DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s election of claims 1-11 and 16-18 in the reply filed on September 16, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
3. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
1) The abstract is included in a page referencing the cross-reference to related applications. Typically, that information would be provided in the detailed specification. Furthermore, the abstract includes "Please amend the specification to add the below abstract after the claims:" under the abstract header.
2) The abstract uses legal phraseology such as "attachment means" and "measurement means".
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. Claim 1 recites “attachment means for attaching the first end to a first point” (lines 1-2), “attachment means for attaching the second end to a second point” (lines 2-3), and “measurement means for measuring linear displacement” (line 5).
From the specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation for “attachment means” appears to be any form of clevis, chackles, brackets, or pinned connections {para. [0036]}.
From the specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation for “measurement means” appears to be any form of a pulse generator and sensor unit connected to an elongated magnetostrictive waveguide, an ultrasonic transducer, or a laser distance measurement device {para. [0015]-[0020]}.
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.
6. Claims 1-11 and 16-18 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.
The term “relatively lower bending stiffness” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively lower” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is impossible to know the degree of which the intermediate flexible members must have a lower bending stiffness (otherwise stated as "be more flexible") than the linear motion guide. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will read that any intermediate flexible members must be more flexible than the linear motion guide.
Claims 2-11 and 16-18 are dependent on independent claim 1, and therefore inherit the same deficiencies as stated in the above rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-6, 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meyer (US 20100236336 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Meyer discloses a linear displacement transducer [displacement transducer 50/120/140] including: a first end with attachment means for attaching the first end to a first point [Fig. 9 shows a top pivoting assembly 58 secured with a bracket]; a second end with attachment means for attaching the second end to a second point [Fig. 9 shows a bottom pivoting assembly 58 secured with a bracket]; a linear motion guide between the ends which includes a first part which is guided to move linearly relative to a second part {portions 126 and 128 of linear displacement sensor 142 move linearly to one another along axis 66, described in para. [0044]}; measurement means for measuring linear displacement between the first and second parts of the linear motion guide and providing the measurement as an electrical signal {linear displacement sensor 142, described in para. [0044]-[0045]}; the first end is attached to the first part of the linear motion guide through a first intermediate flexible member {Fig. 9 top pivoting assembly 58 has flexible plates described in para. [0036]-[0039]} and the second end is attached to the second part of the linear motion guide through a second intermediate flexible member {Fig. 9 bottom pivoting assembly 58 has flexible plates described in para. [0036]-[0039]}; and the intermediate flexible members having relatively lower bending stiffness than the linear motion guide such that lateral relative movement between the first end and second end induces greater flexure in the intermediate members than in the linear motion guide {described in para. [0036]-[0039]} and linear relative movement between the first end and the second end is transferred to the linear motion guide [Fig. 9 top and bottom pivoting assemblies 58 move relative to each other, relative movement is transferred to portions 126 and 128] and is measurable by the measurement means as an estimate of the relative displacement between the first and second points {para. [0036] describes that the displacement transducer is adapted to measure the linear displacement along axis 66}.
In regard to claim 2, Meyer discloses wherein the first end is fixed and the second end is movable [Figs. 9 and 10 - the top pivoting assembly 58 is stable such that the travel of the wheel/bottom pivoting assembly can be measured].
In regard to claim 3, Meyer discloses wherein the first and second parts of the linear motion guide are cylindrical and the parts are movable relative to each other linearly about a shared central axis of the cylindrical parts [Fig 8 shows telescoping portions 126 and 128 moving along the same axis 66].
In regard to claim 4, Meyer discloses wherein the first part of the linear motion guide is a barrel and the second part of the linear motion guide is a plunger [Fig. 8 shows portion 126 acting as a barrel and portion 128 acting as a plunger].
In regard to claim 5, Meyer discloses wherein the plunger includes a guiding sleeve with an outer diameter corresponding to the inner diameter of the barrel [Figs. 9 and 10 show 142 having a top and bottom cylinder tubes, wherein the top cylinder would act as a guiding sleeve for portion 128].
In regard to claim 6, Meyer discloses wherein the barrel includes a guiding sleeve with an inner diameter corresponding to the outer diameter of the plunger such that, when the sleeves engage the plunger and barrel, the plunger and barrel are guided to move linearly relative to each other about a central axis of the guiding sleeves {Figs. 9 and 10 show 142 having a top and bottom cylinder, wherein the bottom cylinder acts as a guiding sleeve of the barrel, with the plunger and barrel moving linearly relative to each other along the central axis 66 as described in para. [0043]-[0044]}.
In regard to claim 9, Meyer discloses wherein at least part of the measurement means is located inside one of the intermediate flexible members {para. [0044]-[0045] describe that the electrical connectors transmit electrical signals from the sensing device to the recorder through at least one of the flexible plates}.
In regard to claim 18, Meyer discloses wherein the linear displacement transducer includes an extendible cover over the linear motion guide {para. [0038]-[0040] describe extending supports and flexure plates that would cover portions 126 and 128 if combined as discussed in para. [0007]}.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
8. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Leadbeater (GB 1275060 A).
In regard to claim 7, Meyer teaches the linear displacement transducer of claim 6.
Meyer does not teach the use of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) for the sleeves.
However, Leadbeater teaches also teaches a linear displacement transducer with a plunger 12 and sleeves 32, as well as wherein the sleeves are made of PTFE [page 3 line 124 - page 4 line 6 describes using a PTFE sleeve 32 to guide the plunger 12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Leadbeater’s PTFE sleeves with Meyer’s linear displacement transducer in order to better reduce the friction of the sleeve on the plunger, as described by Leadbeater [page 3 line 124 - page 4 line 6].
9. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Kummetz (US 20130019489 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Meyer teaches the linear displacement transducer of claim 4, as well as the movement of the plunger and the barrel relative to each other about a central axis of the guiding sleeve.
Meyer does not teach wherein the plunger includes a plurality of rollers which roll along an inner surface of the barrel to guide the movement of the plunger.
However, Kummetz teaches a linear displacement transducer [length measuring device], as well as wherein the plunger [scanning head 5] includes a plurality of rollers [rollers] which roll along an inner surface of the barrel to guide the movement of the plunger {para. [0035] describes using rollers to guide the movement of the scanning head 5 along the X direction}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Kummetz’s use of rollers with Meyer’s linear displacement transducer in order to better brace and guide the movement in the X direction as taught by Kummetz {para. [0035]}.
10. Claims 10-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Steinich (US 20070063694 A1).
In regard to claim 10, Meyer teaches the linear displacement transducer of claim 4.
Meyer does not teach the use of a pulse generator, a sensor unit connected to an elongated magnetostrictive waveguide within the barrel, or an annular magnet which is attached to the plunger and moves about the waveguide such that the measurement means determines a position of the magnet along the elongated waveguide.
However, Steinich also teaches a linear displacement sensor, as well as a pulse generator {para. [0018] describes a signal generator} and sensor unit [displacement sensor] connected to an elongated magnetostrictive waveguide {para. [0002] describes the magnetostrictive displacement sensor being a waveguide, abstract describes the shape as elongated] within the barrel [tube] and an annular magnet [position magnet] which is attached to the plunger [mobile constructive unit] and moves about the waveguide, wherein the measurement means determines a position of the magnet along the elongated waveguide {described in para. [0002]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Steinich’s magnetostrictive displacement sensor as a measurement means of Meyer’s linear displacement sensor in order to better determine the precise location of linear displacement, as taught by Steinich {para. [0002]}.
In regard to claim 11, Meyer in view of Steinich teaches the linear displacement transducer of claim 10.
Meyer does not teach the use of measuring the deflection of a pulse through a waveguide and its time different to determine the position of a magnet.
However, Steinich teaches wherein the pulse generator generates and transmits a pulse through the waveguide, detects a reflection of the pulse, and uses the time difference to measure the position of the magnet {described in para. [0002] - use of a predefined propagation time}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Steinich’s method of determining distance by measuring an electrical signal through a waveguide with Meyer’s linear displacement sensor in order to better determine the precise location of linear displacement, as taught by Steinich {para. [0002]}.
In regard to claim 17, Meyer teaches the linear displacement transducer of claim 1.
Meyer does not teach wherein the intermediate flexible members are made of hydraulic hose.
However, Steinich teaches wherein the intermediate flexible members [cellular hose 26] are made of hydraulic hose {para. [0044] describes the use of cellular hose 26 as a propping member; cellular hose is known to be used as a hydraulic hose].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Steinich’s cellular hose as one of Meyer’s intermediate flexible members in order to better dampen and electrically insulate the waveguide as taught by Steinich [claims 36-37].
11. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Sargent (US 3500146 A).
In regard to claim 16, Meyer teaches the linear displacement transducer of claim 1.
Meyer does not teach the use of a clevis as an attachment means for at least one end.
However, Sargent teaches a linear displacement transducer wherein at least one of the ends has attachment means which include a clevis [col. 1 lines 59-63 describe securing an end of the linear displacement transducer with a clevis 20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Sargent’s method of securing an end of a linear displacement transducer with a clevis with Meyer’s linear displacement transducer in order to better mechanically connect the linear displacement transducer to a measurement object – a known engineering practice – as described by Sargent [col. 2 lines 8-32].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-2690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30 PST.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/DANIEL M QUINN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855