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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tomoo et al. (JP3908873, hereinafter Tomoo). Regarding claim 1, Tomoo discloses an apparatus comprising a main frame (See Fig. 13) comprising guide supports 2a, 2b vertically extending from a base portion and a mounting plate 8 coupled to the guide support; a first mount jig 9 mounted to the mounting plate and configured to support an upper portion of a mount member (test object not shown); a second mount jig 10 mounted to a lower portion of the mount member and configured to support the lower portion of the mount member; a weight portion 11 fixed to the second mount jig and configured to apply a load to the mount member; and a vibration portion 14 (See Fig. 15) configured to continuously provide vibration to the base to vibrate the weight portion using the main frame, the first mount jig, and the second mount jig as media (See Pg. 5, Para. 0040, Pg. 12, Para. 0085 and Pg. 13, Para. 0090). Regarding claim 8, the weight portion 11 has a structure in which a plurality of unit weights is stacked, wherein the weight portion is selectively varied in weight by assembling or disassembling the unit weights (See Fig. 13).5. Claims 10 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uno (JP2001074627). Regarding claim 10, Uno discloses a method and apparatus comprising steps of inputting a target load signal of a mount member (sample) to a controller 14 (See Fig. 1), the controller calculating a natural frequency of the mount member using a weight measurement for a weight portion and a characteristic value of the mount member to control a vibration portion to vibrate at a frequency identical to the calculated natural frequency of the mount member and with an inputted amplitude; the controller receiving the load applied to the mount member in real time to compare the same with the target load; and when the load applied to the mount member coincides with the target load, the vibration portion is controlled to vibrate with a corresponding amplitude (See Abstract, See Pg. 2, Paras. 0006 – 0007 and Pg. 4, lines 32 – 45). Regarding claim 11, when the load applied to the mount member does not coincide with the target load, the controller selectively increases or decreases the amplitude of the vibration portion (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, the displacement measurement is performed by a displacement sensor 5 to enable the controller to calculate and output a velocity and an acceleration of the weight portion using the displacement measurement (See Fig. 4, See Pg. 1, Para. 0002 and Pg. 2, Para. 0034). 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. 7. 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.
8. Claims 2 and 4 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Tomoo in view of Uno (JP2001074627).
Regarding claim 2, Tomoo discloses an apparatus comprising a main frame (See Fig. 13) comprising guide supports 2a, 2b vertically extending from a base portion and a mounting plate 8 coupled to the guide support; a first mount jig 9 mounted to the mounting plate and configured to support an upper portion of a mount member (test object not shown); a second mount jig 10 mounted to a lower portion of the mount member and configured to support the lower portion of the mount member; a weight portion 11 fixed to the second mount jig and configured to apply a load to the mount member; and a vibration portion 14 (See Fig. 15) configured to continuously provide vibration to the base to vibrate the weight portion using the main frame, the first mount jig, and the second mount jig as media (See Pg. 5, Para. 0040, Pg. 12, Para. 0085 and Pg. 13, Para. 0090). Tomoo fails to disclose a controller configured to make a comparison between the load applied to the mount member and an inputted target load to selectively increase or decrease an amplitude of the vibration portion. However, Uno discloses a method and apparatus comprising a controller 14 that compares a load applied to a sample 1 with a target load and adjusts an amplitude of a vibration portion (See Pg. 2, Paras. 0003 and 0006 -0009 and Pg. 4, lines 1 – 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Tomoo in view of Uno for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device is capable of removing the influence of the inertial force or a movable portion and applying a desired stress to a sample (See Uno, Pg. 2, Para. 0005).
Regarding claim 4, Tomoo fails to disclose that the controller is further configured to calculate a natural frequency of the mount member using a weight measurement for the weight portion and a characteristic value of the mount member to control the vibration portion to vibrate at a frequency identical to the calculated natural frequency of the mount member and with an inputted amplitude. However, in Uno, the controller is further configured to calculate a natural frequency of the mount member using a weight measurement for the weight portion and a characteristic value of the mount member to control the vibration portion to vibrate at a frequency identical to the calculated natural frequency of the mount member and with an inputted amplitude (See Abstract, See Pg. 2, Paras. 0006 – 0007 and Pg. 4, lines 32 – 45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Tomoo in view of Uno for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device is capable of removing the influence of the inertial force or a movable portion and applying a desired stress to a sample (See Uno, Pg. 2, Para. 0005).
Regarding claim 5, Tomoo fails to disclose that the controller is further configured to receive the load applied to the mount member from a load cell 6 (See Fig. 3) attached to the first mount jig in real time and to compare the same with the inputted target load. However, in Uno, the controller is further configured to receive the load applied to the mount member from a load cell attached to the first mount jig in real time and to compare the same with the inputted target load (See Abstract, See Pg. 2, Paras. 0006 – 0007 and Pg. 4, lines 32 – 45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Tomoo in view of Uno for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device is capable of removing the influence of the inertial force or a movable portion and applying a desired stress to a sample (See Uno, Pg. 2, Para. 0005).
Regarding claim 6, in Tomoo, a displacement measuring device 19 is mounted to the guide support 2b via 4, 5 and is configured to evaluate a displacement of the weight portion in a vertical movement (See Fig. 19, See Pg. 14, Paras. 0096 and 0097). Regarding claim 7, in Tomoo, the controller is further configured to calculate and output a velocity or speed and an acceleration of the weight portion using a displacement measurement for the weight portion received from the displacement measuring device (See Pg. 14, Para. 0096). 9. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoo and Uno, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hashida et al. (JP2017053698, hereinafter Hashida). Regarding claim 3, Tomoo and Uno fail to disclose that the target load is inputted by being set to a maximum shock load on an actual vehicle. However, Hashida discloses a method and apparatus comprising inputting a target load to a machine 3 during a fatigue test that is indicative of a shock load on a vehicle (See Pg. 6, lines 37 – 44 and Pg. 8, lines 1 – 30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Tomoo and Uno according to the teachings of Hashida for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device reduces the time required for fatigue testing (See Hashida, the Abstract).
10. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoo in view of Rastegar et al. (9,970,844, hereinafter Rastegar). Regarding claim 9, Tomoo fails to disclose that the weight portion is coupled to a plurality of guide shafts disposed upright from the base plate by allowing the plurality of guide shafts to pass through four corners of the weight portion, respectively, and moves up and down along the guide shafts by vibration.
However, Rastegar discloses an apparatus comprising a weight portion 23 that is coupled to a plurality of guide shafts 22 disposed upright from a 24 base plate by allowing the plurality of guide shafts to pass through four corners of the weight portion, respectively, and that moves up and down along the guide shafts by vibration (See Fig. 2, See Col. 9, lines 44 – 67 and Col. 10, lines 1 – 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Tomoo according to the teachings of Rasteger for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device tests a large number of fully instrumented components in a relatively short time (See Rasteger, Col. 6, lines 45 - 53).
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.12. Tan et al. (CN109870375) disclose a low temperature high frequency fatigue test system. Lim (KR101547737) disclose a vibration tester for an engine mount. Xu et al. (CN1888854) disclose a method and apparatus for anti-vibrating support automatic controlling temperature low-temperature high-peripheral pressure shear fatigue test. Gram (4,905,502) discloses a pressure vessel fatigue test system. Bresk et al. (3,226,974) disclose a shock testing apparatus. Kameichi (1,985,478) discloses an impact testing machine.13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 5712724107. 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.
/OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 12/12/25