DETAILED ACTION
for
SPECIMEN INSERTION AND ALIGNMENT DEVICES, AND MATERIAL TESTING SYSTEMS
INCLUDING SPECIMEN INSERTION AND ALIGNMENT DEVICES
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 .
Status of the Claims
Regarding the status of the claims, please see the following:
Claim 13 is amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the drawing objection the remarks have been fully considered and are not persuasive. As previously stated, a first and second retention device initially describes in clam 7; and second actuator described in claim 17 DO NOT have correlating numbers in the specification and therefore cannot be identified in the drawings if no correlating numeral are assigned in the specification. In addition, a first and second retention device and second actuator are not listed in the specification under those element names.
Thus, the drawing objection stand.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 02/02/2026 with respect to the specification objections the remarks have been fully considered and are not persuasive. As previously stated, a first and second retention device initially describes in clam 7; and second actuator described in claim 17 DO NOT have correlating numbers in the specification. The examiner suggest changing a first and second retention device to a first spring clip (322) and a second spring clip (324) as stated in the specification in paragraph ¶0044.
Therefore, the specification objections stand.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-9, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. To benefit the Applicant, arguments will be discussed below.
On pages 13-14 of the remarks, Applicant alleges that "Esser fails to disclose a first specimen grip and a specimen stop". The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants position.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching the examiner recognizes that ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue requires interpreting the claim language, and considering both the invention and the prior art references as a whole. See MPEP § 2111 - § 2116.01.
Furthermore, for the purpose of determining patentability under 35 U.S.C § 103, MPEP § 2143.01(I) addresses that the prior art suggestion of the claimed invention is not necessarily negates by desirable alternative in the prior art. MPEP § 2123 additional demonstrates that discloses example and preferred embodiments do no constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure of nonpreferred embodiments.
PNG
media_image1.png
344
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 of the Instant application requires a first specimen grip “one element” and a specimen stop “second elements” are shown in adjacent Fig. 4. As displayed each element, i.e. the first specimen grip and the specimen stop are identical “as shown” however with different names.
The previous rejection explained why a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that Esser clearly states in multiple location in the disclosure (see Esser [¶0034, lines 12-16], for example) that the primary purpose of the invention is the holder device 3 is substantially matched to the free specimen length between the clamps, the sufficient pre-tensioning force is generated as a constant tensile force of the excitation device 4.
PNG
media_image2.png
404
865
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Esser further discloses the specimen 2 is held by a holder device 3, and an excitation device 4 applies a static pre-tensioning force and a time-variable excitation force to the specimen (i.e., the clamps work as both a grip by first clamping the specimen and a stopper by applying a force to the specimen to lock the specimen into place, see Fig.1 below).
For these reasons, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. After have considered all of applicants’ arguments, the obviousness rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
On pages 14-15 of the remarks, Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 13 has been considered but is moot because the arguments do not apply the claims which were examined on 11/13/2025 the arguments apply to the newly added amended claims of 10/29/2013 in which the examiner did not have to consider these limitations before. The newly added limitation will be address in the office action below.
On pages 13-14 of the remarks, regarding the dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 rejected and are dependent upon a rejected base independent claim that has not been overcome.
Drawings
PNG
media_image3.png
582
347
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The drawings are objected to because:
Repeated Rejection Re: Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, the drawings are color drawings per 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2)—note that grayscale
is considered “color” as opposed to black line drawings as defined in 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1). However, color drawings are normally permitted in utility applications, as stated in 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2). The drawings should be replaced with black and white line drawings as shown in adjacent in Fig. 1.
The drawings are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show a first and
second retention device initially describes in clam 7; and second actuator described in claim 17. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Repeated rejection: A first and second retention device initially describes in clam 7 and second actuator described in claim 17, do not have a corresponding reference number in the specification and is not described in regards to the embodiment descriptions.
Applicant suggest in the remarks on page 9 that the first and second retention device initially describes in clam 7 is actually spring clips 322 and 324. The examiner suggest changing a first and second retention device to a first spring clip (322) and a second spring clip (324) as stated in the specification in paragraph ¶0044. There is no numeral cited in the specification for a first and second retention device or second actuator. See below:
[0044] The example specimen grip 302 holds a test specimen in a first orientation with respect to the frame 228. For example, the specimen grip 302 includes a first arm 318 and a second arm 320. The example first arm 318 includes a first spring clip 322, and the second arm includes a second spring clip 324. The spring clips 322, 324 allow for easy insertion of specimens into the specimen grip 302, sufficient holding strength to retain the specimen during positioning, and sufficiently low holding strength to release the specimen when the specimen is held in place by the grips. However, other specimen retention techniques may be used, such as a spring-loaded clamp, one or more ball plungers, electrically controlled clamp(s) (e.g., electromagnetic relays) and/or any other retention devices.
Applicant is advised to use consistent numbering and names for each element throughout the specification and drawing. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Esser et al. [herein after Esser] (US 2003/0188585).
PNG
media_image4.png
631
554
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Esser discloses an apparatus to align a test specimen in a universal testing system, the apparatus comprising (see abstract) a first specimen grip (3) configured to be attached to a universal testing system (1), to hold a test specimen (2) in a first orientation (position of the test specimen is up and down) with respect to the universal testing system (see adjacent annotated Fig. 1), and to move the test specimen (2) toward a test axis [¶0029, lines 20-23; “The excitation device 4 is arranged on a height-adjustable stage platform 9 that is preferably equipped with a threaded spindle 10 and a drive source 11 for raising and lowering the stage platform”] of the universal testing system (Fig. 3 to Fig. 4); and a specimen stop (3) configured to be attached to the universal testing system (1) and to set a stop point of the test specimen [(2), the grips are clamped on the bottom and top sides of the test specimen, therefore specimen is stopped] the first specimen grip (3) and the specimen stop (3) configured to align the test specimen (Fig. 3, test specimen aligned by grips (3)] with the test axis (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Esser further discloses the first specimen grip (3) being configured to move the test specimen (2) along a predetermined path toward and away from the test axis “the excitation device 4 is arranged on a height-adjustable stage platform 9”.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Esser further discloses the specimen stop (3) and the first specimen grip (3) are linked to move toward the test axis simultaneously and to move away from the test axis simultaneously (Fig. 3, grips are attached to the bottom and top of the specimen, and moving together).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Esser further discloses the predetermined path is at least partially an arcuate path (Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Esser further discloses the predetermined path is at least partially a linear path (Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image5.png
126
321
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Esser further discloses the first specimen grip (3) comprises first and second retention devices (14) configured to hold the test specimen (2) at first and second points [(top and bottom); ¶0029, lines 30-32; (14) “can be moved towards each other and away from each other as indicated by the arrows 16”].
Regarding claim 8, Esser further discloses the specimen stop (3) being configured to make contact with the test specimen (2) at a location that is between the first and second points along a length of the test specimen (see annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Esser further discloses an actuator (4) configured to actuate the first specimen grip (3) to move the test specimen (2) toward the test axis (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Esser further discloses the first specimen grip (3) being configured to hold the test specimen (2) at a predetermined fixed height with respect to the test axis “the excitation device 4 is arranged on a height-adjustable stage platform 9”.
Regarding claim 12, Esser further discloses a position of at least one of the first specimen grip (3) are adjustable along a length of the test specimen [(2); [¶0029, lines 20-23; “The excitation device 4 is arranged on a height-adjustable stage platform 9 that is preferably equipped with a threaded spindle 10 and a drive source 11 for raising and lowering the stage platform”]
Regarding claim 13, Esser discloses a material testing system, comprising: a test frame (12); a member loader (6) coupled to the test frame (12); wherein the cross member loader comprises a moveable member (13) and actuator (4); material fixtures configured to “which are the grips” (3; see annotated Fig. 1 above) coupled a test specimen (2) to the cross member loader (6), wherein the actuator (4) is configured to actuate the moveable member (13) along a test axis to apply force to the test specimen along the test axis via the material fixture [3; “an excitation device 4 applies a static pre-tensioning force”]; a first specimen grip (3) coupled to the test frame (12), and configured to hold the test specimen (2) in a first orientation with respect to the universal testing system (position of the test specimen is up and down) and to move the test specimen (2) toward a test axis of the universal testing system [¶0029, lines 20-23; “The excitation device 4 is arranged on a height-adjustable stage platform 9 that is preferably equipped with a threaded spindle 10 and a drive source 11 for raising and lowering the stage platform”]; and a specimen stop (3) coupled to the test frame (12) and to set a stop point of the test specimen [(2), the grips are clamped on the bottom and top sides of the test specimen], the first specimen grip (3) and the specimen stop (3) configured to align the test specimen (2) with the test axis (Fig. 3, test specimen aligned by grips (3)] with the test axis (see annotated Fig. 4).
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 3, 9, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esser (US 2003/0188585) in view of Kim et al. [herein after Kim] (KR 20150137187) [submitted by Applicant on IDS].
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Esser further discloses the specimen stop (3) being configured to move (Fig. 1).
Esser fails to discloses the specimen stop being configured to move toward and away from the test axis along a second predetermined path.
Kim discloses the specimen stop (7a & 7b) being configured to move toward and away from the test axis along a second predetermined path “the jaws are provided so as to move away from or close to the specimen 10” (first predetermined path) & “the test piece 10 are installed to allow the test piece 10 to move left and right” (second predetermined path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicants invention was filed in the field of an apparatus to align a test specimen in a universal testing system, to modify Esser, to include the specimen stop moving toward and away from the test axis along a second predetermined path, as taught by Kim, for the benefit of providing a device with constant engaging means to provide an accurate tensile or compressive load to the specimen.
Regarding claim 9, Esser discloses the first and second retention devices (14) and the specimen stop (3) are configured to align test specimens (2).
Esser fails to discloses having a range of heights, a range of widths, and a range of thicknesses, with the test axis.
Kim discloses retention devices (4 & 5) and the specimen stop (7a & 7b) are configured to align test specimens (10) having a range of heights, a range of widths, and a range of thicknesses, with the test axis “The jaws are provided so as to move away from or close to the specimen 10” and “the alignment of the specimen 10 is optimized, So that the specimen can be moved in the left and right directions”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicants invention was filed in the field of an apparatus to align a test specimen in a universal testing system, to modify Esser, to include a range of heights, a range of widths, and a range of thicknesses, with the test axis, as taught by Kim, for the benefit of providing a device which can move away from or close to the specimen with constant engaging one the specimen to provide an accurate tensile or compressive load to the specimen.
Regarding claim 17, Esser discloses a second actuator (4).
Esser fails to discloses a second actuator configured to actuate the first specimen grip and the specimen stop.
Kim discloses “a plurality of actuators movably mounted on the upper bracket member and the lower bracket member to move the specimen”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicants invention was filed in the field of an apparatus to align a test specimen in a universal testing system, to modify Esser, to include a second actuator, as taught by Kim, for the benefit of providing a device which can move away from or close to the specimen with multiple grips and fix the specimen when the center axis of the specimen coincides with the load axis.
Regarding claim 20, Esser further discloses the first specimen grip (3) and the specimen stop (3) are configured to align test specimens (2).
Esser fails to discloses having a range of heights, a range of widths, and a range of thicknesses, with the test axis.
Kim discloses the first specimen grip (6a & 6b) and the specimen stop (7a & 7b) are configured to align test specimens (10) having a range of heights, a range of widths, and a range of thicknesses, with the test axis “The jaws are provided so as to move away from or close to the specimen 10” and “the alignment of the specimen 10 is optimized, So that the specimen can be moved in the left and right directions”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicants invention was filed in the field of an apparatus to align a test specimen in a universal testing system, to modify Esser, to include the specimen stop moving toward and away from the test axis along a second predetermined path, as taught by Kim, for the benefit of providing a device which can move away from or close to the specimen with constant engaging one the specimen to provide an accurate tensile or compressive load to the specimen.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRANDI N HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7042. The examiner can normally be reached M & F 9-5 and T-TH, 6-4.
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 at (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.
/BRANDI N HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights