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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it begins with a phrase which can be implied and exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities, and should be:
“A method
Claims 2-9 and 12-15 are objected to because of the following informalities, and should be:
“The method
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities, and should be:
“A measuring
Claim is objected to because of the following informalities, and should be:
“The measuring
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5, 10-11, and 14 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.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, the use of the word “preferably” makes it unclear if what follows is positively claimed or not, and therefore the scope of claim 14 is not clearly defined.
Further, regarding claims 5 and 14, the limitation “the at least one intermediate point” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the process according to claim 1” lacks antecedent basis (“a process” should be “the method”).
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bellaton et al. (WO 2019/149931 – cited on Applicant’s IDS, copy provided by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Bellaton discloses (Figs. 1-4) a method for detecting measurement signals (see par. [0012]) during a penetration movement of an indenter 13 [0039] into a surface of a test specimen 9 [0037] or a coating of a test specimen (i.e. can perform a scratch test: [0001]),
in which the test specimen 9 is fixed on a measuring table 7 [0037] of a measuring device 1 (as shown in Fig. 1),
in which an optical device [0068] is used to determine a starting point (pre-scanning: [0068]) for a test section on the test specimen 9 [0068],
in which the starting point of the test specimen is aligned with the indenter 13 by a displacement movement of the measuring table 7 [0050], which is actuated by a control system 24 of the measuring device [0037],
in which the indenter 13 is placed on the starting point of the test specimen [0050] by the control system 24 of the measuring device with a displacement movement along the Z-axis [0050],
in which the indenter 13 is applied to a test force acting in the Z-direction along the test section up to the end point of the test section [0050],
wherein a superimposed displacement movement of the measuring table in the X-direction and in the Y-direction is controlled at least temporarily [0055], so that the indenter 13 is guided on the test specimen along an at least two-dimensional test section until the end point of the test section is reached (see pars. [0050], [0055], and [0061]), and
that measurement signals are detected by at least two measuring devices 29/33 (see pars. [0054] and [0057]) during the displacement movement of the indenter along the test section [0061], which are aligned in a direction deviating from the Z-direction (as shown in Fig. 1) and in spatial directions deviating from one another with respect to the indenter 13 (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Bellaton discloses (Figs. 1-4) the indenter 13 is additionally superimposed with a displacement movement in and/or against the Z-direction [0050] for height compensation due to a change in the surface of the test specimen in the Z-direction while being guided along the test section [0050], in which the displacement movement in the Z-direction is controlled in order to apply the test force [0050].
Regarding claim 3, Bellaton discloses (Figs. 1-4) before passing through the test section the course of the test section is recorded in at least two spatial directions [0055] on the test specimen 9 and stored in the control system 24 of the measuring device [0069].
Regarding claim 4, Bellaton discloses (Figs. 1-4) the position of the starting point [0015] and the position of the end point of the test section [0050] are determined on the test specimen 9 and geometric data stored from the test specimen are read into the control system 24 and processed and therefrom the displacement movement of the measuring table with the test specimen arranged thereon for traversing the test section is controlled (see pars. [0050], [0055], and [0061]).
Regarding claim 6, Bellaton discloses (Figs. 1-4) the indenter 13 is loaded along the test section with a constant or increasing test force in the Z-direction up to the end of the test section [0050].
Regarding claim 7, Bellaton discloses (Figs. 1-4) the indenter 13 is subjected to the test force acting in the Z-direction for a penetration movement into the surface of the test specimen or into the coating of the test specimen 9 [0050] and subsequently the test specimen 9 is subjected to a decreasing test force along the test section [0050].
Regarding claim 8, Bellaton discloses (Figs. 1-4) the test specimen 9 is positioned and aligned with respect to the optical device (as shown in Fig. 1) and the starting point and the course of the test distance on the test specimen 9 up to the end point [0050] are traversed and stored by a displacement movement of the measuring table by means of a teach-in method (i.e. storing the measurement results: see pars. [0067] and [0069]).
Regarding claim 9, Bellaton discloses (Figs. 1-4) at least one test specimen holder (implicit, at least the surface of the table 7) is mounted on the measuring table 7, which is controllable in at least one further spatial direction relative to the measuring table [0037].
Regarding claim 10, Bellaton discloses (Figs. 1-4) a measuring device 1 for detecting measurement signals during a penetrating movement of an indenter 13 into a surface of a test specimen 9 or into a coating on the test specimen (i.e. can perform a scratch test: [0001]), with a measuring table 7 on which the test specimen 9 is positionable (as shown in Fig. 1), with a lifting drive device [0037], by means of which a displacement movement of the indenter 13 along a Z-axis is controllable [0037], and with at least one first measuring device 23 [0050] for detecting a displacement movement of the indenter 13 along a traversing axis in the Z-direction [0050], wherein a control system 24 is provided by which a process according to claim 1 is controlled (see above).
Regarding claim 11, Bellaton discloses (Figs. 1-4) an indenter receptacle 3 [0036] is provided (as shown in Fig. 1), which holds the indenter 13 and has at least two measuring devices 29/33 for detecting the measuring signals through the indenter 13 [0056]-[0057], which are aligned differently from the Z-direction and in different spatial directions from one another (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Bellaton discloses (Figs. 1-4) before passing through the test section and while applying the test force via the indenter 13 to the surface or coating of the test specimen 9, the course of the test section is recorded in at least two spatial directions on the test specimen and stored in the control system 24 of the measuring device (see pars. [0050] and [0069]).
Regarding claim 15, Bellaton discloses (Figs. 1-4) the method is used for determining the adhesive strength of the coating on the test specimen 9 (i.e. can perform a scratch test: [0001]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellaton et al. (WO 2019/149931) in view of Schmid et al. (DE 102006012374 – cited on Applicant’s IDS, copy provided by Applicant).
Regarding claims 5 and 13-14, Bellaton is applied as above, and discloses the position of the start point [0015] and the position of the end point of the test section on the test specimen 9 [0050] are determined and that a program is activated in the control system 24 [0050], which, in adaptation to the contour of the surface of the test specimen 9, selects geometry elements within the test section by means of which the course of the test section is fitted between the starting point and the end point (see pars. [0050], [0055], and [0061]); and are read into the control system and processed and therefrom the displacement movement of the measuring table with the test specimen arranged thereon for traversing the test section is controlled; and selects geometry elements within the test section by means of which the course of the test section is fitted between the starting point and the end point.
Bellaton does not disclose taking into account the at least one intermediate point.
Schmid discloses taking into account the at least one intermediate point (i.e. the track can include a stopping point, or can include multiple tracks: [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bellaton’s method/device to include taking into account the at least one intermediate point, as taught by Schmid.
Such a modification would be the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is (571) 270-7930. The examiner can normally be reached M-F | 8:30-5:00.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/BENJAMIN R SCHMITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852