DETAILED ACTION
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, Species 1A, and Species 2A (claims 1-4, 7-11, and 18-19) in the reply filed on 04/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-6, 12-17, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/13/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 18, Line 1: “comprises” should read “comprising”.Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 1-4, 7-11, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saari et al. (US 20160202160 A1, prior art of record via IDS) in view of Gram et al. (US 5425276 A, prior art of record via IDS).Regarding claim 1:Saari teaches (FIG. 2 in view of [0022]) a testing system for applying loads to an elastomeric (e.g., [0002]) test specimen, the testing system comprising:
a base (13); a crosshead (15); a pair of vertical columns (18) mounted to the base and the crosshead to support the crosshead above the base; a first specimen support (27) having a first end configured to engage a first end of the elastomeric test specimen (12); a second specimen support (26) having a first end configured to engage a second end of the elastomeric test specimen; a force transducer (16) and accelerometer (20) assembly connected to a second end of the first specimen support (27) opposite the elastomeric test specimen, comprising: a force transducer (16); and a first accelerometer (20) operably coupled in series with the force transducer ([0023]), the first accelerometer configured to measure acceleration of a first end of the elastomeric test specimen when mounted in the first specimen support (27) and provide a first acceleration output signal; a second accelerometer (24) configured to measure acceleration of a second end of the elastomeric test specimen when mounted in the second specimen support (26) and provide a second acceleration output signal; an actuator (22) mounted to the base (13 - see last sentence of [0022]) connected to one of the second specimen support (26) or the second end of the elongated strut(It is noted that the embodiment relied upon is FIG. 2 modified by the last sentence of [0022].)Saari fails to teach:
an elongated strut having a first end connected to the force transducer and accelerometer assembly on an end opposite the first specimen support and having a second end opposite the first end;
a load cell mounted to the crosshead and connected to a remaining one of the second specimen support or the second end of the elongated strut that is not connected to the actuatorGram teaches (FIG. 1):
an elongated strut (section between 34 and 32) having a first end connected to the force transducer and accelerometer assembly (equivalent to 32 of Gram, but met upon combination with Saari) on an end opposite the first specimen support and having a second end opposite the first end;
a load cell (34) mounted to the crosshead (equivalent to 17, also see 50 of FIG. 3) and connected to a remaining one of the second specimen support or the second end of the elongated strut that is not connected to the actuator (the elongated strut, which is the section between 34 and 32, is connected to the load cell 34)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the elongated strut, load cell, and movable crosshead of Gram in the device of Saari to allow for more clearance between the crosshead and sample, allowing easier access. Additionally/alternatively, it would be obvious to use the strut and load cell of Gram in the device of Saari to allow for testing of specimens of greatly differing length (enabled by the elongated strut and movable crosshead of Gram). Additionally/alternatively, it would be obvious to use the strut and load cell of Gram in the device of Saari as it is an art-recognized equivalent structure for the purposes of elastic specimen load testing.
Regarding claim 2:Saari and Gram teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Saari and Gram teach or render obvious:
wherein a combined length of the elongated strut, the force transducer and accelerometer assembly, the first specimen support, the elastomeric test specimen, and the second specimen support being all connected in series for testing in the testing machine is at least as long as series connected damper specimen supports and a damper test specimen for testing in the testing machine
Damper supports and dampers / damper test specimens come in an extremely wide range of sizes / lengths. Further, as combined above, Gram has an adjustable crosshead which allows samples of various sizes. Lastly, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 IV A). I.e., it is prima facie obvious to scale the device of Saari and Gram up or down, as needed.
Regarding claim 3:Saari and Gram teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Saari and Gram also teach:
wherein the actuator (Saari - FIG. 2, as modified by [0022], 22) is connected to a second end of the second specimen support (Saari - FIG. 2, as modified by [0022], 26) opposite the first end of the second specimen support and the load cell is connected to the second end of the elongated strut (Gram - FIG. 1, load cell 34 is connected to the top / second end of the elongated strut which is the part extending between 34 and 32)
Regarding claim 4:Saari and Gram teach all the limitations of claim 3, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Saari and Gram fail to explicitly teach:
wherein the first accelerometer is disposed between the force transducer and the elongated strut
However, the examiner holds this prima facie obvious as mere rearrangement of parts.
Regarding claim 7:Saari and Gram teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Saari and Gram teach or render obvious:
wherein a vertical position of the crosshead relative to the base is adjustable having a lowest vertical position closest to the base, and wherein a minimum distance between an end of the actuator and the load cell is larger than a length of the force transducer and accelerometer assembly, the first specimen support, the elastomeric test specimen, and the second specimen support connected in series, and wherein a length of the elongated strut and the length of the force transducer and accelerometer assembly, the first specimen support, the elastomeric test specimen and the second specimen support connected in series is equal to or greater than the minimum distance between the end of the actuator and the load cell
Gram teaches the adjustable crosshead height. The remaining limitations are inherent or obvious for the device to function (i.e., the parts in series must fit within the device / base and crosshead).
Regarding claim 8:Saari and Gram teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 7, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Saari and Gram fail to explicitly teach:
wherein a distance from a second end of the second specimen support opposite the first end of the second specimen support to the second end of the elongated strut with the elastomeric test specimen for testing in the testing machine is at least about 0.5 meters
However, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 IV A). I.e., it is prima facie obvious to scale the device of Saari and Gram up or down, as needed.
Regarding claim 9:Saari and Gram teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 7, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Saari and Gram fail to explicitly teach:
wherein a distance from a second end of the second specimen support opposite the first end of the second specimen support to the second end of the elongated strut with the elastomeric test specimen for testing in the testing machine is at least about 0.7 meters
However, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 IV A). I.e., it is prima facie obvious to scale the device of Saari and Gram up or down, as needed.
Regarding claim 10:Saari and Gram teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 7, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Saari and Gram fail to explicitly teach:
wherein a length of the elongated strut is at least about 0.1 meters
However, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 IV A). I.e., it is prima facie obvious to scale the device of Saari and Gram up or down, as needed.
Regarding claim 11:Saari and Gram teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 7, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Saari and Gram fail to explicitly teach:
wherein a length of the elongated strut is at least about 0.25 meters
However, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 IV A). I.e., it is prima facie obvious to scale the device of Saari and Gram up or down, as needed.
Regarding claim 18:Saari teaches (FIG. 2 in view of [0022]) an assembly for testing an elastomeric test specimen comprises:
a first specimen support (27) having a first end configured to engage a first end of the elastomeric test specimen (e.g., [0002], 12); a second specimen support (26) having a first end configured to engage a second end of the elastomeric test specimen; a force transducer (16) and accelerometer (20) assembly connected to a second end of the first specimen support opposite the elastomeric test specimen, comprising: a force transducer (16); and a first accelerometer (20) operably coupled in series with the force transducer ([0023]), the first accelerometer configured to measure acceleration of a first end of the elastomeric test specimen when mounted in the first specimen support and provide a first acceleration output signal; a second accelerometer (24) configured to measure acceleration of a second end of the elastomeric test specimen when mounted in the second specimen support and provide a second acceleration output signal(It is noted that the embodiment relied upon is FIG. 2 modified by the last sentence of [0022].)Saari fails to teach:
an elongated strut having a first end connected to the force transducer and accelerometer assembly on an end opposite the first specimen support and having a second end opposite the first endGram teaches (FIG. 1):
an elongated strut (section between 34 and 32) having a first end connected to the force transducer and accelerometer assembly (equivalent to 32 of Gram, but met upon combination with Saari) on an end opposite the first specimen support and having a second end opposite the first end
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the elongated strut, load cell (needed for the elongated strut), and movable crosshead (which works in tandem with the elongated strut) of Gram in the device of Saari to allow for more clearance between the crosshead and sample, allowing easier access. Additionally/alternatively, it would be obvious to use the strut and load cell of Gram in the device of Saari to allow for testing of specimens of greatly differing length (enabled by the elongated strut and movable crosshead of Gram). Additionally/alternatively, it would be obvious to use the strut and load cell of Gram in the device of Saari as it is an art-recognized equivalent structure for the purposes of elastic specimen load testing.
Regarding claim 19:Saari and Gram teach all the limitations of claim 18, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 18 rejection above, Saari and Gram fail to explicitly teach:
wherein the first accelerometer is disposed between the force transducer and the elongated strut
However, the examiner holds this prima facie obvious as mere rearrangement of parts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights