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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 6, and 11-12 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-16 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 5, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 1, “clam 4” should read “claim 4”
In claim 11, line 2, “structure the” should read “structure, the”
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawatari (JP6346692B1), hereinafter "Sawatari".
Regarding claim 1, Sawatari teaches an apparatus (Fig 2B, product 1) [for use in performing testing within an anechoic chamber], the apparatus (1) comprising:
a base (see Fig 2B, Examiner notes portion 3 as a base);
an attachment mechanism (Fig 2B, portions 2, 30) coupled (see Fig 2B) to a first end (see Fig 2B, Examiner notes an end of portion 3 adjacent portions 2, 30 as a first end) of the base (see Fig 2B), wherein the attachment mechanism (2, 30) is a magnet (Fig 2B, portion 11, Paragraph 0033, Sawatari indicates permanent magnet portion 11), an electro-magnet, or a suction cup [to allow removable attachment of the apparatus (1) to a ferrous wall in the anechoic chamber]; and
a retention mechanism (see Fig 2B, Examiner notes an upper flange of portion 3 as a retention mechanism) coupled (see Fig 2B) to a second end (see Fig 2B, Examiner notes an end of portion 3 distal portions 2, 30 as a second end) of the base (see Fig 2B) opposite (see Fig 2B) the first end (see Fig 2B), wherein the retention mechanism (see Fig 2B) is configured to extend (see Fig 2B) laterally beyond (see Fig 2B) the base (see Fig 2B) in a plurality of directions (see Fig 2B) but fails to teach configured to extend laterally beyond the attachment mechanism in a plurality of directions.
However, Sawatari in Paragraph 0029, teaches the hook portion is designed to be replaceable, so it can be used as a magnetic hook with hook portions of various shapes depending on the application.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the retention mechanism of Sawatari to be configured to extend laterally beyond the attachment mechanism in a plurality of directions as an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a shape based on application and use requirements, e.g. offices and homes, bags, clothes, etc. (Sawatari, Paragraphs 0029 and 0052).
Claim language set in brackets set forth above and below in this office action are considered by the Examiner to be intended use that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to that of an apparatus, the prior art must only be capable of performing the functional recitations in order to be applicable, and in the instant case, the Examiner maintains that the magnetic product disclosed by modified Sawatari, is indeed capable of the intended use statements. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding claim 2, modified Sawatari teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 1 and further teaches comprising:
a detachment mechanism (see Fig 2B, Examiner notes an upper hook of portion 3 as a detachment mechanism) coupled (see Fig 2B) to the base (see Fig 2B).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sawatari teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the attachment mechanism (2, 30) is a magnet (11).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sawatari teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the retention mechanism is a set of tines having a cross shape centered at the base.
However, Sawatari in Paragraph 0029, teaches the hook portion is designed to be replaceable, so it can be used as a magnetic hook with hook portions of various shapes depending on the application.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the retention mechanism of modified Sawatari to be a set of tines having a cross shape centered at the base as an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a shape based on application and use requirements, e.g. offices and homes, bags, clothes, etc. (Sawatari, Paragraphs 0029 and 0052).
Regarding claim 5, modified Sawatari teaches the apparatus (1) of clam 4 and further teaches comprising:
a tine extender (Paragraph 0027, Examiner notes connected horizontally as a tine extender) coupled to at least one tine (Paragraph 0027, Examiner notes parts are arranged side by side at various distances, connected, and integrated as coupled to at least one tine) in the set of tines (Paragraph 0028), the tine extender (Paragraph 0027) [to enable the apparatus (1) to be coupled to a tine of another apparatus] (Paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 6, modified Sawatari teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the base (see Fig 2B) and the retention mechanism (see Fig 2B) are formed of a non-ferrous material (Paragraph 0049, Sawatari indicates manufactured by injection molding resin).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sawatari teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the base (see Fig 2B) defines threading (see Fig 2B, Paragraph 0012, Examiner notes a screw-like mechanism is generally used as the connecting part as defines threading) to receive (see Fig 2B) the attachment mechanism (2, 30).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sawatari teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the base (see Fig 2B) defines a space (see Fig 2B, Examiner notes a bore in which portion 30 extends into portion 3 as defines a space) to hold (see Fig 2B) the attachment mechanism (2, 30) internal (see Fig 2B) to the base (see Fig 2B).
Regarding claim 9, modified Sawatari teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the base is conical with a rounded dome at one end.
However, Sawatari in Paragraph 0029, teaches the hook portion is designed to be replaceable, so it can be used as a magnetic hook with hook portions of various shapes depending on the application.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base of modified Sawatari to be conical with a rounded dome at one end as an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a shape based on application and use requirements, e.g. offices and homes, bags, clothes, etc. (Sawatari, Paragraphs 0029 and 0052).
Regarding claim 10, modified Sawatari teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 2 and further teaches wherein the detachment mechanism (see Fig 2B) is a loop (see Figs 1-2B) coupled (see Fig 2B) to the base (see Fig 2B).
Regarding claim 16, modified Sawatari teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein a shape (see Fig 2B) of the retention mechanism (see Fig 2B) is complementary (see Fig 2B) to a surface (see Fig 2B) of an anechoic material substrate (Fig 2B, portion 10, Paragraph 0033, Examiner notes portion 10 formed of silicon rubber or the like as an anechoic material substrate).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (US6373425B1), hereinafter "Inoue", in view of Sawatari.
Regarding claim 11, Inoue teaches a system (see Figs 6-9) for securing an anechoic material against a testing structure (see Figs 6-9, Col 1, lines 14-16, Examiner notes an anechoic chamber using said composite absorber and a method of fitting the same in the compact anechoic chamber as for securing an anechoic material against a testing structure) the system (see Figs 6-9) comprising:
the testing structure (see Figs 6-9) having a ferrous wall (Col 11, lines 10-20, Examiner notes metallic reflecting plates as having a ferrous wall);
the anechoic material forming a substrate (see Figs 6-9, Col 7, lines 31-67, Examiner notes absorber 4, panel 5, and tile 2 as anechoic material forming a substrate); and
an apparatus (Fig 7, screw 8) removably coupled (see Fig 7) to the anechoic material (see Figs 6-9), the apparatus (8) disposed (see Fig 7) through the anechoic material (see Figs 6-9) to hold (see Fig 7) the anechoic material (see Figs 6-9) to a ferrous surface (Fig 7, panel 10) within the testing structure (see Figs 6-9).
Inoue fails to teach the apparatus comprises a base, a retention mechanism coupled to the base, and an attachment mechanism coupled to the base; the attachment mechanism is a magnet, an electro-magnet, or a suction cup to allow removable attachment of the apparatus to the ferrous wall within the testing structure; and the retention mechanism is configured to extend laterally beyond the base and the attachment mechanism in a plurality of directions.
However, Sawatari teaches it is known to provide the apparatus (Fig 2B, product 1) comprises a base (see Fig 2B, Examiner notes portion 3 as a base), a retention mechanism (see Fig 2B, Examiner notes an upper flange of portion 3 as a retention mechanism) coupled (see Fig 2B) to the base (see Fig 2B), and an attachment mechanism (Fig 2B, portions 2, 30) coupled (see Fig 2B) to the base (see Fig 2B); the attachment mechanism (2, 30) is a magnet (Fig 2B, portion 11, Paragraph 0033, Sawatari indicates permanent magnet portion 11), an electro-magnet, or a suction cup to allow removable attachment (Paragraph 0015, Examiner notes enabling the “replacement of the hook portion” as to allow removable attachment) of the apparatus (1); and the retention mechanism (see Fig 2B) is configured to extend (see Fig 2B) laterally beyond (see Fig 2B) the base (see Fig 2B) in a plurality of directions (see Fig 2B).
Therefore, as evidenced by Sawatari, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the screw of Inoue with an adequately sized and shaped product of Sawatari to allow removable attachment of the apparatus to the ferrous wall within the testing chamber. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide an assembly having an interchangeable hook portion allowing hook portions of various shapes to be attached to the magnet portion (Sawatari, Paragraph 0015).
Inoue, in view of Sawatari fails to teach the retention mechanism is configured to extend laterally beyond the attachment mechanism in a plurality of directions.
However, Sawatari in Paragraph 0029, teaches the hook portion is designed to be replaceable, so it can be used as a magnetic hook with hook portions of various shapes depending on the application.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the retention mechanism of Sawatari to be configured to extend laterally beyond the attachment mechanism in a plurality of directions as an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a shape based on application and use requirements, e.g. offices and homes, bags, clothes, etc. (Sawatari, Paragraphs 0029 and 0052).
Regarding claim 12, modified Inoue teaches the system (see Figs 6-9) of claim 11 and further teaches comprising:
the testing structure (see Figs 6-9) formed of a ferromagnetic material (Col 11, lines 10-20, Examiner notes metallic reflecting plates as formed of a ferromagnetic material).
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 teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JOCK WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 5:00pm (ET).
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights