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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 13-24 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.
The terms “so-called longitudinal direction” in claim 13, line 4 and “so-called transverse direction” in claim 13, line 6 and “so-called vertical direction” claim 13, line 8 are unclear as to if they refer to the longitudinal, transverse and vertical directions or to directions that are arbitrarily “called” the longitudinal, transverse and vertical directions. It seems the recitation “so-called” is superfluous.
Note, reference to these directions in the dependent claims that merely recite longitudinal, transverse and vertical lack clear antecedent basis without reciting “so-called…” See for example, claim 15, line 2 which recites “the longitudinal direction.”
Claim 16 recites “so-called longitudinal direction” and is unclear for the reasons note above in claim 13.
Claim 19 recites “so-called transverse direction” and is unclear for the reasons note above in claim 13.
Claim 23 recites “a tray of samples or cores” in line 2 and “the tray filled with a set of samples, or the crate filled with cores.” These recitations are inconsistent. It seems like line 2 should recite a tray of samples or a crate filled with cores.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
1. Claims 13, 15, 16 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0255353 to Mezghani et al. (cited by applicant) in view of International Patent Application Publication No. WO2022099437 to Zhao et al, see English translation.
Regarding applicant’s claim 13, Mezghani discloses a geological core inspection system that includes
a PC drive computer system 1000 (para [0058]; Fig. 4),
a control unit that is functionally illustrated and described in reference to Fig. 3,
a measuring instrument (sensing system 154, sensors 214) (para [0036]; Fig. 2),
at least one longitudinal rail 218 (para [0036]; Fig. 2),
a support translatably mounted on the longitudinal rail 218 (base 220 that supports the robot arm that supports sensors 214) (para [0036]; .Fig. 2)
Mezghani further teaches means for actuating translation of the measuring instrument (sensing system 154) (paragraph [0036]) and slaving the means for actuating to the control unit (see Figs. 3-4)
Mezghani further teaches a robotic arm assembly 212 to move the measuring instrument (sensing system 154) between different core samples.
Mezghani does not explicitly teach a plate translatably mounted to the support (base 220) in a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal X-direction, a fastener provided for fastening the measuring instrument (sensing system 154) and translatably mounted to the plate in a vertical direction, or means for actuating translation of the plate and fastener, respectively.
However, Zhao teaches the use of a rail system frame, including longitudinal rails along an x-axis direction (as shown in Figs. 4-6), a mover seat (plate)) including y-axis direction motion mechanism 31 (means for actuating translation of the mover seat), and fastener (mounting plate 33 with bolts) that supports a pipetting gun 36 and translatably mounted in the vertical direction including z-direction motion mechanism 32 (means for actuating translation of the mounting place 33), for the benefit of positioning a tool (i.e., pipetting gun 36) along three axes over various objects (see Pgs. 6-7; as shown in Figs. 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the moving mechanism of Mezghani to include a transverse rails, plate, fastener and actuating means in transverse and vertical directions, as taught by Zhao, for the benefit of positioning the sensing system 154 along three axes.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 15, as noted above Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. renders claim 13 obvious from which claim 15 depends.
Claim 15 recites a bench extending along the longitudinal direction and to which the at least one longitudinal rail is fastened.
Mezghani et al. illustrates a bench (examination table 202), but does not teach that the frame is fastened to the bench.
Zhao et al. teaches that the rails are attached to base (“bench”) as shown in Fig. 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. to attach the frame to a bench as taught by Zhao et al. so as to provide a unitary system.
Therefore, Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. renders claim 15 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 16, as noted above Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. renders claim 15 obvious from which claim 16 depends.
Claim 16 recites that the bench includes a conveyor capable of moving the set of samples or cores in the so-called longitudinal direction.
Mezghani et al. teaches the use of a conveyor that places the core samples on the examination table. [0040]
Therefore, Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. renders claim 16 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 19, as noted above Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. renders claim 13 obvious from which claim 19 depends.
Claim 19 recites that the support comprises at least one transverse rail to which the plate is translatably mounted in the so-called transverse direction.
Zhao et al. illustrates plate 33 as being mounted to the transverse rail in Fig. 4.
Therefore, Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. renders claim 19 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 20, as noted above Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. renders claim 13 obvious from which claim 20 depends.
Claim 20 recites that the means for actuating translation of the fastener, the support and the plate respectively are electric motors.
Zhao et al. teaches various motors, including a motor for lateral movement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. to provide electric motors to provide for actuating translation of the fastener, the support and the plate.
Therefore, Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. renders claim 20 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 21, as noted above Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. renders claim 13 obvious from which claim 21 depends.
Claim 21 recites that the support is provided with means for fastening said support to a surface.
In Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. it would have been obvious to include a fastening means to fasten plate 33 to a surface or, connected to, the transverse rail.
Therefore, Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. renders claim 21 obvious.
2. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. as applied to claims 13 and 21 and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0208089 to Segal et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, as noted above, Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. renders claim 13 obvious from which claim 14 depends.
Claim 14 recites that the measuring instrument is selected from the list defined by infrared ray spectrometers laser ablation spectroscopes, X-ray fluorescence spectrometers and RAMAN spectrometers.
Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. does not teach that the measuring instrument is selected from the list defined by infrared ray spectrometers laser ablation spectroscopes, X-ray fluorescence spectrometers and RAMAN spectrometers.
Segal et al. teaches the use of x-ray fluorescence (XRF) and spectroscopy to analyze geological samples, including core samples. [0002], [0054]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. in view of Segal et al to use a measurement instrument that uses x-ray fluorescence spectroscopy to analyze core samples based on Segal et al. teaches such measurement means in conjunction with analyzing core samples.
Therefore, Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. and Segal et al. renders claim 14 obvious.
3. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0059987 to Keast.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 17, as noted above Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. renders claim 16 obvious from which claim 17 depends.
Claim 17 recites a compartmentalized tray provided for accommodating a set of samples, and/or a crate provided for accommodating cores.
Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. does not teach a compartmentalized tray provided for accommodating a set of samples, and/or a crate provided for accommodating cores.
Keast teaches core trays that are configured to move on a conveyor line. [0047]. The channels 102 in the trays compartmentalize the trays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. to include the core trays of Keast for purposes of handling the core samples in a convenient manner.
Therefore, Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. and Keast renders claim 17 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 18, as noted above Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. and Keast renders claim 17 obvious from which claim 18 depends.
Claim 18 recites that the bench includes a set of stops and wedges for blocking and wedging said tray and/or said crate.
Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. and Keast does not teach that the bench includes a set of stops and wedges for blocking and wedging said tray and/or said crate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. and Keast to include structural blocking elements such as side rails to prevent the trays from accidently being pushed off the bench.
Therefore, Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. and Keast renders claim 18 obvious.
4. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. as applied to claim 13 and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,360,974 to de Cuissart.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 22, as noted above, Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. renders claim 13 obvious from which claim 22 depends.
Claim 22 recites a Point-Line-Plane system, including a fixed base, a movable base, three balls, two of which are housed respectively in a trihedron and a V- shaped groove, three screws passing through the movable base and dedicated respectively to securing one of the balls.
Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. does not teach a Point-Line-Plane system, including a fixed base, a movable base, three balls, two of which are housed respectively in a trihedron and a V- shaped groove, three screws passing through the movable base and dedicated respectively to securing one of the balls.
de Cuissart teaches a "point-line-plane" that is used for positioning two objects with respect to one another. (“Abstract,” “Background/Summary,” Figs. 1-6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. to include a "point-line-plane" as taught by de Cuissart to support core samples for purposes of being able to orient the samples as desired for measurement by the measurement instrument.
Therefore, Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. and de Cuissart renders claim 22 obvious.
5. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. and Keast.
Mezghani et al. discloses a geological core inspection system that includes a PC drive computer system 1000 (Fig. 4), a control unit that is functionally illustrated and described in reference to Fig. 3, a measuring unit (sensing system 154), at least one longitudinal rail 218, a support translatably mounted on the longitudinal rail (base 220 that supports the robot arm that supports sensors 214).
Mezghani et al. teaches means for actuating translation of the measuring unit that is described in paragraph [0036].
Mezghani et al. teaches a robotic arm assembly 212 to move the measuring unit between different core samples.
Zhao et al. teach the use of a rail system, including longitudinal rails at the upper area as shown in Fig. 4 and a transverse rail to which mounting plate 33 that supports a tool that can be moved over various objects as shown in Fig. 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. to substitute the robotic arm of Mezghani et al. with the longitudinal and transverse rails, and mounting plate of Zhao et al. as a matter of substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Mounting the measuring unit of Mezghani et al. with a fastener to the plate of Zhao et al. would have been an obvious manner of attaching the measuring unit to the plate.
Actuating translation of Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. would have been obvious inasmuch as each of Mezghani et al. and Zhao et al. provide for actuating their systems in conjunction with a control means.
Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. does not teach a compartmentalized tray provided for accommodating a set of samples, and/or a crate provided for accommodating cores.
Keast teaches core trays that are configured to move on a conveyor line. [0047]. The channels 102 in the trays compartmentalize the trays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. to include the core trays of Keast for purposes of handling the core samples in a convenient manner.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 23, as noted above modify Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. and Keast renders all the limitations of claim 23 obvious.
Therefore, Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. and Keast renders claim 23 obvious.
6. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. and Segal.
As noted above, Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. renders the device of claim 1 obvious and movement of the measuring instrument in at least one of three directions in accordance to a computer program obvious.
Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. does not teach that the measuring instrument is selected from the list defined by infrared ray spectrometers laser ablation spectroscopes, X-ray fluorescence spectrometers and RAMAN spectrometers.
Segal et al. teaches the use of x-ray fluorescence (XRF) and spectroscopy to analyze geological samples, including core samples. [0002], [0054]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. in view of Segal et al to use a measurement instrument that uses x-ray fluorescence spectroscopy to analyze core samples based on Segal et al. teaches such measurement means in conjunction with analyzing core samples.
In Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. and Segal it would have been obvious to include a fastening means to fasten plate 33 to a surface or, connected to, the transverse rail.
Therefore, Mezghani et al. in view of Zhao et al. and Segal renders claim 24 obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. 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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights