DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 1/20/26 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election of species 1 and subspecies 1A and 1A1 in the reply filed on 1/20/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/20/26.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 19 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.
Claims 5 and 19 recite “a plurality of the attachment sections.” However, the phrase “the attachment sections” lacks proper antecedent basis in the respective claims and makes the respective claims indefinite since it is unclear what the attachment sections are being referred to.
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, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kata (JP S55-006878 U).
As to claim 1, Kata teaches an impact detection device (fig. 2; the prior art device is able to be used to detect an impact), comprising:
a mobile body 2 having mass;
a supporting section 4 including
a fixed end (lower end) to be fixed to a detection target object (the overall apparatus of Kata is a clock which is capable of being fixed to a detection target object, which is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus), and
an attachment section (upper end) to which the mobile body is attached at a position separated from the fixed end,
the supporting section is deformed between the fixed end and the attachment section if acceleration exceeding a fixed threshold (i.e. a threshold causing the mobile body to contact magnet 3 – see pg. 3 of the translation) occurs in the mobile body by impact applied to the detection target object (pg. 2 of the translation; the detection target body, which is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus, is capable of having the claimed acceleration applied thereto; additionally, the supporting section is capable of being deformed due to the claimed impact); and
a holding section 3 configured to hold the mobile body moved by the deformation of the supporting section while keeping a state in which the mobile body is moved (pg. 3 of the translation).
As to claim 2, Kata teaches wherein
the mobile body 2 (an iron ball – pg. 3 of the translation) is a magnetic body (since it is attracted by magnet 3), and
the holding section holds the mobile body with a magnetic force.
As to claim 6, Kata teaches wherein
the impact detection device is a vibration detection device (pg. 2 lines 2-26 of the translation).
As to claim 7, Kata teaches wherein
the detection target object is a copying machine (in that the apparatus of Kata is capable of being fixed to a copying machine, which is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kata in view of Mihashi (JP S62242821 A).
As to claim 3, Kata teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein
the holding section includes a pedestal formed by a magnetic body to which the fixed end is fixed,
the mobile body is a magnet, and
the holding section magnetically attracts the mobile body to the pedestal with a magnetic force.
Mihashi teaches a seismograph (fig. 1) wherein a holding section 13-14, 20 includes a pedestal 13-14, 20 formed by a magnetic body 20 (last line of pg. 4 of the translation) to which the fixed portion of a flexible part 12 is fixed,
a swinging element 11 includes a magnet 11-a (last 4 lines of pg. 3 of the translation), and
the holding section magnetically attracts the mobile body to the pedestal with a magnetic force (see pg. 5 lines 3-18 in the translation; note that detection of the position of the pendulous element is performed with electrode 15-b in the holding section as taught by the last 7 lines of pg. 5 of the translation; lines 2-8 on pg. 6 of the translation teach that the position of the pendulous element can be reset by energizing a coil 21 to repel the magnet 11-a back to its home position for the benefit that the resetting can be done remotely).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kata such that the supporting section is supported with a holding section that includes a pedestal formed by a magnetic body to which the fixed portion of a flexible part is fixed, wherein the swinging body comprises a magnet, wherein the holding section magnetically attracts the magnet to the pedestal with a magnetic force, wherein the position of the swinging element can be detected with an electrode in the holding section, and wherein the position of the swinging element and magnet can be remotely reset with a coil, as taught by Mihashi, for the benefit that the position of the swinging element can be reset remotely (lines 2-8 on pg. 6 of the translation of Mihashi).
Kata as modified teaches wherein
the holding section includes a pedestal formed by a magnetic body 20 (Mihashi) to which the fixed end is fixed,
the mobile body (a magnet in light of Mihashi’s teachings) is a magnet, and
the holding section magnetically attracts the mobile body to the pedestal with a magnetic force (since the magnet, in light of Mihashi’s teachings, is mutually attracted with the magnetic body of Mihashi).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kata in view of Mihashi as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Park (KR 19980025504 U).
As to claim 4, Kata teaches wherein
the supporting section 4 is an elastic body (coil spring – pg. 3 of the translation) deformable in all directions centering on the fixed end (since it is a coil spring).
Kata as modified does not teach wherein the mobile body is formed in a polygonal shape, one side of which is in contact with the pedestal in the state in which the mobile body is moved.
Park teaches a seismograph comprising a mobile body 30 formed in a polygonal shape (figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kata as modified such that the mobile body is formed in a polygonal shape as taught by Park since such a modification would be a mere change in the shape of the mobile body for the predictable result that an earthquake is still successfully detected.
Kata as modified teaches wherein the mobile body is formed in a polygonal shape (in view of Park), one side of which is in contact with the pedestal in the state in which the mobile body is moved.
Claim(s) 15, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20180321627 A1) in view of Kata (JP S55-006878 U).
As to claim 15, Kato teaches a copying machine 100 (¶19), comprising:
an image forming device 100; and
an earthquake detection unit 13 (¶23 teaches that fig. 2, illustrates a unit 1 of the copying machine; fig. 2 shows that unit 1 comprises the earthquake detection unit 13).
Kato does not explicitly teach
a mobile body having mass;
a supporting section including
a fixed end to be fixed to the image forming device, and
an attachment section to which the mobile body is attached at a position separated from the fixed end,
the supporting section is deformed between the fixed end and the attachment section if acceleration exceeding a fixed threshold occurs in the mobile body by impact applied to the image forming device; and
a holding section configured to hold the mobile body moved by the deformation of the supporting section while keeping a state in which the mobile body is moved.
Kata teaches an impact detection device (fig. 2; the prior art device is able to be used to detect an impact; pg. 2 of the translation teaches that the apparatus detects earthquakes), comprising:
a mobile body 2 having mass;
a supporting section 4 including
a fixed end (lower end) to be fixed to a detection target object (the overall apparatus of Kata is a clock which is capable of being fixed to a detection target object, which is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus), and
an attachment section (upper end) to which the mobile body is attached at a position separated from the fixed end,
the supporting section is deformed between the fixed end and the attachment section if acceleration exceeding a fixed threshold (i.e. a threshold causing the mobile body to contact magnet 3 – see pg. 3 of the translation) occurs in the mobile body by impact applied to the detection target object (pg. 2 of the translation; the detection target body, which is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus, is capable of having the claimed acceleration applied thereto; additionally, the supporting section is capable of being deformed due to the claimed impact); and
a holding section 3 configured to hold the mobile body moved by the deformation of the supporting section while keeping a state in which the mobile body is moved (pg. 3 of the translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kato to use an earthquake detector comprising a mobile body having mass, a supporting section including a fixed end to be fixed to the image forming device, and an attachment section to which the mobile body is attached at a position separated from the fixed end, the supporting section is deformed between the fixed end and the attachment section if acceleration exceeding a fixed threshold occurs in the mobile body by impact applied to the image forming device, and a holding section configured to hold the mobile body moved by the deformation of the supporting section while keeping a state in which the mobile body is moved, as taught by Kata, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of detecting an earthquake for another for the predictable result that earthquakes are still successfully detected.
Kato as modified teaches a fixed end (of supporting section 4 from Kata) to be fixed to the image forming device.
As to claim 16, Kato teaches wherein
the mobile body (an iron ball – pg. 3 of the translation of Kata) is a magnetic body (since it is attracted by magnet 3 of Kata), and
the holding section holds the mobile body with a magnetic force.
As to claim 20, Kato teaches a vibration detection device 13.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Kata as applied to claim 15 above and further in view of Mihashi (JP S62242821 A).
As to claim 17, Kato teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein
the holding section includes a pedestal formed by a magnetic body to which the fixed end is fixed,
the mobile body is a magnet, and
the holding section magnetically attracts the mobile body to the pedestal with a magnetic force.
Mihashi teaches a seismograph (fig. 1) wherein a holding section 13-14, 20 includes a pedestal 13-14, 20 formed by a magnetic body 20 (last line of pg. 4 of the translation) to which the fixed portion of a flexible part 12 is fixed,
a swinging element 11 includes a magnet 11-a (last 4 lines of pg. 3 of the translation), and
the holding section magnetically attracts the mobile body to the pedestal with a magnetic force (see pg. 5 lines 3-18 in the translation; note that detection of the position of the pendulous element is performed with electrode 15-b in the holding section as taught by the last 7 lines of pg. 5 of the translation; lines 2-8 on pg. 6 of the translation teach that the position of the pendulous element can be reset by energizing a coil 21 to repel the magnet 11-a back to its home position for the benefit that the resetting can be done remotely).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kata such that the supporting section is supported with a holding section that includes a pedestal formed by a magnetic body to which the fixed portion of a flexible part is fixed, wherein the swinging body comprises a magnet, wherein the holding section magnetically attracts the magnet to the pedestal with a magnetic force, wherein the position of the swinging element can be detected with an electrode in the holding section, and wherein the position of the swinging element and magnet can be remotely reset with a coil, as taught by Mihashi, for the benefit that the position of the swinging element can be reset remotely (lines 2-8 on pg. 6 of the translation of Mihashi).
Kato as modified teaches wherein
the holding section includes a pedestal formed by a magnetic body 20 (Mihashi) to which the fixed end is fixed,
the mobile body (a magnet in light of Mihashi’s teachings) is a magnet, and
the holding section magnetically attracts the mobile body to the pedestal with a magnetic force (since the magnet, in light of Mihashi’s teachings, is mutually attracted with the magnetic body of Mihashi).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Kata and Mihashi as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Park (KR 19980025504 U).
As to claim 18, Kato as modified teaches wherein
the supporting section is an elastic body (coil spring – pg. 3 of the translation of Kata) deformable in all directions centering on the fixed end (since it is a coil spring).
Kat0 as modified does not teach wherein
the mobile body is formed in a polygonal shape, one side of which is in contact with the pedestal in the state in which the mobile body is moved.
Park teaches a seismograph comprising a mobile body 30 formed in a polygonal shape (figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kat0 as modified such that the mobile body is formed in a polygonal shape as taught by Park since such a modification would be a mere change in the shape of the mobile body for the predictable result that an earthquake is still successfully detected.
Kato as modified teaches wherein the mobile body is formed in a polygonal shape (in view of Park), one side of which is in contact with the pedestal in the state in which the mobile body is moved.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshihara et al. (JP S58130235 U, hereinafter Koshihara) in view of Mihashi (JP S62242821 A).
As to claim 1, Koshihara teaches an impact detection device (see the figure, which illustrates a device that is capable of being used to detect an impact), comprising:
a mobile body 5 having mass;
a supporting section 6 including
a fixed end (upper end) to be fixed to a detection target object (the detection target object is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus; the impact detection device is capable of being fixed to a detection target object), and
an attachment section (lower end) to which the mobile body is attached at a position separated from the fixed end, and
a holding section 4-5, 8 configured to hold the mobile body moved by the deformation of the supporting section while keeping a state in which the mobile body is moved (lines 26-35 of the translation).
Koshihara does not explicitly teach the supporting section is deformed between the fixed end and the attachment section if acceleration exceeding a fixed threshold occurs in the mobile body by impact applied to the detection target object.
Mihashi teaches a seismograph comprising a supporting section 51-52 (fig. 5; the last 7 lines of pg. 6 of the translation teach that the supporting section comprises a flexible spring 51 with a circular cross-section) that is deformed between a fixed end (lower end) and an attachment section (which is attached to a mobile body 11) if acceleration exceeding a fixed threshold (e.g. a threshold causing mobile body 11 to contact electrode 15-b, as shown in dashed lines in fig. 1) occurs in the mobile body by impact applied to the detection target object (Mihashi’s device is capable of being fixed to a detection target object, which is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus, and Mihashi’s supporting section is capable of being deformed as claimed by the claimed impact).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Koshihara such that the support section comprises a flexible spring element for flexibly supporting the mobile body as taught by Mihashi since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of supporting a mobile body in a mobile manner for another for the predictable result that earthquakes are still successfully detected.
Koshihara as modified teaches the supporting section is deformed (at spring element 51 of Mihashi) between the fixed end and the attachment section if acceleration exceeding a fixed threshold occurs in the mobile body by impact applied to the detection target object.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshihara in view of Mihashi as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kobayashi (JP S56-089932 U).
As to claim 5, Koshihara teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein
the supporting section includes a plurality of the attachment sections provided at different distances from the fixed end, and
the threshold of the acceleration for deforming the supporting section is changeable by changing the attachment section to which the mobile body is attached.
Kobayashi teaches a device relating to a “sensing inverted weight for detecting the horizontal acceleration of earthquakes or other vibrations” (pg. 2 of the translation; see fig. 1 or fig. 2) and comprising a supporting section 1 with a male screw thread portion 1c along the length thereof, and a mobile body 2 whose position along the supporting section is adjustable via the thread portion 1c (line 12 of pg. 3 to line 15 of pg. 4 of the translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Koshihara as modified such that the supporting section has a thread portion thereon, wherein that the location of the mobile body can be adjusted, as taught by Kobayashi, for the benefit of fine-tuning the sensitivity of the device to vibration acceleration (pg. 4 of the translation of Kobayashi).
Koshihara as modified teaches wherein
the supporting section includes a plurality of the attachment sections (plurality of winding thread segments progressing along the supporting section, as taught by Kobayashi) provided at different distances from the fixed end, and
the threshold of the acceleration for deforming the supporting section is changeable by changing the attachment section to which the mobile body is attached (this happens as a result of the fine-tuning provided by Kobayashi’s teachings, discussed above).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20180321627 A1) in view of Koshihara et al. (JP S58130235 U, hereinafter Koshihara) and Mihashi (JP S62242821 A).
As to claim 15, Kato teaches a copying machine 100 (¶19), comprising:
an image forming device 100; and
an earthquake detection unit 13 (¶23 teaches that fig. 2, illustrates a unit 1 of the copying machine; fig. 2 shows that unit 1 comprises the earthquake detection unit 13).
Kato does not explicitly teach
a mobile body having mass;
a supporting section including
a fixed end to be fixed to the image forming device, and
an attachment section to which the mobile body is attached at a position separated from the fixed end,
the supporting section is deformed between the fixed end and the attachment section if acceleration exceeding a fixed threshold occurs in the mobile body by impact applied to the image forming device; and
a holding section configured to hold the mobile body moved by the deformation of the supporting section while keeping a state in which the mobile body is moved.
Koshihara teaches an impact detection device (see the figure, which illustrates a device that is capable of being used to detect an impact; lines 65-66 of the translation teach that the device is an earthquake sensor), comprising:
a mobile body 5 having mass;
a supporting section 6 including
a fixed end (upper end) to be fixed to a detection target object (the detection target object is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus; the impact detection device is capable of being fixed to a detection target object), and
an attachment section (lower end) to which the mobile body is attached at a position separated from the fixed end, and
a holding section 4-5, 8 configured to hold the mobile body moved by the deformation of the supporting section while keeping a state in which the mobile body is moved (lines 26-35 of the translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kato to have an earthquake sensor comprising a mobile body having mass, a supporting section including a fixed end to be fixed to a detection target object, and an attachment section to which the mobile body is attached at a position separated from the fixed end, and a holding section configured to hold the mobile body moved by the deformation of the supporting section while keeping a state in which the mobile body is moved, as taught by Koshihara, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of implementing an earthquake sensor for another for the predictable result that earthquakes are still successfully detected.
Mihashi teaches a seismograph comprising a supporting section 51-52 (fig. 5; the last 7 lines of pg. 6 of the translation teach that the supporting section comprises a flexible spring 51 with a circular cross-section) that is deformed between a fixed end (lower end) and an attachment section (which is attached to a mobile body 11) if acceleration exceeding a fixed threshold (e.g. a threshold causing mobile body 11 to contact electrode 15-b, as shown in dashed lines in fig. 1) occurs in the mobile body by impact applied to the detection target object (Mihashi’s device is capable of being fixed to a detection target object, which is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus, and Mihashi’s supporting section is capable of being deformed as claimed by the claimed impact).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kato as modifed such that the support section comprises a flexible spring element for flexibly supporting the mobile body as taught by Mihashi since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of supporting a mobile body in a mobile manner for another for the predictable result that earthquakes are still successfully detected.
Kato as modified teaches a mobile body 5 (Koshihara) having mass;
a supporting section 6 (Koshihara), 51 (Mihashi) including
a fixed end (upper end in Koshihara’s figure) to be fixed to the image forming device, and
an attachment section (lower end in Koshihara) to which the mobile body is attached at a position separated from the fixed end,
the supporting section is deformed (at spring 51 of Mihashi) between the fixed end and the attachment section if acceleration exceeding a fixed threshold occurs in the mobile body by impact applied to the image forming device (the deformation is capable of being caused by the claimed impact); and
a holding section 4-5, 8 (Koshihara) configured to hold the mobile body moved by the deformation of the supporting section while keeping a state in which the mobile body is moved.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Koshihara and Mihashi as applied to claim 15 above and further in view of Kobayashi (JP S56-089932 U).
As to claim 19, Kato teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein
the supporting section includes a plurality of the attachment sections provided at different distances from the fixed end, and
the threshold of the acceleration for deforming the supporting section is changeable by changing the attachment section to which the mobile body is attached.
Kobayashi teaches a device relating to a “sensing inverted weight for detecting the horizontal acceleration of earthquakes or other vibrations” (pg. 2 of the translation; see fig. 1 or fig. 2) and comprising a supporting section 1 with a male screw thread portion 1c along the length thereof, and a mobile body 2 whose position along the supporting section is adjustable via the thread portion 1c (line 12 of pg. 3 to line 15 of pg. 4 of the translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Koshihara as modified such that the supporting section has a thread portion thereon, wherein that the location of the mobile body can be adjusted, as taught by Kobayashi, for the benefit of fine-tuning the sensitivity of the device to vibration acceleration (pg. 4 of the translation of Kobayashi).
Kato as modified teaches wherein
the supporting section includes a plurality of the attachment sections (plurality of winding thread segments progressing along the supporting section, as taught by Kobayashi) provided at different distances from the fixed end, and
the threshold of the acceleration for deforming the supporting section is changeable by changing the attachment section to which the mobile body is attached (this happens as a result of the fine-tuning provided by Kobayashi’s teachings, discussed above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 102157298 A teaches a magnetic collision sensor
JP 5619656 B2 teaches plural attachment sections, but they are not for adjusting a sensitivity of the device (fig. 7)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights