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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
Regarding Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6 and 8-9: With regard to the intended use of the apparatus, e.g. the term “welding” in “welding parameters” and “weld” in “weld joint” can be interpreted that the “parameters” and “joint” can be used in a " welding " and" weld " setting. Furthermore, the term “welding " and" weld” does not add any structural limitation to the term “parameters” and “joint”, respectively, thus it does not provide enough patentable weight to the term “parameters” and “joint”, respectively, ”. It is understood with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. as discussed in MPEP 2103.1.C.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 4, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edwards (US 8607465 B1, see reference in its entirety).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Edwards disclose(s): A gauge(Fig. 1) for measuring one or more parameters of a joint (col. 1, lines 6-15), the gauge comprising:
a gauge body having a first surface (Fig. 4: 70);
an arcuate plate (Fig. 4: 14) rotatably coupled to the gauge body (Fig. 4) and arranged facing the first surface of the gauge body (Fig. 4), wherein the arcuate plate facilitates a measurement of the one or more parameters of the joint (col. 2, lines 5-13);
a sensing unit (Fig. 2: 100) configured to determine a relative position of the arcuate plate and the gauge body (col. 4, lines 37-41); and
a controller (col. 3, lines 25-28) arranged in communication with the sensing unit and configured to determine a value of the one or more parameters based upon an input received from the sensing unit (col. 3, lines 20-31).
Regarding Claim 2, Edwards disclose(s) the gauge of Claim 1.
Edwards further disclose(s): further including a display device (Fig. 4: 22) communicatively coupled with the controller and adapted to display the determined value of the one or more parameters (col. 3, lines 20-31).
Regarding Claim 4, Edwards disclose(s) the gauge of Claim 1.
Edwards further disclose(s): further comprising a mode selector (Fig. 1: 26c) to enable a user to select a mode out of a plurality of modes associated with the one or more parameters to measure a desired first parameter out of the one or more parameters (col. 5, lines 52-54).
With respect to independent Claim 6, Edwards disclose(s): A gauge(Fig. 1) for measuring one or more parameters of a joint (col. 1, lines 6-15), the gauge comprising:
a gauge body having a first surface (Fig. 4: 70);
an arcuate plate (Fig. 4: 14) rotatably coupled to the gauge body (Fig. 4) and arranged facing the first surface of the gauge body (Fig. 4), wherein the arcuate plate facilitates a measurement of one or more parameters of the joint (col. 2, lines 5-13);
a sensing unit (Fig. 2: 100) configured to determine a relative position of the arcuate plate and the gauge body (col. 4, lines 37-41);
a controller (col. 3, lines 25-28) arranged in communication with the sensing unit and configured to determine a value of the one or more parameters based upon an input received from the sensing unit (col. 3, lines 20-31); and
a display device (Fig. 4: 22) communicatively coupled with the controller and adapted to display the determined value of the one or more parameters (col. 3, lines 20-31).
Regarding Claim 8, Edwards disclose(s) the gauge of Claim 6.
Edwards further disclose(s): further comprising a mode selector (Fig. 1: 26c) to enable a user to select a mode out of a plurality of modes associated with the one or more parameters to measure a desired first parameter out of the one or more parameters (col. 5, lines 52-54).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards in view of Boutan (US 7574813 B1, see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim 3, Edwards disclose(s) the gauge of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Edwards disclose(s) the gauge of Claim 6.
Edwards further teaches: wherein the sensing unit includes a plurality of first sensors (Fig. 2: 28) coupled to one of the gauge body and the arcuate plate (Fig. 2).
Edwards does not specifically disclose: at least one second sensor coupled to other of the arcuate plate and the gauge body and configured to interact with the plurality of the first sensors to determine the relative position of the arcuate plate.
However, Boutan teach(es) a gauge (Fig. 3A) including: at least one second sensor coupled to other of the arcuate plate and the gauge body (Fig. 3A and col. 6 line 61) and configured to interact with the plurality of the first sensors to determine the relative position of the arcuate plate (col. 5, lines 50-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Edwards, with the teachings of Boutan, for the purpose of providing ease of measuring angles (col. 1, lines 17-21).
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards in view of Poole et al. (US 6497051 B1, see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim 5, Edwards disclose(s) the gauge of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Edwards disclose(s) the gauge of Claim 6.
Edwards does not specifically disclose: comprising a measurement unit selector to enable a user to select a desired measurement unit system out of a plurality of measurement unit system to display the value of the determined parameter in the desired measurement unit system.
However, Poole teach(es) a gauge (Fig. 1) including: comprising a measurement unit selector (Fig. 4: 36) to enable a user to select a desired measurement unit system out of a plurality of measurement unit system to display the value of the determined parameter in the desired measurement unit system (col. 4, lines 63-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Edwards, with the teachings of Poole, for the purpose of providing capability of toggling the input (col. 2, line 51).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The following reference(s) relate to gauges: Fujiwara (US 5611149); Murphy (US 7076879 B2); Palynchuk et al. (US 9250052 B2).
The following reference(s) relate to electronic angle measuring gauges: Matzo et al. (US 6104480); Wixey (US 7726034 B2); Weber (US 5040298).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA COURSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7am-3:30pm).
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, Kristina Deherrera, can be reached on (303) 297-4237. 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.
/TC/
13 December 2025
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855