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 .
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 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stieff (US 5,870,835)
With respect to claim 1, Stieff teaches a check device (measuring gage 38) for checking a brake disc and a tire tread surface of a vehicle, wherein the check device comprises: a check device body (insertion tip 52); and a base comprising a first base body (housing 40), a second base body (plunger shaft 42), and a locking mechanism (collets 78a-c), wherein the check device body is mounted to the first base body: wherein the first base body has a hollow structure, and at least part of the second base body can be accommodated in an inner cavity of the first base body; the first base body comprises a first sliding member (neck piece 64), the second base body comprises a second sliding member (core 46), the first sliding member cooperates with the second sliding member to move the second base body with respect to the first base body, and the at least part of the second base body can be accommodated in or can extend out of the inner cavity of the first base body; the locking mechanism is used for locking the second base body with respect to the first base body such that the at least part of the second base body is accommodated in the inner cavity of the first base body, and unlocking the second base body with respect to the first base body such that the at least part of the second base body extends out of the inner cavity of the first base body. (col. 3, line 61 – col. 5, line 3; Figs. 3-4)
With respect to claim 10, Stieff, as modified, teaches a support plate (endcap 94): wherein the support plate is mounted to the other end of the second base body, and four end faces of the support plate are flush with four side faces of the first sliding member, respectively. (Figs. 3-4)
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.
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) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stieff in view of Cavalli. (WO 2018/172991)
With respect to claim 11, Stieff teaches all that is claimed, as in the above rejection, except for explicitly teaching the check device body comprises a hand-held housing, a photoelectric assembly, an image capturing assembly, and a control unit: the control unit, the photoelectric assembly, and the image capturing assembly are all arranged on the hand-held housing, the control unit is electrically connected to the photoelectric assembly and the image capturing assembly respectively, and one end of the hand-held housing is mounted to the first base body; wherein the first base body and the second base body are used for abutting against a brake disc or the tire, the photoelectric assembly is used for projecting light onto the brake disc or the tire, the image capturing assembly is used for capturing an image containing the light on the brake disc or the tire, and the control unit is used for recognizing information about the brake disc or the tire according to the image.
Cavalli teaches a check device, wherein the check device body comprises a hand-held housing, a photoelectric assembly (light emitting device 10), an image capturing assembly (sensor device 11), and a control unit: the control unit, the photoelectric assembly, and the image capturing assembly are all arranged on the hand-held housing, the control unit is electrically connected to the photoelectric assembly and the image capturing assembly respectively, and one end of the hand-held housing is mounted to the first base body; wherein the first base body and the second base body are used for abutting against a brake disc or the tire, the photoelectric assembly is used for projecting light onto the brake disc or the tire, the image capturing assembly is used for capturing an image containing the light on the brake disc or the tire, and the control unit is used for recognizing information about the brake disc or the tire according to the image. (pages 9-10, 17-18; Figs. 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the structure of Stieff to include an optical measuring system, as taught by Cavalli, in order to provide accurate results measured in a predictable and well-known manner.
With respect to claim 12, Stieff, as modified by Cavalli, teaches wherein the first base body is provided with a mounting groove in which one end of the hand-held housing is accommodated. (Cavalli, pages 9-10)
With respect to claim 13, Stieff, as modified by Cavalli, teaches wherein the second base body is further provided with an accommodating cavity; the check device further comprises a first magnetic absorbing member and a second magnetic absorbing member, wherein the first magnetic absorbing member is mounted in an accommodating cavity, the second magnetic absorbing member is mounted to one end of the hand-held housing, and one end of the hand-held housing is accommodated in the mounting groove, the first magnetic absorbing member and the second magnetic absorbing member being attracted to each other. (Cavalli, pages 9-10, 20)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or render obvious a check device as claimed, particularly including all of the detailed structure of claim 2 in combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3,269,019; US 5,369,602; US 6,694,832 and US 8,276,251 each teach an invention having similarities to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jill E Culler whose telephone number is (571)272-2159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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.
/JILL E CULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853