NON-FINAL REJECTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/16/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/16/2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected to because empty diagram boxes are impermissible under 37 CFR §1.83(a) which recites as follows:
“The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box).” (Emphasis added by Examiner)
The empty diagram boxes found in Fig.2-3 of the drawings, must be labeled with an appropriate descriptive phrase in addition to the reference characters already present. Please see 37 CFR §1.84(n), 37 CFR §1.84(o), and 37 CFR §1.84(p) for more information on the difference between the required legends and the reference characters already present.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 19, 22 and 25-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 19, line 1, replace “The method according” with -- The method according to --.
Claims 22, 25-28 recite the claim with reference numbers. However, other claims are not presented with reference number. Examiner suggests to be consistent with reference numbering with all claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 31-32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sommer, Jr. et al. (US 6,266,390 Bl, cited by the applicants, “Sommer”).
Regarding Claim 31, Sommer teaches a device (fig.1 and 3-4) for automated testing (col.23; lines 45-49) of the reusability of a component (col.1; lines 17-21 and col.21; lines 15-22), comprising: a sealed test chamber (element 7, implicitly shown in fig.3 that the test chamber is sealed); a supply mechanism (fig.1; element 3) configured for transporting (via element 5) a component (element 11) through the sealed test chamber (shown in fig.3); at least one sensor (fig.3; element 27) configured for determining a state of the component (col.12; lines 53-65); an evaluation unit (fig.4; element 9) configured for comparing the state of the component with the states of comparison components stored in a database (col.15; lines 8-13, col.16; lines 57-64, col.18; lines 7-17), and a sorting mechanism (fig.4; element 9) configured for rejecting or supplying a component for reuse (col.19; line 31-col.20; line 17, col.21; lines 15-22).
Regarding Claim 32, the device according to claim 31 is taught by Sommer.
Sommer further teaches the device wherein the at least one sensor comprises one or more optical sensor, acoustic sensor, spectrometer, or tactile sensor (col.5; lines 7-14 discloses that the spectrum acquisition module receives as an input the x-ray signal and generates as an output an x-ray fluorescence spectrum, and a classification module receives as an input the x-ray fluorescence spectrum and generates as an output a classification signal indicating a classification of the piece of material. Col.24; lines 34-39 discloses that example input devices include a keyboard, keypad, track ball, mouse, pen and tablet, communication device, and data input devices such as audio and video capture devices and sensors. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Sommer.).
Regarding Claim 34, the device according to claim 31 is taught by Sommer.
Sommer further teaches the device further comprising an apparatus for marking components (implicitly in col.27; lines 35-44 as the classification of the piece of material determined by the sorting algorithm where dot products are used as marking).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (CN 102589863 A, cited by the applicants, “Guo”) in view of Zhou Xingmei (CN 107782550 A, cited by the applicants, “Zhou”).
Regarding Claim 15, Guo teaches a method for automated testing of the reusability of components [0002], in particular screws (implicitly taught in [0002, 0004] as screws are common parts in railway vehicle), which comprises the following steps: sensory detection of a state of a component (S2) [0008]-[0010], wherein the state of the component is described by a plurality of features, the inspection means detects the geometric dimensions of the component, external damage or deformation of the component, and/or a state of any coating, sensors (implicit in performing inspection/testing explained [0016-0018]), which detect damage to the material and the material quality, or inspection which detect a material composition of the component ([0008]-[0009] disclose the method of detecting geometric dimensions of the component, cracks or defects of the component); decision (S4) about a reusability of the component on the basis of test [0010]; and rejection (S6) or supply for reuse (S8) of the component on the basis of the decision ([0017] - [0019]: “If the metal parts to be tested meet the design size requirements, then continue to the next step of testing; otherwise, it is determined that the metal parts to be tested can no longer be used. …. If there are no cracks or defects in the metal parts to be tested, continue to the next step of inspection; otherwise, determine that the metal parts to be tested cannot be used. …. Based on the test results, it is determined whether the metal parts still meet the required performance requirements.”).
Guo does not explicitly teach regarding- sensory means being one of optical sensors, acoustic sensors or spectrometers; and decision (S4) about a reusability of the component on the basis of the comparison of the state with the states of comparison components stored in a database.
However, Zhou teaches a stainless steel fastener inspection system [0002], wherein the sampling module is a robotic arm Gripper [0009],
wherein sensory means being one of optical sensors, acoustic sensors or spectrometers ([0010]: “wherein the flaw detection module is an ultrasonic flaw detector”); and comparison (S3) of the state with the states of comparison components stored in a database ([0011]; [0019]: “the analysis module is a stainless steel fastener computer database”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo’s method/system with the teaching of Zhou this both arts are similar and Zhou’s method/system would quickly and effectively perform specification analysis and physical property analysis on the produced stainless steel fasteners, ensuring that the produced products are of excellent quality and free from safety hazards, thereby meeting the usage needs of various industries [0012], and utilizing the teaching of Zhou one of ordinary skill in the art may take decision about a reusability of the component on the basis of the comparison of the state with the states of comparison components stored in a database.
Regarding Claim 16, the method according to claim 15 is taught by Guo in view of Zhou.
Modified Guo further teaches - characterized in that, for the comparison of the state of a component with states of comparison components stored in a database, the database contains information about the usability of the comparison components, which was determined in practical tests, in addition to sensory detectable data about the comparison components (Zhou: [0011] and [0019]).
Regarding Claim 19, the method according (to) claim 15 is taught by Guo in view of Zhou.
Zhou further teaches that in the case that a comparison with states stored in the database is not possible, the component is rejected (S6) and/or is marked for a practical test regarding usability (utilizing the teaching of [0019], one of ordinary skill in the art may find the limitation).
Regarding Claim 20, the method according to claim 15 is taught by Guo in view of Zhou.
Zhou further teaches that after the decision about the reusability of the component, the database is expanded (S5) by the sensory detected state of the component (utilizing the teaching of [0019], one of ordinary skill in the art may find the limitation).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Zhou and further in view of Robinson et al. (US 2021/0145299 A1, “Robinsson”).
Regarding Claim 17, the method according to claim 15 is taught by Guo in view of Zhou.
As to the limitation, “the sensory detection is additionally carried out by tactile sensors, which detect the geometric dimensions and deformations of the component,” Guo discloses regarding performing form and dimensional inspection in [0008]. Thus, Guo implicitly teaches the limitation.
Guo does not explicitly teach regarding usage of tactile sensors to measure dimension and deformation.
However, Robinson teaches method and systems for reliable, convenient, self-administered, and cost-effective determination of central venous pressure [Abstract] wherein physical dimensions can be determined using non-contact methods (e.g., x-ray, sonar, or MRI) as well as by contact methods, including tactile sensor CCMs and strain/tension sensors (e.g., a strain gauge) that can determine changes in limb circumference [0158].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo’s method/system with the teaching of Robinson since this is a known sensing system which would provide a reliable, effective, convenient, self-administered, and cost-effective determination of dimensions.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Zhou and further in view of Kopnick et al. (US 2022/0401046 A1, “Kopnick”)
Regarding Claim 18, the method according to claim 15 is taught by Guo in view of Zhou.
Modified Guo does not teach that the component is automatically cleaned before the sensory detection.
However, Kopnick teaches a storage device for cleaning and charging portable X-ray detectors [Abstract] wherein the device further comprising an automated cleaning device [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kopnick in the device of Guo in view of Zhou since it is known in the art to use automatically cleaning device which would help to have contamination-free reading.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Zhou and further in view of Sommer.
Regarding Claim 21, the method according to claim 15 is taught by Guo in view of Zhou.
Modified Guo does not teach that a component, which is supplied for reuse, is provided with a marking (S7) for tracking.
However, Sommer further teaches a component, which is supplied for reuse, is provided with a marking (S7) for tracking (implicitly in col.27; lines 35-44 as the classification of the piece of material determined by the sorting algorithm where dot products are used as marking).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sommer in the device of Guo in view of Zhou since sorting algorithm of Sommer where dot products are used may consider as marking, and the sorting system precisely categorizes the parts.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sommer in view of Kopnick.
Regarding Claim 33, the device according to claim 31 is taught by Sommer.
Sommer does not teach the device further comprising an automated cleaning device.
However, Kopnick teaches a storage device for cleaning and charging portable X-ray detectors [Abstract] wherein the device further comprising an automated cleaning device [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kopnick in the device of Sommer since it is known in the art to use automatically cleaning device which would help to have contamination-free reading.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-30 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regard to Claim 22, the prior arts of the record do not teach or fairly suggest a device for automated testing of the reusability of components (1), comprising, in combination with the other recited elements, a supply mechanism (2 conveyer), via which a component is transported into the test chamber (4) and is transported from one sensor (5, 6, 7) to the next; multiple sensors (5, 6, 7), by means of which the state of the component is detected, at least one of the sensors being an optical sensor (5), an acoustic sensor (6), or a spectrometer (7).
Claims 23-30 are allowed by virtue of their dependence from Claim 22.
Response to Arguments
No argument was submitted. Due to new arts cited in the IDS filed on 02/16/2026, the allowability is withdrawn and new office action is issued.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Booker et al. (US 2021/0231551 A1) teaches a particle concentration analyzing system for testing particle concentrations in a fluid sample, such as engine emission particle concentration present in the exhaust of an engine. The particle concentration analyzing system includes a condensation particle counter having a saturation chamber, a condenser, and a laser optic particle counter. The analyzing system further includes a working fluid tank, a working fluid pump, and a sampling probe. The system provides a robust analysis system for a user to test vehicle emissions without being highly trained on the device, as the device is protected from misuse. A position sensitive sensor is used to ensure that the system is not damaged if the system is tipped over or placed in a position that would produce false results. Additional features include differential pressure sensors, a sealed and replaceable tamper resistant working fluid tank, a solvent recovery system, an anti-cheat device, and fluid purity sensors [Abstract].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855