DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1,2,3,4,21,11,12,13,14,16,17,19,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CURSON et al. (DE 112021003509 T5) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of Francis et al. (US 2018/0311406 A1):
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CURSON et al. (DE 112021003509 T5) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of Francis et al. (US 2018/0311406 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,4,21,11, 12,13,14,16, 17,19,20 further in view of Gorszczyk et al. (Digital Image Correlation Method in Monitoring Deformation During Geogrid Testing):
Claim(s) 6,7,8,9,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CURSON et al. (DE 112021003509 T5) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of Francis et al. (US 2018/0311406 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,4,21,11, 12,13,14,16, 17,19,20 further in view of RAO et al. (CN 112683660 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CURSON et al. (DE 112021003509 T5) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of Francis et al. (US 2018/0311406 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,4,21,11, 12,13,14,16, 17,19,20 further in view of TRAUTWEIN (WO 96/25653 A1):
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CURSON et al. (DE 112021003509 T5) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of Francis et al. (US 2018/0311406 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,4,21,11, 12,13,14,16, 17,19,20 further in view of GIL et al. (KR 10-2008-0112453 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. PRO 63/469,145 05/26/2023, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
claim 1’s:
“a first test cell and a second test cell…
load inducing structure of device…set of…test cells are configured…such that the first and second test cells are arranged on opposing sides from each other…wherein the set of test cells are configured to uniformly apply a load…
a controller coupled to the load cells of the set of…test cells, wherein the controller is configured to record a load deformation response”
is not in Application No. PRO 63/469,145 05/26/2023.
MPEP 2163 Guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, "Written Description" Requirement [R-01.2024]
II. METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING ADEQUACY OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
A. Read and Analyze the Specification for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph
1. For Each Claim, Determine What the Claim as a Whole Covers
The examiner should evaluate each claim to determine if sufficient structures, acts, or functions are recited to make clear the scope and meaning of the claim, including the weight to be given the preamble [Claim 1’s scope1 and meaning is clear]. See, e.g., Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620, 34 USPQ2d 1816, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it."); Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the application "to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim."). The absence of definitions or details for well-established terms or procedures should not be the basis of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of adequate written description. Limitations may not, however, be imported into the claims from the specification.
2. Review the Entire Application to Understand How Applicant Provides Support for the Claimed Invention Including Each Element and/or Step
Prior to determining whether the disclosure2 [Application No. PRO 63/469,145 05/26/2023] provides adequate written description for the claimed subject matter, the examiner should review the claims and the entire specification, including the specific embodiments, figures [Application No. PRO 63/469,145 05/26/2023: figures 1,4,5,7,8], and sequence listings, to understand how applicant provides support for the various features of the claimed invention. The disclosure of an element may be critical where those of ordinary skill in the art would require it to understand that inventor was in possession of the invention. Compare Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1215, 211 USPQ at 327 ("one skilled in the art who read Rasmussen’s specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered") (emphasis in original), with Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm.Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it"). The analysis of whether the specification [Application No. PRO 63/469,145 05/26/2023] complies with the written description requirement calls for the examiner to compare [see Comparison, below] the scope of the claim [claim 1: reproduced below] with the scope of the description [Application No. PRO 63/469,145 05/26/2023: paragraph [0007]: reproduced below] to determine whether applicant has demonstrated that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Such a review is conducted from the standpoint of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed (see, e.g., Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865, 26 USPQ2d 1767, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) and should include a determination of the field of the invention and the level of skill and knowledge in the art. For some arts, there is an inverse correlation between the level of skill and knowledge in the art and the specificity of disclosure necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Information which is well known in the art need not be described in detail in the specification. See, e.g., Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1379-80, 231 USPQ 81, 90 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, sufficient information must be provided to show that the inventor had possession of the invention as claimed.
Comparison
I don’t see/identify claim 1’s “first3 test cell and a second4 test cell” in Application No. PRO 63/469,145 05/26/2023 : paragraph [0007]: reproduced below. Instead I see in [0007]: “a5 load cell” & in [0035]: “multiple6 load cells…110” and in Application No. PRO 63/469,145’s figures 1,4,5,7,8: “multiple load cells…110”:
PNG
media_image1.png
809
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus I don’t see/spot claim 1’s scope of “a set of including7 a first test cell and a second test cell,” in Application No. PRO 63/469,145 05/26/2023 : paragraph [0037]:
(1) a first (A) test-cell set (AB) or
(2) a second (B) test-cell set (AB).
PNG
media_image2.png
756
754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1374
738
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
681
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
638
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
1389
721
media_image6.png
Greyscale
I don’t see/recognize claim 1’s “set of test cells are configured to uniformly apply a load” in Application No. PRO 63/469,145 05/26/2023 : paragraph [0037]: reproduced below. Instead I identify in [0037]: “The stepper motor that will be placed on the long plate which … results in all the load application systems being in the same plane.”.
PNG
media_image7.png
675
568
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Thus I don’s spot claim 1’s scope of “such that the first and second test cells are arranged on opposing sides from each other relative to the geosynthetic specimen for a respective uniaxial testing in a uniaxial or multi-axial testing,” in Application No. PRO 63/469,145 05/26/2023 : paragraph [0037]:
a uniaxial (X), opposing sides, first (A) test-cell set (AB); or
a uniaxial (X), opposing sides, second (B) test-cell set (AB); or
a multi-axial (XY), opposing sides, first (A,A’) test-cell set ((AB);(A’B’)); or
(4) a multi-axial, opposing sides, second test-cell set.
PNG
media_image8.png
923
826
media_image8.png
Greyscale
I don’t see/spot “controller”. Instead I see “control system”, Application No. PRO 63/469,145 05/26/2023 : [0013].
Thus in view of the above Comparison, applicant has not demonstrated that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
3. Determine Whether There is Sufficient Written Description to Inform a Skilled Artisan That Inventor was in Possession of the Claimed Invention as a Whole at the Time the Application Was Filed
(b) New Claims, Amended Claims, or Claims Asserting Entitlement to the Benefit of an Earlier Priority Date or Filing Date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning [see below: Reasoning] to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure [Application No. PRO 63/469,145 05/26/2023] a description of the invention defined by the claims [claim 1]. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 ("[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP §§ 714.02 and 2163.06 ("Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.").
If the originally filed disclosure [Application No. PRO 63/469,145 05/26/2023] does not provide support for each claim limitation, or if an element which applicant describes as essential or critical is not claimed, a new or amended claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as lacking adequate written description, or in the case of a priority or benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, the priority or benefit claim must be denied.
Reasoning
A person skilled in the art would not recognize in Application No. PRO 63/469,145 05/26/2023 a description, such as the order of the test cells, of the invention defined by claim 1’s “a first test cell and a second test cell” because Application No. PRO 63/469,145 05/26/2023 [0007] instead describes “a8 load cell” as one or more9 which is not apparent as the order of test cells, such as 1st test cell and a 2nd test cell.
A person skilled in the art would not recognize in Application No. PRO 63/469,145 05/26/2023 a description, such as the order of the test cells, of the invention defined by claim 1’s “a first test cell and a second test cell” because Application No. PRO 63/469,145 05/26/2023 [0035] instead describes “multiple10 load cells…110”, as cells having more than one part, which is not apparent as the order of test cells , such as 1st test cell and a 2nd test cell with a first part and a second part in fig. 1:
PNG
media_image7.png
675
568
media_image7.png
Greyscale
A person skilled in the art would not recognize in Application No. PRO 63/469,145 05/26/2023 a description [0037], such as placing cells being arranged to equally apply a force, of the invention defined by claim 1’s “set of test cells are configured11 to uniformly apply a load”12 because Application No. PRO 63/469,145 05/26/2023 instead describes in [0037]: “The stepper motor that will be placed on the long plate which … results in all the load application systems being in the same plane.”, in the absence of said “multiple load cells and displacement transducers13 110 to fully record the load deformation”, which does not make apparent in fig. 6 the placement of load/test cells being arranged to equally apply a force of claim 1:
PNG
media_image8.png
923
826
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Thus based on the above Reasoning, a priority or benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, the priority or benefit claim must be denied.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-21 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1’s “set…are” (lines 7,8) & “set…are” (lines 10,11) are not in agreement14. The claimed “are” & “are” are interpreted as “is”:
PNG
media_image9.png
585
900
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Thus claims 2-21 objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
35 USC § 101
Positive Statement
Claim 1 is a machine and does not have an abstract idea. Thus claims 1-21 are statutory under 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants state in page 7, 3rd para:
The plate load test stand (PLTR) shown in FIG. 26 of Curson teaches only a vertical application of force. Furthermore, the arrangement of FIG. 26 applies a vertical force to a foam material under testing. See Curson, p 16. By contrast, amended claim 1 recites a first and second test cell "arranged on opposing sides from each other relative to the geosynthetic specimen for a respective uniaxial testing in a uniaxial or multi-axial testing, wherein the set of test cells are configured to uniformly apply a load in a plane of the geosynthetic specimen."
The examiner respectfully disagrees since CURSON teaches pressing cells or circles in the z-axis in ABB. 19A (FIG. 19A & FIG. 14C) on opposite sides (i.e, top and bottom) with equal radial force arrows in ABB. 3B (FIG. 3B):
PNG
media_image10.png
1276
1299
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., remarks, page 7, 4th para: “a pair”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
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) 1,2,3,4,21,11,12,13,14,16,17,19,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CURSON et al. (DE 112021003509 T5) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of Francis et al. (US 2018/0311406 A1):
PNG
media_image11.png
755
449
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Re 1. (Currently Amended), CURSON teaches A testing apparatus15 for testing geosynthetic structures, the testing apparatus comprising16:
a (“plate load”) test stand (“PLTR”, pg. 16, 1st txt blk: ABB. 26: “PLTR” via ABB. 26:
PNG
media_image12.png
618
1045
media_image12.png
Greyscale
;
a (comparison) set of 17 (as compressible), including a first test cell and a second test cell (or bubbles fig. 19A-C: zoomed-out view ABB. 17B: dots are cells), mechanically coupled {{, directly or indirectly,}}18 to the test stand (“used to measure the displacement of the …compressible cell sheet”, pg. 40, 3rd txt blk, via figures 19A-C and 17C:
PNG
media_image13.png
878
1274
media_image13.png
Greyscale
),
wherein each of the test cells comprises a {{load inducing structure or}} (“the PLTR”, pg. 40, 3rd txt blk) device {{, a guide, a load cell}} (or likewise a plate-load “PLTR test”-“foam sheet” where “foam sheet” is short-hand for “the flexible foam in a compressible cell sheet”, pg. 40, 3rd txt blk){{, and19 a clamp}}, wherein the set of 20 (or likewise “the interconnected21, continuous, aligned strands and apertures”, machine translation II, page 33, last txt blk)22 a geosynthetic specimen (or likewise a “geogrid…specimen”, pg. 33, 1st txt blk or “geosynthetic”-“integral geogrids”, pg. 8, 2nd txt blk: ABB. 1A:grid) such that the first and second test cells are arranged on opposing sides (or likewise “on the outside, e.g. the top and bottom” machine translation II, pg. 31, 2nd txt blk) from each other relative to the geosynthetic specimen for a respective23 uniaxial testing in a uniaxial (or likewise testing the compression of a particular uniaxial or biaxial geogrid testing sample via “In this example24…the compressibility and recoverability of the integral geogrid examples were tested” machine translation II, pg. 44, 1st txt blk) or multi-axial testing (or likewise “the fine aggregate sweep test of the triangular or triaxial geogrid” machine translation II, pg. 35, 3rd txt blk), wherein the set of test cells are configured to uniformly apply a load in a plane (or likewise “plane… force vectors…radiate uniformly to the outer hexagon”, machine translation II, pg. 37, 2nd txt blk) of the geosynthetic specimen (via the arrow connections in ABB. 4A:
PNG
media_image14.png
580
525
media_image14.png
Greyscale
); and
a controller (or likewise a “device25, such as a probe”, pg. 32, 2nd txt blk: ABB. 26: vertical-pen-shape) coupled to the load cells of the set of a load deformation (via “surface deformation of a triangular or triaxial geogrid”, pg. 30, 2nd txt blk) response of the geosynthetic specimen (fig. 26: “GEOGITTER”: Geogrid).
PNG
media_image15.png
590
1047
media_image15.png
Greyscale
CURSON does not teach, under “a narrow subset of claim scope”26, the difference of claim 1 of:
a guide….27
a clamp.
Thus claims 1,2,3,4,21,11,12,13,14,16,17,19,20 can be rejected under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by CURSON et al. (DE 112021003509 T5) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II since the difference of claim 1 falls in the narrow subset of claim scope. “It is the subject matter of the properly construed claim that must be examined”.
Francis teach, under “a narrow subset of claim scope”28, the difference of claim 1 of:
a guide (fig. 18A: “Driveshaft”: “as a guide” [0261])…
a (“sample” [0261]) clamp.
Since CURSON teaches a computer probe, one of skill in the art of computer probes can make CURSON’s be as Francis’ seeing in the change a probe guide29 to assist the computer to travel through, or reach a destination.
Re 2. (Original), CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis teaches The testing apparatus of claim 1 further comprising:
a soil box (or likewise “a container”, pg. 26, last txt blk) integrated into the test stand, the soil box having a boundary that defines a uniform load inducing test area for the geosynthetic specimen:
PNG
media_image16.png
1043
893
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Re 3. (Currently Amended), CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis teaches The testing apparatus of claim 2 further comprising:
a {{vertical load inducing}} test cell30 (or likewise a “device31…probe32”, machine translation II, pg. 44, 1st txt blk) positioned over the soil box, the vertical load inducing test cell being configured to induce a vertical load within the boundary onto the uniform load inducing test area of the geosynthetic specimen, wherein the vertical load is perpendicular to (i) the plane of the geosynthetic specimen {{and (ii) the load applied by the set of test cells}}.
PNG
media_image15.png
590
1047
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Re 4. (Original), CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis teaches The testing apparatus of claim 2 further comprising:
a33
(E) contactless
(F) deformation
(G) measurement (likewise a “pressure” –“apparatus”34, pg. 33, 1st txt blk)
system (measuring pressure mapped to Markush alternative (G))
positioned over the uniform load inducing test area for the geosynthetic specimen.
Re 21. (Currently Amended), CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis teaches The testing apparatus of claim 2, wherein the geosynthetic specimen is35 shaped (as shown in fig. 26) to include a central region (as shown in fig. 26) to be positioned in the soil box (as shown in fig. 26) and extension region (as shown in fig. 26) that extends from the central region, wherein the set of test cells are configured to couple (via said likewise “the interconnected36, continuous, aligned strands and apertures”, machine translation II, pg. 33, last txt blk) {{, via the clamps,}} to the extension regions of the geosynthetic specimen such that the first and second test cells are coupled to opposing extension regions of the geosynthetic specimen (via ABB. 4B & 26:
PNG
media_image17.png
494
478
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
590
1047
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Re 11. (Currently Amended), CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis teaches The testing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the test stand includes a first set of holes (“or indentations”, pg. 6, last txt blk) or slots to receive one or a pair of
Re 12. (Currently Amended), CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis teaches The testing apparatus of claim 11, wherein the test stand includes a second set of (“rectangular grid”, pg. 6, last txt blk) holes or slots to receive a second or a second pair of
Re 13. (Currently Amended), CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis teaches The testing apparatus of claim 11, wherein the test stand includes a third set of holes (or “triangular mesh openings”, pg. 7, 2nd txt blk) or slots to receive a third or a third pair of nd txt blk) testing.
Re 14. (Currently Amended), CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis teaches The testing apparatus of claim 2 [[1]], wherein the soil box has a first (“triangular or triaxial”, pg. 9, last txt blk & pg. 39, last txt blk, rough or smooth) geometry (ABB. 1B: triangles) and is a part of a soil box system, the soil box system comprises a set of inserts (“rough” and “smooth”, pg. 39, 2nd txt blk) that can be inserted into soil box to provide a second geometry, wherein the second (“rectangular”, pg. 9, last S, rough or smooth) geometry is different from the first geometry.
PNG
media_image16.png
1043
893
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Re 16. (Currently Amended), CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis teaches The testing apparatus of claim 1 wherein the set of
Re 17. (Currently Amended), CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis teaches The testing apparatus of claim 1 wherein the set of
Re 19. (Currently Amended), CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis teaches The testing apparatus of claim [[1]] 2, wherein the soil box includes natural geomaterial above and below (or likewise “top and bottom polymeric37 material”, pg. 23, 1st txt blk) the geosynthetic specimen.
Re 20., CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis teaches The testing apparatus of claim [[1]] 2 , wherein the soil box includes man-made geomaterial above and below the geosynthetic (or likewise “top and bottom polymeric38 material”, pg. 23, 1st txt blk) specimen to investigate fundamental geosynthetic-geomaterial interactions (or “interactions…testing”, pg. 17, 1st txt blk.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CURSON et al. (DE 112021003509 T5) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of Francis et al. (US 2018/0311406 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,4,21,11, 12,13,14,16, 17,19,20 further in view of Gorszczyk et al. (Digital Image Correlation Method in Monitoring Deformation During Geogrid Testing):
PNG
media_image18.png
755
637
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Re 5. (Original), CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis teaches The testing apparatus of claim 4, wherein the (E) contactless (F) deformation (G) measurement system comprises a camera and a controller (via said computer hardware device) configured to perform digital (“magnified”, pg. 37) image correlation analysis of two or more images acquired by the camera.
CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis does not teach the difference of claim 5 of:
a camera…
digital (image)39 correlation analysis of two or more images acquired by the camera
Gorszczyk teach the difference of claim 5 of:
a camera (“cameras”, pg. 85: fig. 1: “Calibra-tion” cameras)…
digital (image)40 (“normalised cross-“, pg. 85: Method of digital image correlation, 4th para, 1st S) correlation analysis of two or more images acquired by the camera.
Since CURSON teaches an image, one of skill in the art of images can make CURSON’s be as Gorszczyk’s seeing in the change “a better description of the functioning of the geogrids in a tension test compared to the traditional contact extensometers”, Gorszczyk, pg. 85, lcol, 1st S.
Claim(s) 6,7,8,9,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CURSON et al. (DE 112021003509 T5) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of Francis et al. (US 2018/0311406 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,4,21,11, 12,13,14,16, 17,19,20 further in view of RAO et al. (CN 112683660 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
PNG
media_image19.png
755
644
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Re 6. (Currently Amended), CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis teaches The testing apparatus of claim 1 further comprising:
a movable frame41 (or likewise a “movement”-“system”, pg. 37, 1st txt blk) having a set of arms, wherein a portion or all of the arms are movable with respect to each other, the set of an arm.
CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis does not teach the difference of claim 6 of:
arms…42
the arms…with respect to each other
an arm.
RAO teach the difference of claim 6 of:
arms…43
the arms…with respect to each other
an arm (fig. 2: 1,2,3,4):
PNG
media_image20.png
990
1013
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Since CURSON teaches geo-x, one of skill in the art of geo-x can make CURSON’s be as RAO’s seeing in the change a “geogrid tensile test. it can completely clamp the steel-plastic geogrid , the reinforcing steel bar and plastic are synchronously pulled, accurately measuring the tensile strength of the steel-plastic geogrid, elongation, with simple operation, ensuring the effectiveness and accuracy of the experiment.”, RAO, pg. 2, last txt blk.
Re 7. (Currently Amended), CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis,RAO teaches The testing apparatus of claim 6, wherein the movable frame includes only (via “each
lower supporting arm”, pg. 3, 1st txt blk) a first arm (fig. 2:1), the first arm being configured with one or a pair of
PNG
media_image21.png
626
1021
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Re 8. (Currently Amended), CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis,RAO teaches The testing apparatus of claim 7, wherein the movable frame further includes a second arm, the second arm being positionable with respect to the first arm (fig. 2:1), the second arm being configured with a second or a second pair of l
PNG
media_image21.png
626
1021
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Re 9. (Currently Amended), CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis,RAO teaches The testing apparatus of claim 8,
wherein the movable frame includes a third arm, the third arm being positionable with respect to the first arm and the third arm, the third arm being configured with a third or a third pair of
PNG
media_image21.png
626
1021
media_image21.png
Greyscale
, and
wherein the first arm includes a center protrusion (via fig. 4:10: sticking/extending out) to receive the second arm and the third arm (via,
PNG
media_image22.png
1176
1027
media_image22.png
Greyscale
wherein the second arm and third arm each has a central hole (via fig. 4:10: sticking/extending out) to be positioned onto the first arm (via:
PNG
media_image22.png
1176
1027
media_image22.png
Greyscale
, and
wherein the first arm has a first thickness, the second arm has a second thickness, and the third arm having a third thickness (or likewise “Picture 1 is the three-dimensional44 structure schematic diagram of the invention”) to define a flush surface for respective placement of the set of lateral load inducing test cells (via fig. 1:
PNG
media_image23.png
1183
1027
media_image23.png
Greyscale
Re 10. (Original), CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis,RAO teaches The testing apparatus of claim 9, wherein the second arm and third arm are reconfigurable to different positions (on a table via fig. 9
PNG
media_image24.png
560
1025
media_image24.png
Greyscale
.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CURSON et al. (DE 112021003509 T5) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of Francis et al. (US 2018/0311406 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,4,21,11, 12,13,14,16, 17,19,20 further in view of TRAUTWEIN (WO 96/25653 A1):
PNG
media_image25.png
755
644
media_image25.png
Greyscale
Re 15. (Original), CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis teaches The testing apparatus of claim 14, wherein the soil box system includes a vertical load frame45 (or said pressure-apparatus) for a vertical load inducing test cell comprising a load piston and a (“Steel”) load plate to apply loads to the geosynthetic specimen:
PNG
media_image15.png
590
1047
media_image15.png
Greyscale
CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis does not teach the difference of claim 15 of:
piston.
TRAUTWEIN teach the difference of claim 15 of:
(“double-”) piston (“cylinder 30”, pg. 8, 2nd S: fig. 7).
Since CURSON teaches geogrid and geosynthetic, one of skill in the art of geogrids and geosynthetics can make CURSON’s be as TRAUTWEIN’s seeing the change “useful for determining the creep behavior or long-term shear deformation characteristics of specimens subjected to a constant shear load” TRAUTWEIN, pg. 12, last S.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CURSON et al. (DE 112021003509 T5) with SEARCH machine translation plus SEARCH machine translation II in view of Francis et al. (US 2018/0311406 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,3,4,21,11, 12,13,14,16, 17,19,20 further in view of GIL et al. (KR 10-2008-0112453 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
PNG
media_image26.png
755
644
media_image26.png
Greyscale
Re 18. (Currently Amended), CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis teaches The testing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the set of dead-weight systems comprising a dead weight, pulley, and cable.
CURSON of the combination of CURSON,Francis does not teach the difference of claim 18 of:
dead-weight systems comprising a dead weight, pulley, and cable.
GILL teach the difference of claim 18 of:
dead-weight systems (or “deadweight”-“method” and “deadweight”-“apparatus”: fig. 1:vehicle, Abstract) comprising a dead weight, (“mounted”) pulley (“6”, pg. 3, 1st txt blk), and (“wire”) cable (“5”, pg. 3, 1st txt blk).
Since CURSON teaches geotechnical, Abstract:
“Aspects of a geogrid system for enhancing substrate interactions within a geotechnical environment are disclosed.”
, one of skill in the art of geotechnical can make CURSON’s be as GILL’s seeing in the change “the effect of strengthening the bearing capacity of the geotechnical layer by inserting in its own weight”, GILL, pg. 13: ADVANTAGEOUS-EFFECTS.
Conclusion
The prior art “nearest to the subject matter defined in the claims” (MPEP 707.05) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
IWAMOTO YOICHI et al. (JP 2017-181082 A) with SEARCH machine translation
IWAMOTO teaches test-cell 72 via “the cross test specimen 10…center hole load cell 72”:
PNG
media_image27.png
1889
898
media_image27.png
Greyscale
FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram for explaining a pull-out test of the sealing plug provided in the through hole of the cross specimen. As shown in FIG. 3, a sealing plug 70 that seals the through hole 14 is applied to the central through hole 14 provided at the center of the main body 11 of the cross specimen 10. Next, an extraction rod 74 is connected to the upper surface side of the sealing plug 70, and the extraction rod 74 includes a reaction force table 73 placed on the main body portion 11 (ligament portion) of the cross test specimen 10, and It passes through the center hole jack 71 and the center hole load cell 72 and is fixed with a nut 75. The sealing plug 70 is provided with a displacement meter 76 on the lower surface side opposite to the extraction rod 74.
as the closest to the claimed “test cell” of claim 1.
SARDA JEAN-PAUL et al. (NO 178314 B) with SEARCH machine translation
SARDA claims a “two load gauges”-“triaxial test cell”46 (fig. 2:1: a rock/ stone/core specimen bucket) in claim 5 and in fig. 2:1:a rock/stone/core specimen bucket:
PNG
media_image28.png
886
731
media_image28.png
Greyscale
5. A triaxial test cell as claimed in any one of claims 2 to 4, characterized in that said measuring devices further comprise two load gauges (10) positioned against the surface of the sample (2) and connected to the measuring device by means of connecting lines (9) passing through. through the holes (20) formed in the piston (6).
as the closest to the claimed “test cell…in a…multi-axial testing” of claim 1.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS ROSARIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM 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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/DENNIS ROSARIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
1 scope: Linguistics, Logic. the range of words or elements of an expression over which a modifier (e.g., a patent examiner) or operator (e.g., me) has control. (Dictionary.com)
2 Note that the specification filed 5/28/2024 of 18/676,079 is not being applied in the METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING ADEQUACY OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION. Instead Application No. PRO 63/469,145 05/26/2023 is being applied in this METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING ADEQUACY OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
3 first: being before all others with respect to time, order, rank, importance, etc., used as the ordinal number of one, wherein ordinal number is defined: A number, such as 3rd, 11th, or 412th, used in counting to indicate position in a series but not quantity. (Dictionary.com)
4 second: next after the first; being the ordinal number for two, wherein ordinal number is defined: A number, such as 3rd, 11th, or 412th, used in counting to indicate position in a series but not quantity. . (Dictionary.com)
5 a: any; a single, wherein any is defined: one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification. (Dictionary.com)
6 multiple: having or involving more than one part, individual, etc (Dictionary.com: BRITISH)
7 Participle: a form derived from a verb, used in English as an adjective to express participation in the action or state of the verb, or combined with an auxiliary verb to construct any of various tenses, as in a burning candle, a known fact, I am freezing, She has gone: a participle does not specify person or number, but may have a subject or object, show tense, etc. (Dictionary.com)
8 a: any; a single, wherein any is defined: one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification. (Dictionary.com)
9 more: in greater quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number (Dictionary.com)
10 multiple: having or involving more than one part, individual, etc (Dictionary.com: BRITISH)
11 configured: to arrange or organize (Dictionary.com)
12 This language “set of test cells are configured to uniformly apply a load” does not invoke 35 USC 112(f)
13 transducer: A device that converts one type of energy or signal into another. For example, a microphone is a transducer that converts sound waves into electric impulses; an electric motor is a transducer that converts electricity into mechanical energy. (Dictionary.com)
14 agreement: A requirement for parts of a sentence in standard written English; the parts must agree, for example, in number and person. The subject and verb of a clause or simple sentence must agree in person, as in “He is a boy.” The subject, he, and the verb, is, are both in the third person. The subject and verb also must agree in number, as in “We are girls.” The subject, we, and the verb, are, are both plural. Nouns and pronouns must also agree in number, person, and gender as in “Every boy must mind his manners.” The noun boy and the pronoun his are both singular, both in the third person, and both masculine. (Dictionary.com)
15 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: apparatus: a group or combination of instruments, machinery, tools, materials, etc., having a particular function or intended for a specific use. (Dictionary.com)
16 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: -ing (of “comprising” or any other “-ing” word in claims 1-20): a suffix of nouns formed from verbs, expressing the action of the verb or its result, product, material, etc. (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding ), wherein etc is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted), wherein so is defined: likewise or correspondingly; also; too, wherein forth is defined: out, as from concealment or inaction; into view or consideration. (Dictionary.com)
17 cell: a small group acting as a unit (35 USC 112(f) language) within a larger organization (Dictionary.com): “cell” does not invoke 35 USC 112(f) since “cells” is modified by side-structure or sides-structure: said “cells” independent attribute #1
18 text in {{squiggles}} “does not limit the scope” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 2nd para:
As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms (“or” & “and”) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
19 and: (used to connect alternatives). (Dictionary.com)
20 couple: to join in a pair; unite, wherein unite is defined: to become joined together or combined so as to form a single whole. (Dictionary.com)
21 interconnect: to connect with one another, wherein with is defined: accompanied by; accompanying. . (Dictionary.com)
22 to: (used for expressing addition or accompaniment) with. (Dictionary.com)
23 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: respective: pertaining individually or severally to each of a number of persons, things, etc.; particular. (Dictionary.com)
24 example: an instance serving for illustration; a representative case, wherein representative is defined: to set forth or describe as having a particular character (usually followed by as, to be, etc.). (Dictionary.com)
25 device: computer hardware that is designed for a specific function, wherein hardware is defined: Computers. the mechanical, magnetic, electronic, and electrical devices comprising a computer system, as the CPU, disk drives, keyboard, or screen., wherein disk drive is defined: Computer Science A device that reads data stored on a magnetic or optical disk and writes data onto the disk for storage, wherein write is defined: computing to record (data) in a location in a storage device Compare read 1 (Dictionary.com)
26 MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 2nd para:
Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 958-59, 2023 USPQ2d 795 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the court found the claims were improperly narrowed based on a preferred embodiment to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation, whereas the patent claims made no reference to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation. Thus, the relevant prior art was improperly limited to a narrow subset of claim scope. See also MPEP § 2111 et seq. It is the subject matter of the properly construed claim that must be examined. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
27 ellipses (,,,) represent claim limitations already taught
28 MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 2nd para:
Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 958-59, 2023 USPQ2d 795 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the court found the claims were improperly narrowed based on a preferred embodiment to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation, whereas the patent claims made no reference to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation. Thus, the relevant prior art was improperly limited to a narrow subset of claim scope. See also MPEP § 2111 et seq. It is the subject matter of the properly construed claim that must be examined. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
29 guide: to assist (a person) to travel through, or reach a destination in, an unfamiliar area, as by accompanying or giving directions to the person. (Dictionary.com)
30 cell (i.e., any of various separate functions): any of various small compartments or bounded areas forming part of a whole, wherein compartment is defined: a separate aspect, function, or the like. (Dictionary.com)
31 device: a thing made for a particular purpose; an invention or contrivance, especially a mechanical or electrical one, wherein invention is defined: U.S. Patent Law. a new, useful process, machine, improvement, etc., that did not exist previously and that is recognized as the product of some unique intuition or genius, as distinguished from ordinary mechanical skill or craftsmanship, wherein machine is defined: an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work.
32 probe: electronics a lead connecting to or containing a measuring or monitoring circuit used for testing, wherein circuit is defined: A system of electrically connected parts or devices. (Dictionary.com)
33 Markush element follows: [(E) (&) (F) & (G)]
34 apparatus: any system or systematic organization of activities, functions, processes, etc., directed toward a specific goal. (Dictionary.com)
35 “is” (be/are) essentially means look at a figure (Dictionary.com)
36 interconnect: to connect with one another, wherein with is defined: accompanied by; accompanying. . (Dictionary.com)
37 polymeric: of, concerned with, or being a polymer, wherein polymer is defined: a naturally occurring or synthetic compound, such as starch or Perspex, that has large molecules made up of many relatively simple repeated units Compare copolymer oligomer (Dictionary.com)
38 polymeric: of, concerned with, or being a polymer, wherein polymer is defined: a naturally occurring or synthetic compound, such as starch or Perspex, that has large molecules made up of many relatively simple repeated units Compare copolymer oligomer (Dictionary.com)
39 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
40 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
41 frame: form, constitution, or structure in general; system; order. (Dictionary.com)
42 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught
43 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught
44 dimension: Usually dimensions. measurement in length, width, and thickness. (Dictionary.com)
45 frame: form, constitution, or structure in general; system; order. (Dictionary.com)
46 SARDA’s claim 5’ “test cell” (claim 1: “A cell for triaxial load testing”) (fig. 2:1) appears inconsistent with applicant’s “test cell” (further investigation appears to be required to semantically sort out “test cell” as used in SARDA and as used in applicant’s disclosure: “test cell” appears to be short-hand for SARDA’s claim 1: “A cell for triaxial load testing”: a compartment/bucket for triaxial load testing).
Prosecution Insights