupled with the horizontal guide part and configured to be moved in the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction to provide a falling body to the test object (¶52), and
a control part (comprising a “control system” - ¶52) which controls a position of the falling body providing part (¶52).
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 Ko to use a frame with first and second support parts, first and second height guide parts, a horizontal guide wherein the falling body providing part is movably coupled with the horizontal guide part and configured to be moved in the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction to provide a falling body to the test object, wherein the apparatus further comprises a control part that controls a position of the falling body providing part as taught by Xiao for the benefit of improving impact source release accuracy and reducing the limitations of manual operation (¶11, Xiao), and/or for the benefit of being able to accurately test non-uniform belt structures (as a result of Xiao’s ability to change the impact location).
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 1)][AltContent: textbox (401X)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
698
722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to the opening and closing module,
Han teaches an impact resistance test device (title and figs. 1-3) comprising:
a falling body providing part (comprising at least elements 402, and 405-407, wherein two of elements 407 are driven apart from the positions shown in fig. 3 in order to release an impact weight 408 - ¶29) comprising:
an insertion module 402, and
an opening and closing structure (comprising at least elements 405-407 and a support element 401X, in fig. 3 above, which the insertion module 402 and cylinders 405 directly contact – see ¶27, which teaches that the insertion module 402 and cylinders 405 are supported on a lifting frame 401) configured to operate in a closing state to fix the falling body 408 and operate in an opening state to drop the falling body 408 (¶29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ko as modified to use an opening and closing structure as taught by Han since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one drop weight releasing method (e.g. using at least Ko’s elements 10-11) for another for the predictable result that impact tests are still successfully carried out.
As to the support module,
Ko as modified still does not teach that the guide tube 9 is formed of two distinct parts such that the upper part is the insertion module separable from a lower part that is the support module defined between the insertion module and the opening and closing structure (i.e. there is no teaching that the guide tube is made of two distinct parts in such a manner).
However, such a difference between the claimed invention and prior art would have been obvious as explained next. It has been held that making something separable is obvious if there is a motivation for separating that structure. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”). See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C). Accordingly, making the guide tube of Ko separable into an upper portion and a lower portion, that is defined between the upper portion and the opening and closing structure, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 the modified Ko such that the guide tube of Ko is separable into an upper and lower portion, that is defined between the upper portion and the opening and closing structure, for the benefit of clearing a malfunction (e.g. if the drop weight or other object is stuck in the guide tube), and/or for the benefit of accessibility for cleaning or other maintenance of the guide tube, and/or for more easily replacing the insertion module if it becomes damaged.
As to the limitation of “wherein the support module is directly disposed on a movable portion of the opening and closing module that opens and closes,”
[AltContent: textbox (F1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 5)]
PNG
media_image3.png
308
348
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
572
361
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (F2)]
Ambur teaches a drop-weight impact test apparatus comprising a guide tube 16 and an opening and closing structure comprising opening and closing members 32, 32, and structures (at least flanges F1-F2, pins 31 and springs 37 – see figs. 5-6 above) for supporting and moving the opening and closing members 32, 32, wherein the structures for supporting and moving the opening and closing members are in contact with the guide tube 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ko as modified such that the structures (corresponding to Han’s cylinders 405) for supporting and moving the opening and closing members are in contact with the guide tube since such a modification would be a rearrangement of parts for the predictable result that drop tests are still successfully carried out (additionally or alternatively, the mounting stability of Han’s cylinders 405 is increased, and/or the support module is more securely supported).
Ko as modified teaches
a first support part (one of elements 3X, 20X in fig. 1 of Xiao above) extending in a first direction;
a second support part (the other one of elements 3X, 20X in fig. 1 of Xiao above) extending in the first direction and spaced apart from the first support part in a second direction crossing the first direction with the stage (of Ko) interposed therebetween;
wherein the falling body providing part comprises
an insertion module (upper portion of Ko’s guide tube 9) into which the falling body is inserted and defining a penetration hole through which the falling body passes (this is because element 9 is a guide tube – see the first paragraph of pg. 5 of the translation of Ko),
an opening and closing module (in view of Han) disposed under the insertion module (due to being on the support module that is below the insertion module), and
a support module (lower portion of Ko’s guide tube) disposed between the insertion module along the third direction (vertical in fig. 1) and the opening and closing module (of Han) and supporting the insertion module thereon, the support module defining a through-hole aligned with the penetration hole along the third direction (this is because element 9 of Ko is a guide tube, as discussed above),
wherein the insertion module is cylindrical (in view of Stamy), and
wherein the support module is directly disposed (in light of Ambur’s teachings) on a movable portion 405-407 (Han) of the opening and closing module that opens and closes (¶29 of Han).
If Applicant argues that the opening and closing module of Ko as modified is not a module by arguing that Han’s element 401X is not separable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make Han’s element 401X separable, as explained next. It has been held that making something separable is obvious if there is a motivation for separating that structure. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”). See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C). Accordingly, making Han’s element 401X separable would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 the modified Ko such that the element 401X from Han is separable, for the benefit of improved accessibility for cleaning or other maintenance of the test apparatus, and/or for more easily replacing the element 401X of Han if it becomes damaged.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Stamy, Xiao, Han and Ambur as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Li (CN 110044734 A).
As to claim 5, Ko as modified teaches wherein the insertion module comprises a sidewall (of the guide tube 9 of Ko).
Ko as modified does not teach wherein the sidewall of the insertion module has an opening defined therethrough continuously from a first end along the third direction to a second end along the third direction.
Li teaches a falling ball test device (title) comprising
an insertion module 4 comprising ventilation holes 10 for reducing air resistance when a falling body falls through the insertion module (pg. 8 lines 9-12 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 Ko as modified such that the guide tube (element 9 of Ko) has ventilation holes as taught by Li to make it easier for the falling body to fall through the guide tube (pg. 8 lines 9-12 of Li’s translation).
Ko as modified teaches wherein the sidewall of the insertion module has an opening 10 (Li) defined therethrough continuously from a first end (upper end of the hole) along the third direction to a second end (lower end of the hole) along the third direction.
If Applicant argues that Li’s holes do not have ends because they are round,
it has been held that a simple change in shape is an alteration that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art {the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)}. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). In this case, the purpose of Applicant’s opening is to check if a falling body is loaded into the insertion module, and Li’s ventilation holes are capable of being used to check for a loaded falling body. Accordingly, modifying the shape of Li’s holes to be longer in the vertical direction (so as to have “ends”) would have been an obvious change in shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ventilation holes of Ko as modified to be longer in the vertical direction so as to have ends, since such a modification would be a mere change in the shape of the ventilation holes for the predictable result that air resistance is still successfully reduced.
Ko as further modified teaches wherein the sidewall of the insertion module has an opening 10 (Li) defined therethrough continuously from a first end (upper end) along the third direction to a second end (lower end) along the third direction.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Stamy, Xiao, Han and Ambur as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20060026692 A, hereinafter Kim).
As to claim 6, Ko as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the insertion module comprises a transparent material.
Kim teaches a drop testing apparatus comprising an insertion module 30 that comprises a transparent material (lines 277-280 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 Ko as modified such that the insertion module comprises a transparent material as taught by Kim so as to easily observe the behavior of the falling body as it falls (e.g. if there is an obstruction in the insertion module).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Stamy, Xiao, Han and Ambur as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Pang et al. (CN 109507045 A, hereinafter Pang) and Zhang (CN 102829943 A).
As to claim 7, Ko teaches the limitations of the claim except for
a laser module configured to radiate a laser beam through the insertion module to mark a position to which the falling body is provided,
wherein the laser module is configured to rotate with respect to the insertion module from a first position in which the laser module is directly above the insertion module along the third direction to a second position in which the laser module does not overlap the insertion module along the third direction.
Pang teaches an impact test device (title; fig. 1) comprising
a falling body providing part (at least element 14) that releases a falling body 15, and
a laser locator 16 for shining a laser beam to indicate the landing point of the falling body (¶48).
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 Ko as modified to have a laser locator as taught by Pang so as to prevent time and/or money from being wasted when dropping the falling body on the wrong location on the test object.
Zhang teaches a falling ball test device (title, fig. 1) comprising
a falling body providing part 3 that releases a falling body (¶24); and
a laser module 4-7 (comprising a laser device in the form of a laser range finder 4 - ¶24; the range finder can be positioned to shine a laser at substantially the drop location of the falling body and then be rotated out of the way - ¶21-22 and ¶ 24) supported by a rod 2, wherein the position of the laser .
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 Ko as modified such that the laser device is provided as part of a laser module that allows the position of the laser device to be changed with respect to the falling body providing part as taught by Zhang so as to reduce inaccuracy caused by the lateral offset between Pang’s falling body providing part and laser device, and/or to reduce replacement costs since the laser module can be replaced without also replacing the falling body providing part (in contrast in Pang, the falling body providing part and laser module are integrally formed).
Ko as modified still does not teach wherein the laser module is configured to radiate the laser beam through the insertion module,
wherein the laser module is configured to rotate with respect to the insertion module from a first position in which the laser module is directly above the insertion module along the third direction.
However, such a difference between the prior art and claimed device would have been an obvious reversal of parts (Zhang teaches the laser module being below the falling body providing part, but the claim requires the laser module to be above the falling body providing part). Specifically, it has been held that reversal of parts is an obvious variation of known structure (In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A). Whether the laser marks the impact location of the falling body from above or below the insertion module, the impact location is still marked.
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 Ko as modified such that the laser module is positioned to shine the laser beam from above the falling body providing part (as opposed to positioning the laser module below the falling body providing part) since such a modification would be an obvious reversal of parts for the predictable result that impact tests are still successfully carried out.
Ko as modified teaches a laser module (comprising laser locator 16 of Pang) configured to radiate a laser beam through the insertion module (due to the laser module being modified to be above the falling body providing part) to mark a position to which the falling body is provided (¶48 of Pang),
wherein the laser module is configured to rotate with respect to the insertion module from a first position (where the position of the laser device is substantially aligned with the location from which the falling body will fall - ¶24 of Zhang) in which the laser module is directly above the insertion module along the third direction (per the reversal of parts, detailed above) to a second position in which the laser module does not overlap the insertion module along the third direction (¶24 of Zhang).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Stamy, Xiao, Han and Ambur as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Koning (US 20170176308 A1).
As to claim 8, Ko as modified teaches wherein the opening and closing module is opened and closed by a cylinder opening and closing method to drop the falling body (¶27 and ¶29 of Han).
Ko as modified does not teach wherein the opening and closing method is an air cylinder opening and closing method (in Han, ¶27 and ¶29 teach that the opening and closing method uses a cylinder method since cylinders 405 are controlled to move piston rods 406 and baffles 407; however, Han does not teach that the cylinders are air cylinders).
Koning teaches an impact test device comprising an insertion module 1, and an opening and closing module 2 (which includes stopper 5 – figs. 4-5),
wherein the opening and closing module is opened and closed by an air cylinder opening and closing method (¶28 teaches that actuator 4 includes a pneumatic cylinder to perform the opening and closing method as claimed).
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 Ko as modified such that the cylinder method is an air cylinder method as taught by Koning since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of operating an opening and closing cylinder for another for the predictable result that impact tests are still successfully carried out.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Stamy, Xiao, Han and Ambur as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Li (CN 112067423 A, hereinafter Li2) and Hashimoto et al. (JP H08122237 A, hereinafter Hashimoto).
As to claim 9, Ko as modified teaches wherein the opening and closing module is opened and closed by an opening and closing method (via cylinders 405 of Han) to drop the falling body.
Koning as modified does not teach that the opening and closing method is an electronic opening and closing method using a servo motor.
Li2 teaches an impact testing device (title) comprising at least one motor 74 that performs an opening and closing method for dropping an impactor (¶36 and ¶40).
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 Ko as modified such that the opening and closing method is performed with at least one motor as taught by Li2 since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing driving force to the opening and closing module for another for the predictable result that impact tests are still successfully carried out.
Koning as modified still does not teach that the opening and closing method is an electronic opening and closing method using a servo motor.
Hashimoto teaches a drop strength testing device comprising a servo motor 2 for providing a rotational motion (¶7, fig. 2 and fig. 5).
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 Ko as modified such that the at least one motor is a servo motor as taught by Hashimoto, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one motor for another for the predictable result that impact tests are still successfully carried out.
Ko as modified teaches that the motor is a servo motor (as taught by Hashimoto), such that the opening and closing module is opened and closed by an electronic opening and closing method using the servo motor.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Stamy, Xiao, Han and Ambur as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bresk et al. (US 3226974 A).
As to claim 10, Ko as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the second height guide part comprises a vertical coordinate part extending in the third direction.
Bresk teaches a testing device comprising a vertical coordinate part 42 (located on a vertical structural support 5) extending in the third direction (vertical; the device also comprises a zero point control part 43, positioned on a vertically movable support part 32, for helping to indicate a position on the vertical coordinate part 42).
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 Ko as modified to use a vertical coordinate part and zero point control part as taught by Bresk so as to help an observer take note of the height position of the horizontal guide part.
As to claim 11, Ko as modified teaches a zero point control part 43 (Bresk) coupled with the vertical coordinate part 42 (Bresk; all parts of the apparatus are coupled together), wherein the zero point control part controls a zero point of the vertical coordinate part based on a type of the falling body (e.g. the zero point control part is capable of being used to indicate a height position to which the horizontal guide part should be raised, based on the type of the falling body).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Stamy, Xiao, Han and Ambur as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lin et al. (CN 112432865 A, hereinafter Lin).
As to claim 12, Ko as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except another falling body providing part.
Lin teaches a drop testing device with plural falling body providing parts (comprising element 9 in fig. 1; ¶14).
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 Ko as modified such that the falling body providing part is provided in plural as taught by Lin so as to provide the option of a more intense impact test.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Stamy, Xiao, Han and Ambur as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tang (CN 107340114 A).
As to claim 14, Ko as modified teaches a control part (comprising at least part of a “control system” - ¶52 of Xiao) which controls a position of the falling body providing part (¶52 of Xiao).
Ko as modified does not teach a camera module which photographs the test object;
a determination part which determines whether a defect occurs in the test object; and
wherein the control part controls a position of the falling body providing part, controls an operation of the camera module, and an operation of the determination part.
Tang teaches a destructive testing device that drops a “product to be tested” (¶37), the device comprising a camera module 41 which photographs the test object (¶37);
a determination part which determines whether a defect occurs in the test object (¶9, ¶33 and ¶37 teach that the camera module inspects the tested device for damage from being dropped, and ¶18 and ¶39 teach the drop test is fully automated, without the need for manual operation; accordingly, the detection of a defect is performed automatically by a determination part as claimed); and
a control part (overall control structure) that controls an operation of the camera module, and an operation of the determination part (¶37 teaches that the camera is controlled to capture at least an image of the tested device and to detect whether the tested device is damaged; accordingly, the control part controls the camera and determination part).
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 Ko as modified to have a camera and determination part, wherein the control part controls the camera and determination part to automatically inspect the tested object for damage, as taught by Tang, so as to provide an efficient form of visual inspection (¶5 of Tang teaches that visual inspection by an operator is inefficient).
Claim(s) 15, 18 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (JP 5486412 B2, hereinafter Ko) in view of Stamy (US 3266289 A), Han et al. (CN 209356334 U, hereinafter Han), Ambur et al. (US 5457984 A, hereinafter Ambur), Pang et al. (CN 109507045 A, hereinafter Pang), Zhang (CN 102829943 A), and Xiao et al. (CN 108414372 A, hereinafter Xiao).
As to claim 15, Ko teaches a test apparatus comprising:
a position guide part 6 (frame 6 holds guide tube 9 in place, meaning the frame helps to guide and position the falling body 8); and
a falling body providing part 9-11 coupled with the position guide part,
wherein the falling body providing part comprises:
an insertion module 9 having a column shape, wherein a penetration hole into which a falling body is inserted is defined in the insertion module (this is because element 9 is a guide tube – see the first paragraph of pg. 5 of the translation),
wherein the test object includes a first non-folding evaluation area, a second non-folding evaluation area, and a folding evaluation area disposed between the first non-folding evaluation area and the second non-folding evaluation area,
wherein the test apparatus performs an impact resistance test on the test object by setting an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the folding
evaluation area is different from an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the first and second non-folding evaluation areas (the test apparatus is capable of being used to perform an impact resistance test on the test object wherein the test is used to evaluate the test object with respect to an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the folding evaluation area that is different from an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the first and second non-folding evaluation areas - see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim).
Ko does not teach
wherein the falling body providing part is configured to be moved in a first direction, a second direction, and a third direction,
wherein the insertion module has a cylindrical shape,
a support module which supports the insertion module thereon;
an opening and closing module disposed under the support module, wherein the opening and closing module controls is configured to operate in a closing state to fix the falling body and operate in an opening state to drop the falling body to a test object; and
a laser module comprising a support arm movably coupled to the opening and closing module and a laser radiation structure on the support arm disposed above the insertion module which radiates a laser beam through the insertion module to mark a position to which the falling body is provided, and
wherein the support module is directly disposed on a movable portion of the opening and closing module that opens and closes.
Stamy teaches a support structure for a guide tube 2, wherein the support structure comprises a guide support 5 and a support plate 6, wherein the support plate is below the guide tube 2 (see fig. 1 and lines 64-69 of col. 2, which teaches that the guide tube is in a countersunk portion of the support plate 6, meaning that at least part of plate 6 is under the guide tube; as a result of Stamy’s teachings, the opening and closing module will be below the support module as claimed, as discussed at the end of this rejection).
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 Ko such that the guide tube is secured between a guide support and a support plate, wherein the support plate is below the guide tube via a countersunk portion of the support plate, as taught by Stamy, so as to more securely hold the guide tube.
Stamy further teaches wherein the guide tube 2 is cylindrical (figs. 1 and 3).
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 Ko as modified such that the guide tube is cylindrical, as taught by Stamy, since such a modification would be a mere change in the shape of the guide tube, for the predictable result that drop tests are still successfully carried out.
As to the opening and closing module,
Han teaches an impact resistance test device (title and figs. 1-3) comprising:
a falling body providing part (comprising at least elements 402, and 405-407, wherein two of elements 407 are driven apart from the positions shown in fig. 3 in order to release an impact weight 408 - ¶29) comprising:
an insertion module 402, and
an opening and closing structure (comprising at least elements 405-407; note that elements 405-407 are on a support element 401X, in fig. 3 above, which the insertion module 402 and cylinders 405 directly contact – see ¶27, which teaches that the insertion module 402 and cylinders 405 are supported on a lifting frame 401; the Examiner notes that when the teachings of Han are applied to the modified Ko, at least Han’s elements 405-407 will be installed on the plate 6, from Stamy, which performs a similar function to Han’s element 401X) which is configured to operate in a closing state to fix the falling body 408 and operate in an opening state to drop the falling body 408 (¶29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ko as modified to use an opening and closing structure as taught by Han since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one drop weight releasing method (e.g. using at least Ko’s elements 10-11) for another for the predictable result that impact tests are still successfully carried out.
As to the support module,
Ko as modified still does not teach that the guide tube 9 is formed of two distinct parts such that the upper part is the insertion module separable from a lower part that is the support module defined between the insertion module and the opening and closing structure (i.e. there is no teaching that the guide tube is made of two distinct parts in such a manner).
However, such a difference between the claimed invention and prior art would have been obvious as explained next. It has been held that making something separable is obvious if there is a motivation for separating that structure. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”). See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C). Accordingly, making the guide tube of Ko separable into an upper portion and a lower portion, that is defined between the upper portion and the opening and closing structure, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 the modified Ko such that the guide tube of Ko is separable into an upper and lower portion, that is defined between the upper portion and the opening and closing structure, for the benefit of clearing a malfunction (e.g. if the drop weight or other object is stuck in the guide tube), and/or for the benefit of accessibility for cleaning or other maintenance of the guide tube, and/or for more easily replacing the insertion module if it becomes damaged.
As to the limitation of “wherein the support module is directly disposed on a movable portion of the opening and closing module that opens and closes,”
Ambur teaches a drop-weight impact test apparatus comprising a guide tube 16 and an opening and closing structure comprising opening and closing members 32, 32, and structures (at least flanges F1-F2, pins 31 and springs 37 – see figs. 5-6 above) for supporting and moving the opening and closing members 32, 32, wherein the structures for supporting and moving the opening and closing members are in contact with the guide tube 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ko as modified such that the structures (corresponding to Han’s cylinders 405) for supporting and moving the opening and closing members are in contact with the guide tube since such a modification would be a rearrangement of parts for the predictable result that drop tests are still successfully carried out (additionally or alternatively, the mounting stability of Han’s cylinders 405 is increased, and/or the support module is more securely supported).
Pang teaches an impact test device (title; fig. 1) comprising
a falling body providing part (at least element 14) that releases a falling body 15, and
a laser locator 16 for shining a laser beam to indicate the landing point of the falling body (¶48).
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 Ko as modified to have a laser locator as taught by Pang so as to prevent time and/or money from being wasted when dropping the falling body on the wrong location on the test object.
Zhang teaches a falling ball test device (title, fig. 1) comprising
a falling body providing part 3 that releases a falling body (¶24); and
a laser module 4-7 (comprising a laser device in the form of a laser range finder 4 - ¶24; the range finder can be positioned to shine a laser at substantially the drop location of the falling body and then be rotated out of the way - ¶21-22 and ¶ 24) supported by a rod 2, wherein the position of the laser .
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 Ko as modified such that the laser device is provided as part of a laser module that allows the position of the laser device to be changed with respect to the falling body providing part as taught by Zhang so as to reduce inaccuracy caused by the lateral offset between Pang’s falling body providing part and laser device, and/or to reduce replacement costs since the laser module can be replaced without also replacing the falling body providing part (in contrast in Pang, the falling body providing part and laser module are integrally formed).
Ko as modified still does not teach wherein the support arm disposed above the insertion module (this is because the laser module is below the falling body providing part).
However, such a difference between the prior art and claimed device would have been an obvious reversal of parts (Zhang teaches the laser module being below the falling body providing part, but the claim requires the laser module to be above the falling body providing part). Specifically, it has been held that reversal of parts is an obvious variation of known structure (In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A). Whether the laser marks the impact location of the falling body from above or below the insertion module, the impact location is still marked.
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 Ko as modified such that the laser module is positioned to shine the laser beam from above the falling body providing part (as opposed to positioning the laser module below the falling body providing part) since such a modification would be an obvious reversal of parts for the predictable result that impact tests are still successfully carried out.
Ko as modified teaches
wherein the insertion module has a cylindrical shape (in view of Stamy),
wherein the opening and closing module (comprising elements 405-407 of Han and element 6 of Stamy) is disposed under the support module (part of Stamy’s element 6 is under the support module as a result of a countersunk portion of Stamy’s element 6, which is discussed above) and is configured to operate in an opening state to drop the falling body to a test object,
a laser module comprising a support arm 6-7 (Zhang) movably coupled to the opening and closing module (the support arm is rotatable - ¶24 of Zhang) and a laser radiation structure 16 (Pang) on the support arm disposed above the insertion module (per the reversal of parts detailed above) which radiates a laser beam through the insertion module (part of Ko’s tube 9) to mark a position to which the falling body is provided,
wherein the support module is directly disposed on the opening and closing module (since they are directly attached and detached from each other),
wherein the support module is directly disposed (in light of Ambur’s teachings) on a movable portion 405-407 (Han) of the opening and closing module that opens and closes (¶29 of Han).
If Applicant argues that the opening and closing module of Ko as modified is not a module by arguing that Stamy’s element 6 is not separable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make Stamy’s element 6 separable, as explained next. It has been held that making something separable is obvious if there is a motivation for separating that structure. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”). See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C). Accordingly, making Stamy’s element 6 separable would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 the modified Ko such that Stamy’s element 6 is separable, for the benefit of improved accessibility for cleaning or other maintenance of the test apparatus, and/or for more easily replacing Stamy’s element 6 if it becomes damaged.
Regarding the limitation wherein the falling body providing part is configured to be moved in a first direction, a second direction, and a third direction,
Xiao teaches a test apparatus comprising:
a position guide part comprising:
a first support part (one of elements 3X, 20X in fig. 1 above) extending in a first direction;
a second support part (the other one of elements 3X, 20X in fig. 1 above) extending in the first direction and spaced apart from the first support part in a second direction crossing the first direction;
a first height guide part (one of elements 9, 14) movably coupled with the first support part (¶56) and extending in a third direction crossing the first direction and the second direction;
a second height guide part (the other one of elements 9, 14) movably coupled with the second support part (¶56) and extending in the third direction;
a horizontal guide part 21 movably coupled with the first height guide part (¶56) and the second height guide part; and
a falling body providing part 5 (¶62; fig. 2) movably coupled with the horizontal guide part and configured to be moved in a first direction, a second direction, and a third direction (¶52).
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 Ko as modified to have a position guide part comprising first and second support parts, first and second height guide parts, and a horizontal guide part wherein the falling body providing part is movably coupled with the horizontal guide part and configured to be moved in a first direction, a second direction, and a third direction as taught by Xiao for the benefit of improving impact source release accuracy and reducing the limitations of manual operation (¶11, Xiao), and/or for the benefit of being able to accurately test non-uniform belt structures (as a result of Xiao’s ability to change the impact location).
As to claim 18, Ko as modified teaches wherein the position guide part comprises:
a first support part (one of elements 3X, 20X in fig. 1 of Xiao above) extending in the first direction;
a second support part (the other one of elements 3X, 20X in fig. 1 of Xiao above) extending in the first direction and spaced apart from the first support part in the second direction crossing the first direction;
a first height guide part (one of elements 9, 14 of Xiao) movably coupled with the first support part (¶56 of Xiao) and extending in a third direction crossing the first direction and the second direction;
a second height guide part (the other one of elements 9, 14 of Xiao) movably coupled with the second support part (¶56 of Xiao) and extending in the third direction;
a horizontal guide part 21 (of Xiao) movably coupled with the first height guide part (¶56 of Xiao) and the second height guide part; and
wherein the falling body providing part (in view of Han) is movably coupled with the horizontal guide part.
As to claim 21, Ko as modified teaches wherein the support arm 6-7 (Zhang) is configured to rotate the laser radiation structure 16 (Pang) of the laser module with respect to the insertion module from a first position in which the laser radiation structure of the laser module is directly above the insertion module along the third direction (this is because Zhang’s arm is rotatable - ¶24 of Zhang; additionally, the length of Zhang’s arm 6-7 is adjustable - ¶22 of Zhang) to a second position in which the laser radiation structure of the laser module does not overlap the insertion module along a gravitational direction (¶24 teaches that the laser device 4 can be rotated to be out of the way).
As to claim 22, Ko as modified teaches wherein the support module (lower end of Ko’s guide tube, after the separation-of-parts modification detailed above) comprises a through-hole aligned with the penetration hole of the insertion module along a gravitational direction (because element 9 of Ko is a tube).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Stamy, Han, Ambur, Pang, Zhang and Xiao as applied to claim 15 above and further in view of Li (CN 110044734 A).
As to claim 16, Ko as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein an opening is defined through a sidewall of the insertion module and a sidewall of the support module.
Li teaches a falling ball test device (title) comprising
an insertion module (comprising guide tube 4) comprising ventilation holes 10 all along multiple sections of the guide tube (the multiple sections allow the tube to have an adjustable length - ¶55) for reducing air resistance when a falling body falls through the insertion module (pg. 8 lines 9-12 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 Ko as modified such that the guide tube (element 9 of Ko) has ventilation holes along plural sections thereof as taught by Li to make it easier for the falling body to fall through the guide tube (pg. 8 lines 9-12 of Li’s translation).
Ko as modified teaches wherein an opening 10 (Li; i.e. respective opening) is defined through a sidewall of the insertion module and a sidewall of the support module.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Stamy, Han, Ambur, Pang, Zhang and Xiao as applied to claim 15 above and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20060026692 A, hereinafter Kim).
As to claim 17, Ko as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the insertion module comprises a transparent material.
Kim teaches a drop testing apparatus comprising an insertion module 30 that comprises a transparent material (lines 277-280 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 Ko as modified such that the insertion module comprises a transparent material as taught by Kim so as to easily observe the behavior of the falling body as it falls (e.g. if there is an obstruction in the insertion module).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Stamy, Han, Ambur, Pang, Zhang and Xiao as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Bresk et al. (US 3226974 A).
As to claim 19, Ko as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the first height guide part further comprises a vertical coordinate part extending in the third direction and a zero point control part coupled with the first height guide part, wherein the zero point control part controls a zero point of the vertical coordinate part based on a type of the falling body.
Bresk teaches a testing device comprising a vertical coordinate part 42 (located on a vertical structural support 5) extending in the third direction (vertical; the device also comprises a zero point control part 43, positioned on a vertically movable support part 32, for helping to indicate a position on the vertical coordinate part 42).
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 Ko as modified to use a vertical coordinate part and zero point control part as taught by Bresk so as to help an observer take note of the height position of the horizontal guide part.
Ko as modified teaches wherein the first height guide part (the one of elements 9, 14 of Xiao to which the vertical coordinate part 42 of Bresk is attached) further comprises a vertical coordinate part 42 (Bresk) extending in the third direction (vertical) and a zero point control part 43 (Bresk) coupled with the first height guide part (all parts of the apparatus are coupled together), wherein the zero point control part controls a zero point of the vertical coordinate part based on a type of the falling body (e.g. the zero point control part is capable of being used to indicate a height position to which the horizontal guide part should be raised, based on the type of the falling body).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pgs. 9-10 that “Claim 1 has been amended to positively recite the impact resistance evaluation standard by requiring that the test apparatus performs an impact resistance test on the test object by setting an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the folding evaluation area to be different from an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the first and second non-folding evaluation areas. Thus, claim 1 positively requires the claimed test apparatus to be configured to perform an impact resistance test on the test object by setting an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the folding evaluation area to be different from an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the first and second non-folding evaluation areas.”
Applicant makes similar arguments, regarding claim 15, on pages. 15-16.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. An evaluation standard is a social construct and cannot be part of an apparatus. Additionally, claims 1 and 15 have been rejected under 112(b) for indefiniteness, since it is unclear how the apparatus, per se, sets a standard.
For the purpose of examination, it was interpreted that the test apparatus performs an impact resistance test on the test object, wherein the test object is evaluated based on an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the folding evaluation area to be different from an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the first and second non-folding evaluation areas.
As to claim 1, Ko teaches wherein the test apparatus performs an impact resistance test on the test object by setting an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the folding evaluation area to be different from an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the first and second non-folding evaluation areas (the test apparatus is capable of being used to perform an impact resistance test on the test object wherein the test is used to evaluate the test object with respect to an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the folding evaluation area that is different from an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the first and second non-folding evaluation areas - see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim).
As to claim 15, Ko teaches wherein the test apparatus performs an impact resistance test on the test object by setting an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the folding
evaluation area is different from an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the first and second non-folding evaluation areas (the test apparatus is capable of being used to perform an impact resistance test on the test object wherein the test is used to evaluate the test object with respect to an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the folding evaluation area that is different from an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the first and second non-folding evaluation areas - see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim).
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 10 that “As the alleged test apparatus of Ko, Stamy, Xiao, Han, and/or Ambur are not capable of performing an impact resistance test on the test object by setting an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the folding evaluation area to be different from an impact resistance evaluation standard with respect to the first and second non-folding evaluation areas without further programming, Ko, Stamy, Xiao, Han, and Ambur fail to teach at least the above limitations of amended claim 1.”
Applicant makes a similar argument, regarding claim 15, on pg. 16.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. In view of the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 1 in view of the 112b rejection, Ko teaches the cited features. Furthermore, Applicant’s disclosed invention has no structure for setting a standard, and is not disclosed as being used for setting a standard.
Applicant argues on pgs. 11 and 17, “Additionally, Applicant maintains the arguments set forth in the Submission with the Request for Continued Examination filed December 15, 2026.”
As best understood by the Examiner, Applicant intended to state “December 15, 2025.” The Examiner’s responses to Applicant’s arguments filed 12/15/25 remain unchanged.
Applicant argues on pg. 11 that “In view of the above, claim 1 is patentable over Ko, Stamy, Xiao, Han, and Ambur, whether considered separately or in combination, at least for the above reasons. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that independent claim 1, including claims depending therefrom, i.e., claims 5-14, define over Ko, Stamy, Xiao, Han, and Ambur, at least for the above reasons.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, for at least the above reasons given by the Examiner.
Applicant argues on pg. 11 that “As explained above, claim 1 is patentable over Ko, Stamy, Xiao, Han, and Ambur. Li fails to supply that which Ko, Stamy, Xiao, Han, and Ambur lack with respect to claim 1. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that independent claim 1, including claims depending therefrom, i.e., claims 5-14, define over Ko, Stamy, Xiao, Han, Ambur, and Li, at least for the above reasons.”
Applicant makes similar arguments regarding claims 6-12 and 14, on pgs. 12-15.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, for at least the above reasons given by the Examiner.
Applicant argues on pg. 17 that “In view of the above, claim 15 is patentable over Ko, Stamy, Han, Ambur, Pang, Zhang, and Xiao, whether considered separately or in combination, at least for the above reasons. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that independent claim 15, including claims depending therefrom, i.e., claims 16-22, define over Ko, Stamy, Han, Ambur, Pang, Zhang, and Xiao, at least for the above reasons.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, for at least the above reasons given by the Examiner.
Applicant argues on pg. 17 that “As explained above, claim 15 is patentable over Ko, Stamy, Han, Ambur, Pang, Zhang, and Xiao. Li fails to supply that which Ko, Stamy, Han, Ambur, Pang, Zhang, and Xiao lack with respect to claim 15.
Thus, it is respectfully submitted that independent claim 15, including claims depending therefrom, i.e., claims 16-22, define over Ko, Stamy, Han, Ambur, Pang, Zhang, Xiao, and Li at least for the above reasons.”
Applicant makes similar arguments regarding claims 16-17, and 19 on pgs. 17-19.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, for at least the above reasons given by the Examiner.
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.
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