DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant amendments change the scope of the invention with the newly added limitation “wherein in use the at least three support ends of the at least three support bars contact and directly support the test piece”. Based on this amendment, examiner conducted a new search and a new 35 USC 103 rejection will be presented to reject amended claim 13.
As to amended claim 13, the newly added limitation overcomes the Hobbs reference because the support bars in Hobbs do not directly support the test piece but rather support the mounting table. Amended claim 13 will now be rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Bossche US 20220244156 in view of Massa US 4342229.
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.
Claim(s) 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Bossche US 20220244156 in view of Massa US 4342229.
As to claim 13, Van Den Bossche teaches “An impact excitation measurement system (Abstract, Figure 3) comprising a testing chamber (Figure 3, 301), an impactor (Figure 3, 312), a sensor system (Figure 3, 310 and 311) and a support system (Figure 3, 308, 309), wherein the impactor is configured to provide an impact to a test piece supported by the support system at said predetermined height ([0070]), wherein the sensor system is configured to obtain a vibrational response of the test piece to an impact provided to the test piece by the impactor ([0062] and [0063]), wherein the support system is configured to support a solid test piece at a predetermined height within the testing chamber (Figure 3; [0062]), the set of support bars comprising at least three support bars each having a support end (Figure 3, 308 and 309 have triangular tips to support 307), wherein in use the at least three support ends of the at least three support bars contact and directly support the test piece, which at least three support ends are positioned non-collinearly ([0051] teaches that the support bars are located at specific points, which are under the nodes of the vibration modes. The support bars are placed in the same location in the instant application; Figure 3).” Van Den Bossche does not explicitly teach thermal expansion coefficients.
Massa teaches “wherein the support system comprises a set of support bars which comprise a thermal expansion coefficient which is essentially equal to the thermal expansion coefficient of the impactor (Column 2, lines 62-64 teach that the supports are made of steel wires and Column 3, lines 11-15 teach that the impact hammer is made of steel. Based on this, the thermal expansion coefficients of the support and impactor should be essentially equal since they are the same material).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Massa with Van Den Bossche. Van Den Bossche does teach the concept of using a modal hammer to excite a structure and measure the response. The same concept is seen explicitly in Massa with the microphone which is used to detect the vibrational response of the subject under test. This data allows for the user to determine if abnormalities are present in the subject under test. Having materials with similar thermal expansion coefficients allows for prevention of failure when there are changes in temperature.
As to claim 14, Massa teaches “wherein the support bars are made of the same material as the impactor (Figure 1, the supports 2 and hammer tip 4 are both made of steel).”
As to claim 15, Massa teaches “wherein the support bars are made of a thermally stable material ((Figure 1, the supports 2 and hammer tip 4 are both made of steel, which is thermally stable).”
As to claim 16, Van Den Bossche teaches “wherein the support ends comprise a point-like shape (Figure 3, 308 and 309 have point-like ends).”
As to claim 17, Van Den Bossche teaches “wherein the support ends comprise a point-like shape which has the form of a spherical cap with a height (h) of at most 3 mm and a radius at the base of the cap (a) of at most 0.5 mm (Figure 3, 308 and 309. The figure does not teach the specific measurements of the support ends, but does teach its conical shape which is wider at the base and narrower at the tip).”
As to claim 18, Van Den Bossche teaches “wherein the testing chamber is a heating chamber comprising a temperature control system configured to control the temperature in the chamber ([0031] and [0032]).”
As to claim 19, Massa teaches “wherein the support bars and the impactor are made of a material comprising a linear expansion coefficient of at most 30.0 x 10-6 K-1 ((Figure 1, the supports 2 and hammer tip 4 are both made of steel. Steel is a material that fits within the desired claimed range).”
As to claim 20, Massa teaches “wherein the material comprises a linear expansion coefficient of at most 10.0 x 10-6 K-1 ((Figure 1, the supports 2 and hammer tip 4 are both made of steel. Since the instant application does not specify a material, and the prior arts do teach a specific material that does have a linear expansion coefficient, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to choose the desired material based on the known heating process. It only involves routine skill in the art to choose one material over another).”
As to claim 23, Van Den Bossche teaches “A method for acoustically measuring material properties of a test piece, preferably at one or more temperatures (Abstract), comprising the steps of: a. placing a test piece on the support system in a testing chamber of an impact excitation measurement system according to claim 13 ([0051]; Figure 1); b. preferably performing a background measurement, preferably within said testing temperature range, by capturing a vibrational signal from the test piece within a calibration period (Abstract), thereby obtaining a noise signal (Abstract); c. performing an acoustic measurement on said test piece, preferably within said testing temperature range, within a testing period (Abstract) by: cl. imparting a vibrational excitation onto the test piece (Abstract); c2. capturing a vibrational signal of the test piece within the testing period, thereby obtaining a vibrational response signal to said vibrational excitation, (Abstract) and d. obtaining the material properties of the test piece by analyzing the vibrational response signal, preferably thereby taking into account the noise signal (Abstract).”
As to claim 24, Van Den Bossche teaches “heating the test piece to within a testing temperature range (Abstract).”
As to claim 25, Van Den Bossche teaches “wherein the impactor comprises a ballistic impactor which is arranged to be provided with an impulse by an impactor actuator ([0070]).”
As to claim 26, Van Den Bossche teaches “wherein the impactor consists essentially of a thermally stable ceramic material ([0070] teaches a ceramic material. Based on this, one of ordinary skill in the art could choose a thermally stable ceramic).”
Claim(s) 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Bossche US 20220244156 in view of Massa US 4342229 and in further view of Schmitt-Thomas WO 9503544 (as seen in the previous office action).
As to claim 21, the prior arts do not explicitly teach non-collinear depressions.
Schmitt-Thomas teaches “and at least one test piece (Figure 2, 4), wherein the test piece comprises a base surface (Figure 2, 4 has a base surface that contacts 3 and 33), the base surface comprising a set of at least three non-collinear depressions, wherein the at least three non-collinear depressions are positioned in correspondence with the non-collinear support ends of the at least three support bars ([0051] teaches the importance of the placement of the base surface onto points 3 and 33, which offer stability and are located at nodes. In Figure 2, it appears as though points 3 and 33 are inserted into a recess within 4 and are not merely touching the outer edge of the base surface. Since the important of the support placement is taught in this prior art, using depressions to secure supports would be obvious since the concept of stability is taught in this prior art).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Schmitt-Thomas with Massa and Van Den Bossche. The depressions allow for secure contact between the support system and table. This aids in an accurate measurement.
As to claim 22, Schmitt-Thomas teaches “wherein the depressions are each positioned on a node of the test piece for a predetermined vibrational mode of the test piece ([0051] teaches the importance of the placement of the base surface onto points 3 and 33, which offer stability and are located at nodes. In Figure 2, it appears as though points 3 and 33 are inserted into a recess within 4 and are not merely touching the outer edge of the base surface).”
Conclusion
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 TARUN SINHA whose telephone number is (571)270-3993. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM 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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/TARUN SINHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights