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 .
112 Rejection
Claims 4,5,7,14,15,18 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 4, “the shim” was never initially introduced. Is claim 13 missing - - a shim - - ?
As to claim 5, this claims is fragmented. (There is no period) What subject matter might be missing, if at all?
As to claim 4, what does the “and” (line 2 from last) relate to? Is it the bottom plate, or either the shim or bottom plate? Use of commas, and the term - - either - - are invaluable in full usages.
As to claims 4,7,14, “the support contact section” is confusing, as it was never initially introduced, and as such suggests something may be missing in these claims. Is claim 13 missing “a support contact section”?
As to claim 15, “the measurement cell” was not initially introduced. Is claim 13 missing such?
102/103 Rejection
Claim(s) 13,2,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tsugai et al JP H09257374.
Tsugai teaches (Figures 1, 3) a system for performing thermomechanical analysis of a sample 7, the system comprising; a thermomechanical analysis instrument 15,21,14,3,21; and a sample carrier 6 comprising: a bottom 61; at least one side wall extending upward relative to the bottom; and a contact face for receiving a sample 7, the contact face facing upward, wherein a circumferential rim is provided on the contact face for receiving the sample 7 within an area circumscribed by the rim and for defining the position of the sample relative to the bottom; wherein the thermomechanical analysis instrument comprises a measuring probe 15 and a sample support (structure 21(sub)1 supports carrier 6) with a measuring probe tip pointing towards the sample support; wherein the sample carrier is configured to be arranged between the sample support and the measuring probe during a measurement.
PNG
media_image1.png
698
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
532
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The carrier 6 is arranged between the sample support 21.1 and the probe as shown by the 2 marked lines on the next page.
PNG
media_image3.png
370
596
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claims 13,2, either the sample support 21.1 supports the carrier 6 (as otherwise, the carrier 6 would fall down to the bottom of tube 14 in Figure 1), or one of alternative would recognize such, and thus it would have been obvious to so-secure the carrier 6 to the support 21.1.
As to claim 7, the carrier 6 is quartz.
Prior Art cited/not applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al CN 106226347 teach (Fig. 2) a probe 13 pointing towards a sample 14 support 17. There is a support immediately below the sample 14, that support having a larger diameter than the sample 17. The probe is used to measure displacement due to thermal expansion. The support appears to be moveable. It is not stated that the sample 14 is “within an areas circumscribed by the rim”, and that the support is a sample “carrier”.
PNG
media_image4.png
242
617
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wang et al CN 110514691 teach a support surface 11 that has a rim that retains sample material under test.
PNG
media_image5.png
148
819
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Xue et al CN111189876 Teach (Figure 5) a sample support frame 25 that has a rim to retain a sample material under test.
Babou FR 2754598 teaches (Figure 2) a sample 26 supported by clamps near a contact face of a horizontal support 34 that is not a carrier.
Objected to Claims
Claims 3,6,8-12,16,17 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri 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