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 § 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.
Claim 6 is 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 inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the electrode assembly", but this lacks antecedent basis as it was not previously introduced in claim 6 or any claim from which claim 6 depends. For the purposes of examination, "the electrode assembly" is interpreted as referring to “the measurement assembly”, consistent with remainder of the claims and specification.
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.
Claims 1, 6-10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm (US 7322229) “Wilhelm” and Barnett (US 5205046) “Barnett”.
Regarding claims 1, 6-10, and 19, Wilhelm discloses a measurement assembly (100) comprising: a support beam (110), wherein the support beam comprises a reference surface (surface of 110) and a track (170), wherein the reference surface is used to fit against a measurement reference surface (105), and an extension direction of the track is parallel to the reference surface; and a flush gauge (130), wherein the flush gauge comprises a main body (130) wherein the main body is slidably disposed on the track (170); wherein the main body (130) is detachably (Column 3; lines 55-57) connected to the track (170); wherein the support beam (110) further comprises a side surface (side of 170), wherein the side surface is next to the reference surface (surface of 110), and the track is a second groove (linear groove on top of 110) recessed from the side surface towards the interior of the support beam (110), wherein a recess direction of the track is perpendicular to the extension direction of the track (170); wherein the main body (130) comprises a body fixed to the first end and a protrusion (160) connected to the body, and the protrusion is detachably fitted into the second groove to allow the main body to be slidably disposed on the track; wherein the support beam (110) further comprises a spirit level (195), wherein the spirit level is configured to measure whether the support beam (110) is level, and wherein the spirit level (195) is provided in a quantity of two, and the two spirit levels are disposed opposite each other, wherein a pointing direction of one of the spirit levels to the other is the same as the extension direction of the track (170), and the two spirit levels are both spiral digital levels (Column 4; 5-10). Wilhelm also discloses a measurement method, comprising: providing the measurement assembly according to claim 1; fitting the reference surface (surface of 110) of the measurement assembly (100) against a measurement reference surface (105); abutting the second end of the flush gauge (130) against a surface of an object being measured (205) to obtain flush at an abutting point; and moving the flush gauge along the track to obtain flush at other points on the surface of the object being measured (Fig. 2).
Wilhelm does not disclose a measurement rod, the measurement rod comprising a first end and a second end disposed opposite each other, and the second end is configured to abut against surface of an object being measured to measure flush of a point where by the second end abuts on the surface of the object being measured, and the second end is configured to be movable toward and away from the first end.
Barnett teaches a measurement rod (26), the measurement rod (26) comprises a first end (end of 26 connected to 14) and a second end (free end of 26) disposed opposite each other, and the second end is configured to abut against surface of an object (20) being measured to measure flush of a point where by the second end abuts on the surface of the object being measured, and the second end is configured to be movable toward and away from the first end (Fig. 2 and Column 2; lines 56-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Barnett’s moveable measurement rod in Wilhelm’s measurement assembly, to more accurately gather flushness measurements.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm and Barnett in view of Stoffel (US 20120048176) “Stoffel”.
Regarding claim 2-5, Wilhelm and Barnett disclose the measurement assembly according to claim 1. Additionally, Wilhelm discloses the support beam (110) further comprises a third end (end of 120) and a fourth end (end of 125) disposed opposite each other, wherein a pointing direction of the third end to the fourth end is the same as an extension direction of the track (170), and two bases (120 and 125) respectively located at the third end and the fourth end.
Wilhelm and Barnett do not disclose at least one first groove and a magnetic block located within the first groove, wherein the first groove is provided in quantity of two, and each of the first grooves is provided with one magnetic block, and the magnetic block is made of a strong magnetic material
Stoffel teaches one first groove (115) and a magnetic block (114) located within the first groove, wherein the first groove is provided in quantity of two (115), and each of the first grooves (115) is provided with one magnetic block (114), and the magnetic block is made of a strong magnetic material (“rare earth magnet”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include Stoffel’s magnetic block within a groove in Wilhelm’s support beam, providing better stability of the tool to object being measured.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm and Barnett in view of Heyer (US 8104187) “Heyer”.
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Wilhelm and Barnett disclose the measurement system, comprising the support beam of the measurement assembly according to claim 8, and a flush gauge (Wilhelm; 130) slidably disposed on the track of any one of the support beams, and obtaining dimensions of an object being measured (105) and selecting, from the measurement system (100) based on the dimensions, a support beam (110) having a track (170) that matches the dimensions of the object being measured; fitting the reference surface of the support beam against a measurement reference surface; fitting the main body (130) of the flush gauge into the track (170)of the support beam and abutting the second end against a surface of the object (105) being measured to obtain flush at an abutting point; and moving the flush gauge along the track to obtain flush at other points on the surface of the object being measured (Fig. 2).
Wilhelm and Barnett do not disclose multiple lengths of support beam.
Heyer teaches in figures 3a and 3b, multiple lengths of support beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Heyer’s multiple length options in Wilhelm’s support beam, making it easier to adapt Wilhelm’s measuring tool to different workpiece sizes.
Claims 12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm and Heyer.
Regarding claims 12, and 17-18, Wilhelm discloses a measurement system (100), comprising: comprises a reference surface (surface of 110) and a track (170), wherein the track is a second groove, and wherein the reference surface is used to fit against a measurement reference surface (105), and an extension direction of the track is parallel to the reference surface; and a flush gauge (130), wherein the flush gauge comprises a main body (130) and the main body of the flush gauge is slidably disposed on the track, and a spirit level (195), and the main body comprises a body (130) fixed to the first end and a protrusion (190) connected to the body.
Wilhelm does not disclose multiple support beams comprising a side surface, nor a measurement rod; wherein the measurement rod comprises a first end and a second end disposed opposite each other, wherein the first end is fixedly connected to the main body, and the second end is configured to abut against a surface of an object being measured, and the second end is configured to be movable toward and away from the first end.
Heyer teaches multiple support beams (Fig. 3a and 3b) comprising a side surface (side surface of beam pictured in Fig. 3a and 3b), and a measurement rod (12); wherein the measurement rod comprises a first end (first end of 12) and a second end (second end of 12) disposed opposite each other, wherein the first end is fixedly connected (10a), and the second end is configured to abut against a surface (Fig. 6a and 6b) of an object (Fig. 6a and 6b) being measured, and the second end is configured to be movable toward and away from the first end (Fig. 6a and 6b and Column 5; lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Heyer’s multiple support beam lengths and moveable measurement rod in Wilhelm’s measurement system, making it easier to adapt Wilhelm’s measuring tool to different workpiece sizes.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm and Heyer, in view of Stoffel.
Regarding claim 13-16, Wilhelm and Heyer disclose the measurement system according to claim 12, wherein any one of the support beams further comprises a third end (Heyer; one end of 1) and a fourth end (opposite end of 1) disposed opposite each other, wherein a pointing direction of the third end to the fourth end is the same as an extension direction of the track, and the measurement system, further comprising: two bases (15 and 16).
Wilhelm and Heyer do not disclose at least one first groove and a magnetic block located within the first groove, wherein the first groove is a groove formed by the reference surface, and wherein two first grooves are provided, and each of the first grooves is provided with one magnetic block.
Stoffel teaches at least one first groove (115) and a magnetic block (114) located within the first groove, wherein the first groove is a groove formed by the reference surface ([0025]), and wherein two first grooves (115) are provided, and each of the first grooves is provided with one magnetic block (114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add Stoffel’s groove and magnetic block to Wilhelm and Heyer’s support beams providing better tool stability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA JOSEPHINE SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6528. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/ANNA JOSEPHINE SAUNDERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855