DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/5/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
3. Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment(s) filed 12/5/2023.
Specification
4. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
“MATERIAL FLEXURE MEASURING DEVICE, SYSTEM, METHOD AND PROGRAM”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITO Y et al. (DE 102020206345 A1).
Regarding claim 1 ITO et al. discloses acquiring a height difference between two points on a bottom surface of a structure; and calculating a material flexural strength of the structure based on the height difference. (Interpreted as, “calculating the bending strength of the test component on a basis of a thickness and a width of the test component, a distance between the first support element and the second support element, and a maximum value of the load measured by the load measuring unit.”)(Abstract). Ito does not explicitly disclose acquiring a height difference between two points on a bottom surface of a structure.
Since Ito at the very least discloses monitoring and / or calculating “thickness and a width”, it would have been obvious and well within a person having ordinary skill in the art of material load testing of test pieces before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to interpret and / or identify measuring and differentiating width and thickness of a test piece with respect to distance as synonymous / interchangeable to measuring height differentiation for the purpose of non-manually obtaining flexural strength of a test component wherein the test component is prevented from being damaged by support elements, and prevented from changing mechanical strength. (Advantage section of Ito DE 102020206345 A1).
Regarding claim 3 Ito teaches calculating the material flexural strength based on an extension direction of a straight line connecting the two points. (Fig. 7)
Regarding claim 9 Ito teaches the material flexural strength of the material represents a strength of the material. (Abstract)(Entire Document)
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 2, 6, 7, 10-12 20 & 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2 & 6 the cited prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious generating a function indicating a relationship between a material flexural strength and a vertical displacement of a test structure based on two or more sets of the material flexural strength and a stored vertical displacement, wherein the calculating further comprises calculating the material flexural strength with respect to the height difference using the function.
Regarding claim 7 the cited prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the structure contains retained water, and wherein in the acquiring further comprises setting, a difference between water depths of the two points of the retained water as the height difference.
Regarding claims 10 & 20 Ito does not anticipate nor render obvious the structure is an underground structure, and the structure is at least under soil pressure.
Claims 11, 12 &21 are objected based on its dependency of claims 2 & 6.
Regarding claim 19 the cited prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the structure includes a first resin concrete utility hole made of resin concrete of which strength changes over time.
7. Claims 4 & 13-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The cited prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious a horizontal member, a first vertical member that is fixed to the horizontal member to be able to move in a vertical direction with respect to the horizontal member and includes a protrusion amount presentation unit indicating a first protrusion amount in the vertical direction; and a second vertical member that is fixed at a position different from the first vertical member on the horizontal member to be able to move in a vertical direction with respect to the horizontal member, and includes a protrusion amount presentation unit indicating a second protrusion amount in the vertical direction, and wherein the measurement device acquires [[a]]the height difference based on the first and second protrusion amounts.
Claim 13-18 are allowed based on their dependency of allowed claim 4
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2174. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9am-5PM.
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 M 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.
/ANDRE J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855