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Claims 12-15 remain withdrawn.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, 3-5 and 8-10 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 recites that the mechanical isolators are part of the standoffs, which is unsupported by the original specification.
Pg. 6 states on lines 9-12 “Each of the standoffs 126 in the plurality of standoffs 126 connects to the strike plate 110 with a mechanical isolator 128, which can be an elastomeric spacer, spring, or other elastic deforming element, which is sandwiched between the strike plate 110 and the respective standoffs 126.” Since the isolators 128 are between the plate 110 and the standoffs, the isolators are not part of the standoffs.
Accordingly, claim 1 comprises new matter.
Claims 3-5 and 8-10 contain new matter for depending from claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 20120032203 A, hereinafter Park) in view of Evans et al. (US 3859841 A, hereinafter Evans), Bragin et al. (RU 2625639 C1, hereinafter Bragin) and Sisemore (US 20240319058 A1).
As to claim 1, Park teaches a shock testing apparatus comprising:
[AltContent: textbox (T)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 1)]
PNG
media_image1.png
494
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 3)]
PNG
media_image2.png
602
346
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a tower (including at least tower section T in fig. 1 above) extending upward from a base B (fig. 3 above); and
a strike plate assembly 110, 120 including:
a strike plate 110, the strike plate being configured to receive mechanical shock from the striker 132, wherein a tri-axial accelerometer is mounted to the strike plate for simultaneous data acquisition of three-dimensional shock wave acceleration data in three orthogonal axes from a single strike (the accelerometer is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus; accordingly, such an accelerometer is capable of being mounted to the strike plate for simultaneous data acquisition of three-dimensional shock wave acceleration data in three orthogonal axes from a single strike).
Park does not explicitly teach the tower including a tube guide extending vertically down the tower for guiding free-fall descent of a striker,
a support plate horizontally positioned on the base relative to a drop zone of the tube guide, the support plate being adjustably seated on the base for adjustment of a relative position of a strike plate of the strike plate assembly and the tube guide;
a plurality of standoffs extending from the support plate, each standoff of the plurality of standoffs having a mechanical isolator; and
the strike plate 110 is positioned below the tube guide and supported by the mechanical isolators, each of the plurality of standoffs extending through the strike plate,
the striker 132 falls from the tube guide.
Evans teaches an impact test device (abstract) comprising a tower (comprising at least elements 3-4 and 7) that comprises a slotted tubular guide 7 that is graduated over its length so that the initial drop height of a striker (comprising at least elements 11, 13; it is noted that the striker comprises at least a protrusion 12) can be selected by an operator (see the last three lines of claim 3 of Evans, and col. 2 at lines 22-27), wherein the striker strikes out from the guide 7, wherein the guide extends down the tower.
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 Park to use a tower with a graduated slotted guide, wherein the striker is provided with a protrusion and strikes out from the guide, and wherein the guide extends down the tower as taught by Evans, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of using the striker for imparting a selectable impact energy for another for the predictable result that impact/shock tests are still successfully carried out, and/or for the benefit of providing the apparatus with a reduced overall footprint (as compared with the swinging mechanism of Park, which requires a certain amount of horizontal space associated with the length of arm 133).
Bragin teaches an impact/shock test apparatus (title) wherein the apparatus comprises a frame comprising a frame section 7 for supporting structures (at least pendulum 8) for guiding the fall of a striker 9, wherein the frame further comprises another frame section 2 for supporting a strike plate 6.
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 Park to have a frame including a frame section for supporting structures for guiding the fall of the striker, and wherein the frame also comprises another frame section for supporting the strike plate, as taught by Bragin, so as to separately support the tower and strike plate (in Park, the tower is directly mounted to strike plate 110) so as to remove/reduce a possible influence of the tower on the strike plate’s delivery of shock/impact energy to an object being tested, and/or to more securely support the strike plate and tower.
[AltContent: textbox (SO)][AltContent: textbox (SP)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
500
494
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sisemore teaches a shock/impact test apparatus (title) comprising a base frame comprising at least rails 15, the apparatus further comprising a strike plate 20 supported with respect to the base by at least a support plate SP (fig. 1 above) and standoffs SO (fig. 1 above), 23-27 comprising mechanical isolators 23-27 (¶38 teaches that the mechanical isolators allow the strike plate to vibrate freely, and the abstract teaches that free vibration of the strike plate allows shock events to be correctly simulated), wherein the support plates are adjustably mounted on the base frame (¶33).
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 Park as modified such that the strike plate is supported by support plates, standoffs and mechanical isolators, as taught by Sisemore, so as to allow free vibration of the strike plate to correctly simulate shock events (abstract and ¶38 of Sisemore).
Park as modified teaches the tower including a tube guide 7 (Evans) extending vertically down the tower for guiding free-fall descent of a striker,
a support plate SP (Sisemore) horizontally positioned on the base (which comprises support rails 15 from Sisemore) relative to a drop zone of the tube guide, the support plate being adjustably seated (¶33 of Sisemore) on the base for adjustment of a relative position of a strike plate 110 (Park) of the strike plate assembly and the tube guide;
a plurality of standoffs SO, 23-27 (Sisemore) extending from the support plate, each standoff of the plurality of standoffs having a mechanical isolator 23-27 (Sisemore); and
the strike plate 110 (Park) is positioned below the tube guide and supported by the mechanical isolators, each of the plurality of standoffs extending through the strike plate (at least via fasteners 27 of Sisemore),
the striker falls from the tube guide (in light of Evans).
If Applicant argues that the support plate of the modified Park is not adjustably seated on the base for adjustment of a relative position of a strike plate of the strike plate assembly and the tube guide,
in re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) (Claims were directed to a handle for a fishing rod wherein the handle has a longitudinally adjustable finger hook, and the hand grip of the handle connects with the body portion by means of a universal joint. The court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and because there was an art-recognized need for adjustment in a fishing rod, the substitution of a universal joint for the single pivot of the prior art would have been obvious.). In this case, the paragraph bridging pgs. 7-8 states “Once the UUT 134 is attached to the strike plate, the plate is tuned for the desire shock response spectrum. The tuning (calibrating) includes varying the position of the strike plate assembly 108 relative to the tube of the guide 106 where the striker 112 is dropped. The shock response levels, and shape can be manipulated by changing the drop height, the strike angle relative to the UUT 134, and adjusting the impact location relative to the UUT 134 and/or the size of the striker.” In other words, Applicant has provided adjustability where it is needed to adjust the shock response levels.
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 Park as modified such that the support plate is adjustably seated on the base for adjustment of a relative position of a strike plate of the strike plate assembly and the tube guide, for the benefit of saving time and money, since different support plates and bases would not have to be fabricated when an adjustment the impact characteristics is desired.
Park as modified teaches that the support plate is adjustably seated on the base for adjustment of a relative position of a strike plate of the strike plate assembly and the tube guide (i.e. for adjusting the relative position between the strike plate and tube guide).
As to claim 8, Park teaches wherein the strike plate includes a plurality of bores (holes for wing bolts 142 - ¶31; see figs. 1-2) therethrough for mounting a unit under test (UUT) 10 to the strike plate.
As to claim 9, Park as modified teaches that the apparatus further comprises the UUT 10 mounted to the strike plate by fasteners passing through the plurality of bores.
As to claim 10, Park teaches wherein the tri-axial accelerometer is mounted to the strike plate with fasteners 142 (fig. 2) passing through two of the plurality of bores in the plurality of bores (the accelerometer is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus; accordingly, the accelerometer is capable of being mounted to at least two of the fasteners of Park, resulting in the accelerometer being mounted to the strike plate with fasteners passing through two of the bores in the plurality of bores).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Evans, Bragin and Sisemore as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ido (US 20080282767 A1).
As to claim 3, Park as modified teaches wherein the striker includes a steel striker (¶26 of Park) configured to descend through the tube guide from a top end of the tube guide, to strike the strike plate.
Park as modified does not teach wherein the striker includes a ball.
Ido teaches an impact test apparatus comprising striker in the form of a steel ball 24 (¶25) on the end of a string 25 (fig. 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 Park as modified such that the striker is a ball attached to a string, as taught by Ido, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one kind of striker and striker handling structure for another for the predictable result that shock/impact testing is still successfully carried out, and/or for the benefit that a ball has a simpler geometry to produce than the hammer shape of Park.
As to claim 4, Park as modified teaches a string 25 (Ido) attached to the steel ball, the string configured to extend through the tube guide for retrieval of the steel ball after a test (the string is capable of extending through the tube for retrieval of the steel ball after a test).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Evans, Bragin, Sisemore, and Ido as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (CN 114414407 A, hereinafter Sun).
As to claim 5, Park as modified teaches wherein the tower includes a ruled standard (the graduation markings on the tube 7 of Evans) extending parallel to the tube guide.
Park as modified does not teach wherein the string includes a ruler mark, wherein the ruler mark is positioned on the string to delimit height versus a mark on the ruled standard for correct starting position for dropping the steel ball through the tube guide onto the strike plate.
Sun teaches the concept of using a motor-driven lifting assembly 10 to raise a striker 6 and an electromagnet 12 and switch 13 to hold/drop the striker (¶32).
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 Park as modified to use a lifting assembly, electromagnet and switch as taught by Sun so as to more conveniently and/or consistently lift and/or drop the striker.
Park as modified teaches wherein the string includes a ruler mark (comprising the electromagnet 12 and/or switch 13 of Sun), wherein the ruler mark is positioned on the string to delimit height versus a mark on the ruled standard for correct starting position for dropping the steel ball through the tube guide onto the strike plate (the ruler mark of Sun is capable of use to delimit height versus a mark on the ruled standard for correct starting position for dropping the steel ball through the tube guide onto the strike plate).
The Examiner notes that the claims are rejected a second time below in case Applicant argues that the support plates of Sisemore are not “plates” due to their shapes.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 20120032203 A, hereinafter Park) in view of Evans et al. (US 3859841 A, hereinafter Evans), Bragin et al. (RU 2625639 C1, hereinafter Bragin), Sisemore (US 20240319058 A1) and Ido (US 20080282767 A1).
As to claim 1, Park teaches a shock testing apparatus comprising:
[AltContent: textbox (T)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 1)]
PNG
media_image1.png
494
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 3)]
PNG
media_image2.png
602
346
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a tower (including at least tower section T in fig. 1 above) extending upward from a base B (fig. 3 above); and
a strike plate assembly 110, 120 including:
a strike plate 110, the strike plate being configured to receive mechanical shock from the striker 132, wherein a tri-axial accelerometer is mounted to the strike plate for simultaneous data acquisition of three-dimensional shock wave acceleration data in three orthogonal axes from a single strike (the accelerometer is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus; accordingly, such an accelerometer is capable of being mounted to the strike plate for simultaneous data acquisition of three-dimensional shock wave acceleration data in three orthogonal axes from a single strike).
Park does not explicitly teach the tower including a tube guide extending vertically down the tower for guiding free-fall descent of a striker,
a support plate horizontally positioned on the base relative to a drop zone of the tube guide, the support plate being adjustably seated on the base for adjustment of a relative position of a strike plate of the strike plate assembly and the tube guide;
a plurality of standoffs extending from the support plate, each standoff of the plurality of standoffs having a mechanical isolator; and
the strike plate 110 is positioned below the tube guide and supported by the mechanical isolators, each of the plurality of standoffs extending through the strike plate,
the striker 132 falls from the tube guide.
Evans teaches an impact test device (abstract) comprising a tower (comprising at least elements 3-4 and 7) that comprises a slotted tubular guide 7 that is graduated over its length so that the initial drop height of a striker (comprising at least elements 11, 13; it is noted that the striker comprises at least a protrusion 12) can be selected by an operator (see the last three lines of claim 3 of Evans, and col. 2 at lines 22-27), wherein the striker strikes out from the guide 7, wherein the guide extends down the tower.
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 Park to use a tower with a graduated slotted guide, wherein the striker is provided with a protrusion and strikes out from the guide, and wherein the guide extends down the tower as taught by Evans, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of using the striker for imparting a selectable impact energy for another for the predictable result that impact/shock tests are still successfully carried out, and/or for the benefit of providing the apparatus with a reduced overall footprint (as compared with the swinging mechanism of Park, which requires a certain amount of horizontal space associated with the length of arm 133).
Bragin teaches an impact/shock test apparatus (title) wherein the apparatus comprises a frame comprising a frame section 7 for supporting structures (at least pendulum 8) for guiding the fall of a striker 9, wherein the frame further comprises another frame section 2 for supporting a strike plate 6.
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 Park to have a frame including a frame section for supporting structures for guiding the fall of the striker, and wherein the frame also comprises another frame section for supporting the strike plate, as taught by Bragin, so as to separately support the tower and strike plate (in Park, the tower is directly mounted to strike plate 110) so as to remove/reduce a possible influence of the tower on the strike plate’s delivery of shock/impact energy to an object being tested, and/or to more securely support the strike plate and tower.
[AltContent: textbox (SO)][AltContent: textbox (SP)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
500
494
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sisemore teaches a shock/impact test apparatus (title) comprising a base frame comprising at least rails 15, the apparatus further comprising a strike plate 20 supported with respect to the base by at least a support plate SP (fig. 1 above), standoffs SO (fig. 1 above), 23-27 comprising mechanical isolators 23-27 (¶38 teaches that the mechanical isolators allow the strike plate to vibrate freely, and the abstract teaches that free vibration of the strike plate allows shock events to be correctly simulated), wherein the support plates are adjustably mounted on the base frame (¶33).
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 Park as modified such that the strike plate is supported by support plates, standoffs and mechanical isolators, as taught by Sisemore, so as to allow free vibration of the strike plate to correctly simulate shock events (abstract and ¶38 of Sisemore).
Park as modified teaches the tower including a tube guide 7 (Evans) extending vertically down the tower for guiding free-fall descent of a striker,
a support plate SP (Sisemore) horizontally positioned on the base (which comprises support rails 15 from Sisemore) relative to a drop zone of the tube guide, the support plate being adjustably seated (¶33 of Sisemore) on the base for adjustment of a relative position of a strike plate 110 (Park) of the strike plate assembly and the tube guide;
a plurality of standoffs SO, 23-27 (Sisemore) extending from the support plate, each standoff of the plurality of standoffs having a mechanical isolator 23-27 (Sisemore); and
the strike plate 110 (Park) is positioned below the tube guide and supported by the mechanical isolators, each of the plurality of standoffs extending through the strike plate (at least via fasteners 27 of Sisemore),
the striker falls from the tube guide (in light of Evans).
If Applicant argues that elements SP of Sisemore are not plates due to their shapes,
Ido teaches support elements 14 that support a plate structure 32 that is impacted with a striker 24, the support elements 14 comprising plate-like projections 17 for supporting the plate structure 32 with respect to a base 13.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the projections on the support elements (50 of Sisemore) of the modified Park to be plate-shaped as taught by Ido, since such a modification would be a mere change in the shapes of the projections for the predictable result that the strike plate is still successfully supported with respect to the base, and/or for the benefit that the plate shaped projections would reduce the complexity of the design of the apparatus.
If Applicant argues that the support plate of the modified Park is not adjustably seated on the base for adjustment of a relative position of a strike plate of the strike plate assembly and the tube guide,
in re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) (Claims were directed to a handle for a fishing rod wherein the handle has a longitudinally adjustable finger hook, and the hand grip of the handle connects with the body portion by means of a universal joint. The court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and because there was an art-recognized need for adjustment in a fishing rod, the substitution of a universal joint for the single pivot of the prior art would have been obvious.). In this case, the paragraph bridging pgs. 7-8 states “Once the UUT 134 is attached to the strike plate, the plate is tuned for the desire shock response spectrum. The tuning (calibrating) includes varying the position of the strike plate assembly 108 relative to the tube of the guide 106 where the striker 112 is dropped. The shock response levels, and shape can be manipulated by changing the drop height, the strike angle relative to the UUT 134, and adjusting the impact location relative to the UUT 134 and/or the size of the striker.” In other words, Applicant has provided adjustability where it is needed.
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 Park as modified such that the support plate is adjustably seated on the base for adjustment of a relative position of a strike plate of the strike plate assembly and the tube guide, for the benefit of saving time and money, since different support plates and bases would not have to be fabricated when an adjustment the impact characteristics is desired.
Park as modified teaches that the support plate is adjustably seated on the base for adjustment of a relative position of a strike plate of the strike plate assembly and the tube guide (i.e. for adjusting the relative position between the strike plate and tube guide).
As to claim 3, Park as modified teaches wherein the striker includes a steel striker (¶26 of Park) configured to descend through the tube guide from a top end of the tube guide, to strike the strike plate.
Park as modified does not teach wherein the striker includes a ball.
Ido teaches an impact test apparatus comprising striker in the form of a steel ball 24 (¶25) on the end of a string 25 (fig. 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 Park as modified such that the striker is a ball attached to a string, as taught by Ido, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one kind of striker and striker handling structure for another for the predictable result that shock/impact testing is still successfully carried out, and/or for the benefit that a ball has a simpler geometry to produce than the hammer shape of Park.
As to claim 4, Park as modified teaches a string 25 (Ido) attached to the steel ball, the string configured to extend through the tube guide for retrieval of the steel ball after a test (the string is capable of extending through the tube for retrieval of the steel ball after a test).
As to claim 8, Park teaches wherein the strike plate includes a plurality of bores (holes for wing bolts 142 - ¶31; see figs. 1-2) therethrough for mounting a unit under test (UUT) 10 to the strike plate.
As to claim 9, Park as modified teaches that the apparatus further comprises the UUT 10 mounted to the strike plate by fasteners passing through the plurality of bores.
As to claim 10, Park teaches wherein the tri-axial accelerometer is mounted to the strike plate with fasteners 142 (fig. 2) passing through two of the plurality of bores in the plurality of bores (the accelerometer is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus; accordingly, the accelerometer is capable of being mounted to at least two of the fasteners of Park, resulting in the accelerometer being mounted to the strike plate with fasteners passing through two of the bores in the plurality of bores).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Evans, Bragin, Sisemore, and Ido as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (CN 114414407 A, hereinafter Sun).
As to claim 5, Park as modified teaches wherein the tower includes a ruled standard (the graduation markings on the tube 7 of Evans) extending parallel to the tube guide.
Park as modified does not teach wherein the string includes a ruler mark, wherein the ruler mark is positioned on the string to delimit height versus a mark on the ruled standard for correct starting position for dropping the steel ball through the tube guide onto the strike plate.
Sun teaches the concept of using a motor-driven lifting assembly 10 to raise a striker 6 and an electromagnet 12 and switch 13 to hold/drop the striker (¶32).
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 Park as modified to use a lifting assembly, electromagnet and switch as taught by Sun so as to more conveniently and/or consistently lift and/or drop the striker.
Park as modified teaches wherein the string includes a ruler mark (comprising the electromagnet 12 and/or switch 13 of Sun), wherein the ruler mark is positioned on the string to delimit height versus a mark on the ruled standard for correct starting position for dropping the steel ball through the tube guide onto the strike plate (the ruler mark of Sun is capable of use to delimit height versus a mark on the ruled standard for correct starting position for dropping the steel ball through the tube guide onto the strike plate).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant noted on pg. 5 that the Examiner allegedly pointed out that claim 1 overcomes the prior art rejections.
However, the Examiner merely pointed out that an adjustability feature could not be identified in the Sisemore reference during the time of the interview, and that further review of the references, and/or an updated prior art search would be required. Upon said further review, Sisemore has been found to include an adjustability feature by way of slots 52 (¶33). Park as modified teaches all of claim 1.
Applicant argues on pgs. 5-6 that claims 3-5 and 8-10 are allowable via their dependence from claim 1.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive since all pending elected claims are properly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 101091109 A teaches a micro-impact testing equipment comprising a sample holder 12, a support plate 13 supporting the sample holder, a base (shown under elements 14-15), and a mechanism 14-15 for adjusting the position of the support plate 13 relative to the base
CN 109682565 A teaches standoffs 20 adjustably supported on a base 1 via T-shaped grooves 22
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 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