FORCE-DEFLECTION BASED LEAK
DETECTION FOR MOBILE DEVICE
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment of May 12, 2026.
CLAIMS
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same.
Objections
In view of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 12, the objection thereto as was set forth in the previous Office Action of Feb. 24, 2026 has been overcome.
35 U.S.C. § 112
In view of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as was set forth in the said previous Office Action has been overcome.
However, based on the Applicant’s amendments, claims 17 - 20 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventors regard as the invention.
Independent claim 17 is indefinite as to what is required by the claim and thus the boundaries of the claim. The claim is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. The computer readable medium is set forth as being in communication with a computer system. The computer system is then set forth as being in communication with a linear motor and a sensor. Since the claim is directed to a readable medium, uncertainty exists as to whether the linear motor and the sensor are required by the claim, for the linear motor and the sensor do not further limit the computer readable medium.
Uncertainty also exists as to how the linear motor and the sensor relate to the remaining claim elements. Thus, for the purpose of examination, the linear motor and the sensor are interpreted as not being required by the claim because a linear motor and a sensor are not part of a readable medium.
Claim 17, line 5; the reference to “the force-displacement relationship” is indefinite since no such relationship was previously set forth.
Claim 17, lines 5 - 6; the limitation of “based on the force-displacement relationship and a comparison to predetermined seal-integrity criteria” is also indefinite since no such comparison has been set forth.
Claim 20, lines 2 - 4; the phrase “the processing the calculating,” is indefinite as the specific meaning thereof.
35 U.S.C. § 101
In response to the Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the said previous Office Action has been overcome.
35 U.S.C. § 102
In response to the Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as set forth in the said previous Office Action has been overcome.
Allowable Subject Matter
Independent claim 1 has been found to be allowable over the prior art because the prior art fails to teach or suggest a pressing device, as claimed, wherein the pressing device is a linear motor, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Claims 4 - 7 depend from claim 1.
Independent claim 9 has been found to be allowable over the prior art because the prior art fails to teach or suggest the capturing of data by a sensing device which is attached to a linear motor, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Claims 11 - 15 depend from claim 9.
Response To Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments have all been considered and have been found to be persuasive in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims. All previous grounds of rejection have been overcome. However, the above new issues remain. These issues are the result of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
CONTACT INFORMATION
The Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). The 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 from the Examiner should be directed to Eric S. McCall whose telephone number is 571-272-2183. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. For questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center at 866-217-9197.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is advised to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form.
/Eric S. McCall/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights