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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-12 and 16, drawn to an apparatus (claims 1-10 and 16) and a system (claims 11-12)) in the reply filed on December 15, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that amended Group II (claims 13-15. This is not found persuasive because as set forth below, Sawatari (JP6346692B1) teaches the technical feature of a base (see Fig 2B, Examiner notes portion 3 as a base), a retention mechanism (see Fig 2B, Examiner notes a lower 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), 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.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, line 2, “a testing structure” should read “the testing structure”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 11-12 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.
Regarding claim 11, lines 5-6 and 10-11, the limitations of “hold the anechoic material to a ferrous surface within the anechoic chamber” and “allow removable attachment of the apparatus to the ferrous wall within the anechoic chamber”, respectively, are unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear whether the ferrous wall within the anechoic chamber and the anechoic chamber are being claimed. For the purpose of examination, claim 11 will be examined as best understood.
Claim 12 is rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies, of rejected independent claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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);
a retention mechanism (see Fig 2B, Examiner notes a lower flange of portion 3 as a retention base) 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), 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].
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 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, 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, Sawatari teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the attachment mechanism (2, 30) is a magnet (11).
Regarding claim 6, Sawatari teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the base (see Fig 2B) and retention mechanism (see Fig 2B) are formed of a non-ferrous material (Paragraph 0049, Sawatari indicates manufactured by injection molding resin).
Regarding claim 7, 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, 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 10, 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, 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 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) 4-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawatari.
Regarding claim 4, 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 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 (Sawatari, Paragraph 0029) and use requirements.
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 9, 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 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 (Sawatari, Paragraph 0029) and use requirements.
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, as best understood, Inoue teaches a system (see Figs 6-9) [for securing an anechoic material against a testing structure in an anechoic chamber (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 in an anechoic chamber)], the system (see Figs 6-9) comprising:
anechoic material forming a substrate (see Fig 7, 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 Fig 7), the apparatus (8) disposed (see Fig 7) through the anechoic material (see Fig 7) [to hold (see Fig 7) the anechoic material (see Fig 7) to a ferrous surface (Fig 7, panel 10) within the anechoic chamber (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; and 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 anechoic chamber].
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 a lower 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); and 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.
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 anechoic 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).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, modified Inoue teaches the system (see Figs 6-9) of claim 11 and further teaches comprising:
a testing structure (see Figs 6-9, Col 1, lines 14-16) formed of a ferromagnetic material (Col 11, lines 10-20, Examiner notes metallic reflecting plates as formed of a ferromagnetic material).
Conclusion
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