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 .
Amendment filed 3/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10, 12-13 and 15 remain pending in the present application.
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 1-10, 12-13 and 15 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.
Claim limitation “moment measurement device” and “locking mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s specification and figures do not make it abundantly clear what the locking mechanism structure actually is but merely discusses it functionally throughout the specification. Applicant’s specification does not make it clear what the moment measurement device is throughout the specification and therefore it is unclear what structure is being invoked in claims 1 and 15. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Re. Cl. 12, the limitation “the at least one measured parameter comprises at least one of an amplitude, a velocity, a time course, a period, a frequency, or a spectrum of the oscillatory motion” renders the claim indefinite in the Examiner’s position. Applicant has amended claim 1 to include the pendulum which measures oscillatory motion or a moment measurement device but it appears as if the claim 12 has not also been amended to include the instance where the pendulum is not used but the moment measurement device is used. As discussed above, it is unclear what the moment measurement device is and if it is even capable of measuring these parameters listed in claim 12. Therefore, the limitation is indefinite in the Examiner’s position.
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: movement mechanism in claims 1, 11 and 15, actuating mechanism in claim 4, and calibration member in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant defines the movement mechanism rails, ball joint, ring bearing, or rotating spindle, the actuating mechanism as a rotatable spindle and the calibration member as 3d measurement arm, camera laser scanner or other sensor devices
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-7, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fordice US 2013/0138376 (hereinafter Fordice) in view of Perkins US 2016/0025114 (hereinafter Perkins).
Re. Cl. 1, Fordice discloses: A system (Fig. 1) for measuring inertial properties of an object (see Fig. 1, via mounting onto 144), comprising; a module (110, 140 Fig. 1) for positioning an orienting an object, the module comprising: a carrier (110 and cylinder of 130, Fig. 1); a platform (140 and piston of 130, Fig. 1) configured to hold an object (see Fig. 1, using 144), wherein the platform is movably attached or attachable to the carrier (see Fig. 1, using 130), wherein the carrier constrains the platform in at least one degree of freedom (see Fig. 1, as only enabling pivoting about 120), and wherein the platform is selectively movable into any one of a plurality of discrete positions with respect to the carrier (see Fig. 4a-b); and a movement mechanism (132, Fig. 1) configured to at least one of translate or rotate the platform with respect to the carrier such as to move the platform into any selected one discrete position of the plurality of discrete positions (see Fig. 4a-b); a base rigidly connectable or connected to the module (170, Fig. 2) wherein the base comprises at least one of: i) a pendulum configured for oscillatory motion of the module or ii) a moment measurement device (160a, Fig. 1); and a sensor (160b-d, Fig. 1) configured to measure at least one parameter (Paragraph 0016); wherein the at least one parameter includes at least one of: i) at least one static parameter of the module (see Paragraph 0016). or ii) at least one dynamic parameter of the module
Re. Cl. 13, Fordice discloses: a calibration member (see Fig. 6) configured to determine, in each one of the plurality of discrete positions, an inertial property of the module (see Fig. 6) and/or a position and orientation of the platform with respect to a reference structure.
Re. Cl. 14, Fordice discloses: wherein the module is used for measuring at least one inertial property of the object (Paragraph 0016, Lines 1-4).
Re. Cl. 15, Fordice discloses: A method (Fig. 1-2 and 5-6) for measuring inertial properties of an object (Paragraph 0016, Lines 1-4) using a system (see Fig. 1-2) comprising: a module (Fig. 1-2) comprising: a carrier (110 and cylinder of 130); a platform (140 and piston of 130, Fig. 1) configured to hold an object (see Fig. 1, via 144), , wherein the platform is movably attached or attachable to the carrier (see Fig. 4a-b, via 120), wherein the carrier constrains the platform in at least one degree of freedom (see Fig. 4a-b, by only enabling movement about hinge 120), and wherein the platform is selectively movable into any one of a plurality of discrete positions with respect to the carrier (see Fig. 4a-b); and a movement mechanism (130, Fig. 1) configured to at least one of translate or rotate the platform with respect to the carrier such as to move the platform into any selected one discrete position of the plurality of discrete positions (see Fig. 4a and 4b); a base (170, Fig. 2) rigidly connectable or connected to the module (see Fig. 2); wherein at least part of the module is movable with respect to at least a part of the base, and wherein the base comprises at least one of a pendulum configured for oscillatory motion of the module or a moment measurement device (160a, Fig. 1); and a sensor (160b-d, Fig. 1) configured to measure at least one of: i) at least one static parameter of the module (Paragraph 0016, Lines 1-4) ii) at least one dynamic parameter of the module; the method comprising the steps: attaching an object to the platform in a fixed position and orientation with respect to the platform for each position of a subset of the plurality of discrete positions (see Fig. 4a, 4b, attaching the object to 144 as discussed in Paragraph 0019), the subset comprising at least two different positions moving the platform into said position by means of the movement mechanism (see Fig. 4a, 4b); moving the platform into the selected one discrete position using the movement mechanism (see Paragraph 0003), while the platform is in the selected one discrete position, at least one of causing the pendulum to oscillate or measuring center of mass coordinates using the moment measurement device (see Paragraph 0003); measuring, using the sensor, at least one of the at least one static parameter of the module or the at least one dynamic parameter of the module including the attached held object (see Fig. 4a, 4b, and Figs. 5-6) while the platform is locked into said position (see Fig. 4a and 4b, as shown in Fig. 6, the first and second orientation need to be maintained so that the center of gravity can be measured at each orientation, therefore disclosing that they are “locked” at these positions); and determining, based on the measured at least one static parameter of the module or the at least one dynamic parameter of the module, at least one inertial property of the object (see Fig. 6).
Fordice discloses the use of hoist which is a hydraulic or electric hoist which inherently would need to remain locked or held in the positions shown in Fig. 4a and 4b respectively so that the center of gravity of the object can be measured in the positions discussed in Fig. 6. However, re. Cls. 1-7 and 15, Fordice does not explicitly illustrate how the hydraulic or electric hoist functions and therefore does not explicitly disclose the carrier including one or more stops, the platform comprising one or more positioning elements; each of the plurality of discrete positions defined by the at least one of the one or more positioning elements engaging with a corresponding one of the one or more stops (Cl. 1), a locking mechanism configured, when the platform is positioned in the selected one discrete position, to exert a force pushing the at least one of the one or more positioning elements onto the respective one of the one or more stops with which said positioning element is engaged to reproducibly lock the platform into the selected one discrete position (Cl. 2), the locking mechanism is configured to, when the platform is locked into the selected one discrete position, constrain the selected one discrete position and orientation of the platform in six degrees of freedom (Cl. 3), the movement mechanism and the locking mechanism share a common actuating component (Cl. 4), the carrier comprises a plurality of stops and the platform comprises a plurality of positioning elements, wherein each of the plurality of discrete positions is defined by a subset of at least two of the plurality of positioning elements simultaneously engaging with a corresponding subset of at least two of the plurality of stops and/or wherein the plurality of discrete positions comprises at least six discrete positions, each pair of discrete positions differing in at least one translational and/or rotational degree of freedom (Cl. 5), at least one of the one or more positioning elements and/or at least one of the one or more stops comprise a convex surface section (Cl. 6), the movement mechanism comprises a rail for translating the platform with respect to the carrier and/or a ball joint and/or ring bearing for rotating the platform with respect to the carrier and/or a rotatable spindle and/or a belt drive for actuating the movement mechanism (Cl. 7); or the carrier including at least one stop, the platform comprises at least one positioning element, each of the plurality of discrete positions defined by the at least one positioning element engaging with a corresponding at least one stop; a locking mechanism configured such that, when the platform is positioned in the selected one discrete position, the locking mechanism exerts a force pushing at least one positioning element onto the respective at least one stop with which said positioning element is engaged to reproducibly lock the platform into the selected one discrete position; locking the platform into the selected one discrete position using the locking mechanism (Cl. 15). Perkins discloses a hydraulic hoist or actuator (Fig. 1) which includes a carrier (106, Fig. 1) including at least one stop (122s, Fig. 1) and a platform (108, Fig. 1) which is adjustable within the carrier and comprising at least one positioning element (see Fig. 1, top and bottom surface of 109a), each of the plurality of discrete positions defined by the at least one positioning element engaging with a corresponding at least one stop (see Fig. 1, when 109a engages the top and bottom limits 122); a locking mechanism (valve 100), configured, to exert a force pushing the at least one of the one or more positioning elements onto the respective one of the one or more stops with which said positioning element is engaged to reproducibly lock the platform into the selected one discrete position (see Fig. 1, locking using the valve 100); the locking mechanism is configured to, when the platform is locked into the selected one discrete position, constrain the selected one discrete position and orientation of the platform in six degrees of freedom (see Fig. 1, by not allowing 108 to move relative to 106); the movement mechanism and the locking mechanism share a common actuating component (stepper motor, Paragraph 0021); the carrier comprises a plurality of stops and the platform comprises a plurality of positioning elements (see Fig. 1, 122s and opposing sides of 109a), wherein each of the plurality of discrete positions is defined by a subset of at least two of the plurality of positioning elements simultaneously engaging with a corresponding subset of at least two of the plurality of stops (see Fig. 1) and/or wherein the plurality of discrete positions comprises at least six discrete positions, each pair of discrete positions differing in at least one translational and/or rotational degree of freedom; at least one of the one or more positioning elements and/or at least one of the one or more stops comprise a convex surface section (see Fig. 1, 109a has a convex surface section fitting within cylinder 106); the movement mechanism (stepper motor, Paragraph 0021) comprises a rail for translating the platform with respect to the carrier and/or a ball joint and/or ring bearing for rotating the platform with respect to the carrier and/or a rotatable spindle (it is the Examiner’s position that a stepper motor inherently includes a rotatable spindle as disclosed by Mrozek US 6997799 and NPL cited on the PTO-892) and/or a belt drive for actuating the movement mechanism.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic hoist of Fordice to have the structure of Perkins with reasonable expectation of success since Perkins states that forces associated with pistons changing direction of motion or engaging end stops can result in large stresses leading to breakage, failure and accelerated wear of components (Paragraph 0023, Lines 5-10) and the particular actuator slows down the piston before reaching the end stop, thus reducing the stress or negative effects on the hydraulic system (Paragraph 0024, Lines 1-4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 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.
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the term “locking mechanism” is properly identified in the specification and therefore is not indefinite, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant cites that the locking mechanism is specifically defined on Page 5, Lines 5-6, as gravity, and therefore is not indefinite. The Examiner wishes to point out that Page 5, Lines 5-6 refers to a physical locking mechanism, which is not defined and that gravity could be used as an alternate or addition to the physical locking mechanism. It is the Examiner’s position that Applicant’s claims must be directed towards the physical locking mechanism since gravity is a law of nature/natural phenomenon which is not eligible to be positively claimed per MPEP 2106 I. Applicant further argues that the specification discloses the locking mechanism is defined since the specification refers to shared actuating components for the locking mechanism and movement mechanism (i.e. belt drive, rotatable spindle). However, shared actuating components provides no structure to the locking mechanism since it is not disclose dhow these shared actuating components interact with the locking mechanism. In other words, having shared actuating components provides no insight to what the locking structure actually is other than it being actuated by a certain structure. Applicant lastly alleges that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand what structures perform the locking function, however, as pointed out above, this is not one of the manners of overcoming the issue. Therefore, Applicant’s specification still does not specify what structure constitutes the locking mechanism and claim remains indefinite as set forth above.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the combination of Fordice in view of Perkins does not disclose the limitations in claims 1 and 15 above, the Examiner disagrees. It is the Examiner’s position that the load cell (106a) meets Applicant’s claimed moment measurement device since the load cells measure parameters that are used to calculate the center of gravity of the device attached to 144 as discussed in Paragraph 0016. Therefore, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brogardh US 6974297, Chiang US 7124660, Holz US 8229701, and Kirkman US 10056007 disclose other known supporting systems which are presented to the Applicant for their consideration.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at (571)272-4797. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights