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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/4/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “a retention device configured to retain a second portion of a test sample” should be rewritten as --a retention device configured to retain a second portion of the test sample--. As claimed, there appear to be two test samples because “a test sample” has already been referenced early in the claim; however, it is understood that only one test sample is intended to be claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11-13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (US 2010/0318224 A1) in view of Owens et al. (US 2006/0105450 A1).
Considering claim 1, Okuda discloses a testing device comprising:
- a base 8 including a first joint 70; and
- an arm having a first branch 6 connected to and pivotable about the first joint 70;
- a second joint 50 connected to the first branch 6;
- a second branch 4 connected to and pivotable about the second joint 50;
- a third joint 30 connected to the second branch 4; and
- a third branch 2 connected to and pivotable about the third joint 30, the third branch having an attachment mechanism configured to retain a first portion of a test sample ([0024], object is test sample),
- the arm configured to pivot at the first joint in relation to the base along an X-Z plane, and
- the first joint configured to drive movement of the arm through rotation of the first joint, and
- the second and third joint each being free of a drive mechanism (Figures 8-9; [0023-25]; [0028]; [0095-98]).
The invention by Okuda discloses the use of a clutch to selectively apply a driving force to the joints 50 and 30 via respective motors 34 (Figure 9; [0095-98]), but also discloses deactivating the clutch to remove the application of the driving force when it is not required. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, the elimination of the driving mechanism and its function, since it is not desired by the inventor, would have been obvious. Accordingly, Okuda renders the claimed subject matter obvious.
The invention by Okuda fails to disclose that a retention device is configured to retain a second portion of a test sample at a fixed distance from the base while the first portion the test sample is being separated from the second portion through movement of the arm.
However, Owens discloses the use of a retention device 2 configured to retain a second portion 16 of a test sample at a fixed distance from the base while the first portion 50 of the test sample is being separated from the second portion through movement of the arm 2 (Figures 1A-2 and 4; [0027-29]). The invention by Owens features a mounting plate 13, having attached thereto a combination of spring holder 16 and flask 50, wherein the mounting plate 13 is held stationary by a robotic arm 2 or a bracket or arm 17 clamped by a solenoid clamp 18 while the flask is loaded or unloaded by another robotic arm 2.
The invention by Okuda discloses each of the claimed elements related to the testing device base, arm and joints, but lacks disclose of a fixed retention device configured to retain a second part of a test object stationary while the first part of the test object is moved. The invention by Owens teaches a robotic arm used to pull a first portion of a test sample away from a second fixed portion of the test sample. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being that the invention of Okuda and Owens are not physically combined in a single reference. The robotic arm of Okuda used as the robotic arm in the invention of Owens would perform the same function as it does separate from Owens, and Owens would still feature a movable robotic arm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the use of the robotic arm of Okuda would still allow loading and unloading of the flask from the support plate in Owens and therefore the results of the combination would have been predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a retention device that is configured to retain a second portion of a test sample at a fixed distance from the base while the first portion the test sample is being separated from the second portion through movement of the arm, as taught by Owens, in the invention by Okuda.
Considering claim 2, Okuda discloses that the second joint and third joint are configured to rotate freely ([0095-98]).
Considering claim 3, Okuda discloses that the first joint is configured to control movement of the arm along the X-Z plane through rotation about the first joint (Figure 8).
Considering claim 4, Okuda discloses a motor 34 configured to drive rotation of the first joint 70 (Figure 9; [0099]).
Considering claim 5, Okuda discloses that the second branch 4 is configured to rotate about the second joint 50 in an orientation parallel to the X-Z plane (Figure 8).
Considering claim 6, Okuda discloses that the third branch 2 is configured to rotate about the third joint 30 in an orientation parallel to the X-Z plane (Figure 8).
Considering claim 9, Okuda discloses at least one selected from the group of a load cell, a strain gauge, a transistor, a transducer, and a position indicator (Figure 9; [0095]).
Considering claim 11, Okuda discloses a testing device comprising:
- a base 8 defining a first end and second end and a length defined along a direction perpendicular to an X-Y plane, the base having a first joint 70 pivotable in an orientation parallel to an X-Z plane; and
- an arm including:
- a first branch 6 having a first end and a second end, the first branch connected to and pivotable about the first joint 70 in an orientation parallel to the X-Z plane;
- a second joint 50 connected to the first branch 6;
- a second branch 4 having a first end and a second end, the second branch connected to and pivotable about the second joint in an orientation parallel to the X-Z plane;
- a third joint 30 connected to the second branch 4; and
- a third branch 2 having a first end and a second end, the third branch connected to and pivotable about the third joint 30 in an orientation parallel to the X-Z plane, the second end of the third branch defining an attachment mechanism;
- the first joint 70 being configured to drive movement of the arm, and
- the second 50 and third joint 30 each being free of a drive mechanism (Figures 8-9; [0023-25]; [0028]; [0095-98]).
The invention by Okuda discloses the use of a clutch to selectively apply a driving force to the joints 50 and 30 via respective motors 34 (Figure 9; [0095-98]), but also discloses deactivating the clutch to remove the application of the driving force when it is not required. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, the elimination of the driving mechanism and its function, since it is not desired by the inventor, would have been obvious. Accordingly, Okuda renders the claimed subject matter obvious.
The invention by Okuda fails to disclose that a retention device is configured to retain a second portion of a test sample at a fixed distance from the base while the first portion the test sample is being separated from the second portion through movement of the arm.
However, Owens discloses the use of a retention device 2 configured to retain a second portion 16 of a test sample at a fixed distance from the base while the first portion 50 of the test sample is being separated from the second portion through movement of the arm 2 (Figures 1A-2 and 4; [0027-29]). The invention by Owens features a mounting plate 13, having attached thereto a combination of spring holder 16 and flask 50, wherein the mounting plate 13 is held stationary by a robotic arm 2 or a bracket or arm 17 clamped by a solenoid clamp 18 while the flask is loaded or unloaded by another robotic arm 2.
The invention by Okuda discloses each of the claimed elements related to the testing device base, arm and joints, but lacks disclose of a fixed retention device configured to retain a second part of a test object stationary while the first part of the test object is moved. The invention by Owens teaches a robotic arm used to pull a first portion of a test sample away from a second fixed portion of the test sample. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being that the invention of Okuda and Owens are not physically combined in a single reference. The robotic arm of Okuda used as the robotic arm in the invention of Owens would perform the same function as it does separate from Owens, and Owens would still feature a movable robotic arm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the use of the robotic arm of Okuda would still allow loading and unloading of the flask from the support plate in Owens and therefore the results of the combination would have been predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a retention device that is configured to retain a second portion of a test sample at a fixed distance from the base while the first portion the test sample is being separated from the second portion through movement of the arm, as taught by Owens, in the invention by Okuda.
Considering claim 12, Okuda discloses that the second joint and third joint are configured to rotate freely ([0095-98]).
Considering claim 13, Okuda discloses that the first joint is configured to control movement of the arm along the X-Z plane through rotation about the first joint (Figure 8).
Considering claim 15, Okuda discloses a testing device comprising:
- a base 8; and
- an arm including:
- a first branch 6 pivotally connected with the base;
- a second branch 4 being free of a drive mechanism such that the second brand is freely pivotally connected with the first branch;
- a third branch 2 being free of a drive mechanism such that the third brand is freely pivotally connected with the second branch and including an attachment device, the base including a driving mechanism 34 configured to rotate the first branch (Figures 8-9; [0023-25]; [0028]; [0095-99]).
The invention by Okuda discloses the use of a clutch to selectively apply a driving force to the joints 50 and 30 via respective motors 34 (Figure 9; [0095-98]), but also discloses deactivating the clutch to remove the application of the driving force when it is not required. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, the elimination of the driving mechanism and its function, since it is not desired by the inventor, would have been obvious. Accordingly, Okuda renders the claimed subject matter obvious.
The invention by Okuda fails to disclose that a retention device is configured to retain a second portion of a test sample at a fixed distance from the base while the first portion the test sample is being separated from the second portion through movement of the arm.
However, Owens discloses the use of a retention device 2 configured to retain a second portion 16 of a test sample at a fixed distance from the base while the first portion 50 of the test sample is being separated from the second portion through movement of the arm 2 (Figures 1A-2 and 4; [0027-29]). The invention by Owens features a mounting plate 13, having attached thereto a combination of spring holder 16 and flask 50, wherein the mounting plate 13 is held stationary by a robotic arm 2 or a bracket or arm 17 clamped by a solenoid clamp 18 while the flask is loaded or unloaded by another robotic arm 2.
The invention by Okuda discloses each of the claimed elements related to the testing device base, arm and joints, but lacks disclose of a fixed retention device configured to retain a second part of a test object stationary while the first part of the test object is moved. The invention by Owens teaches a robotic arm used to pull a first portion of a test sample away from a second fixed portion of the test sample. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being that the invention of Okuda and Owens are not physically combined in a single reference. The robotic arm of Okuda used as the robotic arm in the invention of Owens would perform the same function as it does separate from Owens, and Owens would still feature a movable robotic arm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the use of the robotic arm of Okuda would still allow loading and unloading of the flask from the support plate in Owens and therefore the results of the combination would have been predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a retention device that is configured to retain a second portion of a test sample at a fixed distance from the base while the first portion the test sample is being separated from the second portion through movement of the arm, as taught by Owens, in the invention by Okuda.
Considering claim 16, Okuda discloses that the drive mechanism 34 is configured to the drive rotation of the first branch in relation to the base, the second branch is configured to rotate freely in relation to the first branch, and the third branch is configured to rotate freely in relation to the second branch ([0095-99]).
Considering claim 17, Okuda discloses that the third branch is configured to freely rotate about the third joint in an orientation parallel to the X-Z plane (Figure 8).
Considering claim 18, Okuda discloses that the attachment device is configured to retain a first portion of a test sample ([0024]).
Considering claim 20, Okuda discloses at least one selected from the group of a load cell, a strain gauge, a transistor, a transducer, and a position indicator (Figure 9; [0095]).
Claims 8, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (US 2010/0318224 A1) in view of Owens et al. (US 2006/0105450 A1), as applied to claims 1, 11 and 15, above, and further in view of Komatsu et al. (US 2010/0152896 A1).
Considering claims 8, 14 and 19, Okuda, as modified by Owens, fails to explicitly disclose that the arm or the testing device includes a stress measurement device.
However, Komatsu teaches the use of an arm having a stress measurement device 13 (Figure 2; [0091-92]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a stress measurement device in the invention by Okuda, as modified by Owens, as taught by Komatsu. The motivation for doing so is to determine the amount of force being applied to the arm in one of several directions, as suggested by Komatsu ([0091-92]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s assertion that Okuda and Komatsu fail to disclose the newly claimed limitation of a retention device configured to retain a second portion of a test sample at a fixed distance from the base while the first portion of the test sample is being separated from the second portion through movement of the arm is a persuasive argument. However, the newly added reference to Owens addresses this concern.
Continuing, on pages 8-10, Applicant argues that modification of Okuda would render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Applicant additionally references modification of Komatsu. MPEP 2143.01 requires that “[i]f a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there may be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification”. Since Okuda is the invention being modified, any arguments directed towards Komatsu are considered moot.
Applicant merely states, on page 9, that Okuda would be unsatisfactory for its purpose of “avoiding collision with an obstacle” by including a retention device configured to hold a second portion of the test object fixed while a first portion of the test object moves. Applicant does not expand on the modification would remove the intended purpose. There is no mention of how obstacle collision would be removed if the robotic arm of Okuda was used in a tensile/pull test configuration. It is clear from Okuda that an object is grasped by the end gripper of the robotic arm ([0024], object), and therefore fixing a second portion of that object in a stationary position would in no way prohibit collision avoidance functionality of Okuda. When not grasping the object, how is the arm unable to perform collision avoidance with an undesired obstacle? Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The remainder of the arguments against Komatsu are moot based on the previous discussion related to MPEP 2143.01.
Lastly, on page 10, Applicant merely repeats the same unpersuasive argument with respect to claims 11 and 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 February 20, 2026