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 .
APPLICANTS ELECTION
Applicant’s election of Species #1 (i.e. Figure 3A and film directed to claims 1-3,5) without traverse has been received.
DRAWING OBJECTION
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: table “13”. 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. 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.
35 USC 112 REJECTION
Claims 1-3,5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, “a plurality of mechanisms” is inconsistent with “respectively”, as it’s not clear what how the plurality as a whole relate to “respectively provided at opposite ends” (italics added). (The term “respectively” really need be associated with 2 individually, identifiable elements) Consider replacing “a plurality of mechanisms” with - - a first and a second mechanism - -. Note: Claims 2-3 and 5 are not rejected on this point as claims 2,3 and 5 cure the ambiguity of claim 1.
As to claim 1, “an attachment” (line 6) that attaches the plurality of “mechanisms” (line 6) is confusing because the disclosed plurality of adhesive portions 22 (in Figures 5,7) are entirely separate structural components from each other, and thus do not provide a single structural attachment as suggested in the claim. Note that Paragraph 57 (Publication) associates a plurality of “attachments 22” (underlining added) to Figure 7, suggestive that each adhesive portion 22 is its own separate attachment. As such, it’s not clear if lines 6-7 are limited to at least one adhesive portion 22 (i.e. one attachment), or if the singular term “attachment” has been redefined to mean a plurality of individual/unconnected components. Understand, the term “attachment” is a noun, as such regularly understood as being one structural component, and that the specification includes the phrase “attachments 22” suggestive of individual portions 22. As such, one of ordinary skill may be unsure if the claim is limited to include just one adhesive portion 22, or 2 adhesive portions 22,22. After all, one adhesive portion 22 by itself may be sufficient to attach both claimed “mechanisms 2,2 to an object to be measured” (line 6,7 of claim 1). How is the term “attachment” defined for purposes of this application/claims. If it’s redefined such that 2 separate/individual adhesive portions 22,22 are an attachment, the common meaning (i.e. one) of the term “attachment” need be expressly excluded.
35 USC 103 REJECTION
Claim(s) 1-3,5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hellmann et al in view of Crosby 4426875.
Hellmann et al WO 2012172084 teach (Figures 1,2) a optical material film whose ends are each affixed to an individual mechanism, such film being attached to a driver via the upper mechanism. The film strain (displacement) is measured (Figure 1), as shown by the gaps in each of the 6 instances of Figure 1 illustrating an increasing distance relative to the visible (stationary) base, and as such the driver is displaced the same distance as the strain of each elongation. Each of the 6 instances in Figure 1 have a different color due to color changes of the film. As such, every strain value shown/exhibited in Figure 1 is indicative of the distance that the driver was displaced, and accordingly the driver travel is inherently measured. The film is photonic crystal.
PNG
media_image1.png
228
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hellmann does not expressly state that an attachment is configured to attach the mechanisms to an object to be measured.
Crosby teaches use of attachments 42,64 to drive a sample 48 undergoing a tensile test.
As to claims 1-3, it would have been obvious to attach the mechanisms to an actuator that employs attachments 43,64 for both ends of a sample because Crosby teaches that both ends of the material may effectively be pulled apart in strain measuring. The attachments are as much “configured” (line 6, Applicant’s claim 1) as claimed.
As to claim 5, the mechanisms are each directly connected one end of the film, and because the elements are all aligned along the same axis, each of those mechanisms is also “extending to” (or pointing towards, if you will) the other end of the film.
PRIOR ART CITED, NOT APPLIED
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gu et al 20230221538 teach (Fig. 3) measuring change in shape of a cell on a photonic crystal film. However, cell is not attached to the film by mechanisms on the ends of the film.
Salaita et al 12180350 teach (Figure 2H) stretching a photonic crystal film with fingers. Fingers do not suggest mechanisms.
Liu CN 117268276 describes difficulties with photonic crystal.
“ However, the hydrogel has certain limitations in this field, the traditional hydrogel has high elastic modulus and low ductility, which is not good for combining with the skin of human body, and the hydrogel has low cytotoxicity, low sensitivity and complex synthetic material, which limits the application of the hydrogel in the mechanical strain sensor.”
Hezinger DE 102012219643 teaches a strain gauge including flexible substrate with (photonic crystal) sensor element there on for measuring tension.
“(4) a strain gauge comprising a flexible substrate, and the sensor element, where the sensor element is applied to the flexible substrate, such that a tension change in the optical property of the photonic crystal structure is carried out by a force acting on the flexible substrate; and
(5) a sensor system comprising the sensor element, and an optical detector designed to detect the optical property of the photonic crystal structure and to output a signal, which allows a conclusion on the concentrated analyte or on the detected physical measurements.”
Dell et al 4793189 teach a sensor S that has mechanisms 29,30 on its ends, and attachments 25,25 to fix the mechanisms to an object of interest.
COMMENTS RELATING TO NON-ELECTED CLAIMS
As to claim 11, the preamble calls for an apparatus, but the body of the claim is a mere list of parts because the table is not connected to any of the structural components of claim 1. Is this claim directed to an apparatus, or maybe a system?
As to claims 11,12, the table is confusing, because a table by itself is not structure. As such, the table does not further define the meter of claims 1,8. How is the table to be construed as being structurally connected to the meter of claim 1, if at all?
Claim 9 is directed/limited to Figure 10 because mechanism 2 comprises a first 201 and second 202 mechanisms. Claim 9 is also directed/limited to Figure 10 because the mechanism 2 connected to the film 1 forms a sealed inner space. Claim 8 is generic relative to Figures 10 and 11.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights