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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on or before 2024-05-20 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 17 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, 17, and 21 all recite “the adapter comprising a base and a perimeter wall extending outwardly from the plate” in lines 3-4, 5-6, and 6-7 respectively. It is difficult to discern the metes and bounds of the claim as written. The plate referenced above lacks antecedent basis, however this is understood to mean – vessel plate --, refer to 32 USC 112(b) rejection below. Additionally, the vessel plate is claimed to comprise a main body and an adapter, but the perimeter wall is stated to be extending outwardly from the (vessel) plate. This phrasing makes it unclear as to which part of the vessel plate the perimeter wall is extending from. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret “the plate” in these claims to read – the adapter --. 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 1, 3-9, 11, 13-14, and 17-25 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.
Claims 1, 17 and 21 recites the limitation "the plate" in line 4 of claim 1, lines 6 and 9 of claim 17, and 7 and 10 of claim 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret these instances to read -- the vessel plate --.
Regarding Claims 3-9, 11, 13-14, 18-20, and 22-25, These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 13, 17, and 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al (US-20230333032-A1) in view of Takamatsu et al. (JP-H0674930-A, From applicant IDS – Refer to attached machine translation for references cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakamura teaches a vessel plate (Refer to Annotated Figure 3A of Nakamura) comprising a main body configured as a lid (Fig 3A: retainer plate, 33) for attachment to a test chamber (Fig 3A: the holder body 31, contains a chamber with electrolyte, 34) and an adapter configured to receive a metal object (Fig 3A: sample, 17) therein (Refer to Annotated Figure 3A of Nakamura), the adapter comprising a base and a seal mounted thereon (Fig 3A: O-ring, 32b), the base of the adapter having at least one aperture (Fig 3A: region between O-rings, 32c) surrounded by a secondary seal (Fig 3A: O-ring, 32a).
Nakamura does not teach the adapter comprising a perimeter wall extending outwardly from the plate. However, Takamatsu teaches the adapter comprising a perimeter wall extending outwardly from the plate (Fig 2 shows an adapter, 13 (identified as chuck in the translated text), this chuck has a wall extending out of it to accommodate the metal can lid, 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the adapter of Nakamura to incorporate the wall of Takamatsu. A motivation for this modification is a wall creates a volume of space on the underside of the lid which could be used to allow more flexibility in the space provided to hold the electrode or electrolyte therein.
Regarding Claim 3, Nakamura further teaches wherein a vacuum source is provided to pull and secure the metal object onto the perimeter and secondary seal of the adapter of the vessel plate (Para [0109] an evacuation unit, 27, that creates a vacuum through the exhaust pipe, 35 which is placed between the sealing members).
Regarding Claim 4, Nakamura further teaches wherein the metal object is mechanically fastened to the adapter (Fig 3A: screws, 39).
Regarding Claim 13, Nakamura further teaches wherein the perimeter of the adapter is provided with spaced apart guide members to assist in accurately positioning the metal object on the seals of the adapter of the vessel plate (Fig 3B shows a top down view of Fig 3A which shows the perimeter of the metal object inside of the screws, thus the screws function as guide pins ensuring the metal object is placed properly on the device).
PNG
media_image1.png
563
857
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3A of Nakamura
Regarding Claim 17, Nakamura teaches a test chamber for receiving an electrolyte therein (Fig 3A: the holder body 31, contains a chamber with electrolyte, 34), an electrode extending into the electrolyte (Fig 3A: electrode, 36) and
an enamel rater vessel plate (Refer to Annotated Figure 3A of Nakamura),
the vessel plate comprising a main body configured as a lid (Fig 3A: retainer plate, 33) for attachment to the test chamber (Fig 3A: the holder body 31, contains a chamber with electrolyte, 34) and an adapter configured to receive a metal object (Fig 3A: sample, 17) therein (Refer to Annotated Figure 3A of Nakamura),
the adapter comprising a base and a seal mounted thereon (Fig 3A: O-ring, 32b),
the base of the adapter having at least one aperture (Fig 3A: region between O-rings, 32c) surrounded by a secondary seal (Fig 3A: O-ring, 32a),
the plate configured as a lid for attachment to the test chamber (the claim established previously that the vessel plate comprises a main body configured as a lid for attachment to the test chamber, so since the vessel plate comprises the main body, it is necessarily configured as a lid for attachment to the test chamber), the main body of the vessel plate having at least one fastener for securely attaching the plate to the test chamber (Fig 3A: screws, 39).
Nakamura does not teach the adapter comprising a perimeter wall extending outwardly from the plate. However, Takamatsu teaches the adapter comprising a perimeter wall extending outwardly from the plate (Fig 2 shows an adapter, 13 (identified as chuck in the translated text), this chuck has a wall extending out of it to accommodate the metal can lid, 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the adapter of Nakamura to incorporate the wall of Takamatsu. A motivation for this modification is a wall creates a volume of space on the underside of the lid which could be used to allow more flexibility in the space provided to hold the electrode or electrolyte therein.
Regarding Claim 20, Nakamura further teaches wherein the test chamber is provided with a hollow shaft for application of a vacuum (Fig 3A: differential exhaust pipe, 35 | Para [0072] teaches a vacuum is created through the exhaust pipe).
Regarding Claim 21, Nakamura teaches a test chamber for receiving an electrolyte therein (Fig 3A: the holder body 31, contains a chamber with electrolyte, 34), an electrode extending into the electrolyte (Fig 3A: electrode, 36) and an enamel rater vessel plate (Refer to Annotated Figure 3A of Nakamura),
the vessel plate comprising a main body configured as a lid (Fig 3A: retainer plate, 33) for attachment to the test chamber (Fig 3A: the holder body 31, contains a chamber with electrolyte, 34) and an adapter configured to receive a metal object (Fig 3A: sample, 17) therein (Refer to Annotated Figure 3A of Nakamura),
the adapter comprising a base and a seal mounted thereon (Fig 3A: O-ring, 32b),
the base of the adapter having at least one aperture (Fig 3A: region between O-rings, 32c) surrounded by a secondary seal (Fig 3A: O-ring, 32a),
the plate configured as a lid for attachment to the test chamber (the claim established previously that the vessel plate comprises a main body configured as a lid for attachment to the test chamber, so since the vessel plate comprises the main body, it is necessarily configured as a lid for attachment to the test chamber), the main body of the vessel plate having at least one fastener for securely attaching the plate to the test chamber (Fig 3A: screws, 39).
Nakamura does not teach the adapter comprising a perimeter wall extending outwardly from the plate. However, Takamatsu teaches the adapter comprising a perimeter wall extending outwardly from the plate (Fig 2 shows an adapter, 13 (identified as chuck in the translated text), this chuck has a wall extending out of it to accommodate the metal can lid, 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the adapter of Nakamura to incorporate the wall of Takamatsu. A motivation for this modification is a wall creates a volume of space on the underside of the lid which could be used to allow more flexibility in the space provided to hold the electrode or electrolyte therein.
Regarding Claim 22, The combination of Nakamura in view of Takamatsu, as presented with respect to claim 21, does not teach wherein the system is selected from a manual, semi-automatic and an automatic enamel rater system. However, Takamatsu DOES teach an automatic enamel rater system (Para [0027] teaches an automatic coating defect system is known in the art). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of the combination to include an automatic mode. A motivation for this modification is an automatic mode may greatly improve the reliability of the inspection, as taught by Takamatsu in Para [0027].
Regarding Claim 23, Nakamura further teaches an enamel rater system connected to a vacuum generator (Para [0109] an evacuation unit, 27, that creates a vacuum through the exhaust pipe, 35 which is placed between the sealing members.).
Regarding Claim 24, The combination of Nakamura in view of Takamatsu, as presented with respect to claim 21, does not teach at least one of an automatic vacuum control, compressed air source and a filter regulator. However, Takamatsu does teach using a compressed air source (Para [0009] teaches the use of a pressurized air source). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of the combination to incorporate the compressed air source of Takamatsu. A motivation for this modification is to include pneumatic movable parts as taught by Takamatsu in Para [0009].
Regarding Claim 25, Nakamura further teaches an enamel rater digital or analog display for displaying current measured during operation of the system (Para [0102] teaches a display, 58, that displays signal from the electron detector).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al in view of Takamatsu et al. in further view of Lu et al. (CN-111929351-A, Refer to attached machine translation for references cited).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Nakamura and Takamatsu teaches at least one aperture forming a target area outlet (Nakamura - Fig 3A shows the secondary seal surrounds an area with the outlet being indicated as 35). The combination does not teach wherein the secondary seal is provided on a raised area surrounding the at least one aperture. However, Lu teaches wherein the secondary seal (Fig 1: sealing ring, 803) is provided on a raised area (Fig 1 shows a sealing ring, 803, on a raised platform relative to another sealing ring, 902) surrounding the at least one aperture (Fig 1: cavity, 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination to place one seal above the other. A motivation for this modification is laterally stacking a seal such as an O-ring allows the same size seal to be placed simplifying the number of different parts required for manufacture.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al in view of Takamatsu et al. in further view of Wang et al. (CN-214793744-U, Refer to attached machine translation for references cited).
Regarding Claim 14, The combination of Nakamura in view of Takamatsu teaches wherein the guide members are projections extending outwardly from the vessel plate around the perimeter at spaced apart intervals (Can be seen in Figs 3A and 3B that the screws, 39, extend outward from the vessel plate and are spaced at intervals around the perimeter). The combination does not teach wherein at least some of the projections are resilient whereby a resilient nature of one or more of the projections serves to direct the metal object into position on the adapter. However, Wang teaches wherein at least some of the projections are resilient whereby a resilient nature of one or more of the projections serves to direct the metal object into position on the adapter (Fig 6 shows a guide shaft, 29, with a spring, 23, for guiding the plate, 21, toward the plate, 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the guide pins of the combination to incorporate resilient springs of Wang. A motivation for this modification is springs may be used to provide a constant force of one object against another.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al in view of Takamatsu et al. in further view of LV et al. (CN-113690825-A, Refer to attached machine translation for references cited).
Regarding Claim 18, The combination of Nakamura in view of Takamatsu does not teach wherein the at least one fastener comprises as least one magnet. However, LV teaches wherein the at least one fastener comprises as least one magnet (Para [0039] with reference to Figs 1 and 2 teaches a fastener, comprising a magnet, 300, for connecting a base, 100, to the bolts, 700). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fastener of the combination to incorporate a magnet as in LV. A motivation for this modification is using a magnet attachment system allows for quick assembly/disassembly as taught by LV in Para [0038].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. in view of Takamatsu et al. in further view of Abe et al. (JP-H0650926-A, From Applicant IDS, Refer to attached machine translation for references cited).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Nakamura in view of Takamatsu does not teach a stand for supporting at least part of the end adapter which is manually or automatically rotatable to enable inversion of the chamber vessel. However, Abe teaches a stand for supporting at least part of the end adapter which is manually or automatically rotatable to enable inversion of the chamber vessel (Fig 7(a) and 7(b) show a stand, 72, that is capable of rotating the chamber vessel to enable inversion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the end adapter of the combination to include the stand for inversion of Abe. A motivation for this modification is to allow gravity to bring the electrolyte into contact with the metal surface instead of pumps, this will always ensure the entire surface is covered by the electrolyte.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 6, The inclusion of the raised area extending from the base of the adapter is not found in the prior art. The closest art found is Lu as mentioned in the claim 5 35 USC 103 rejection. Lu teaches a seal on a raised area but does not teach that the raised area extends from the adapter.
Regarding Claim 7-9 and 11, The inclusion of the limitation “wherein the adapter is provided with a second outlet spaced apart from the target area outlet” has not been found in the prior art. The closest prior art is Nakamura, as mentioned in the claim 1 35 USC 103 rejection. Nakamura does teach two outlets (Fig 3A: 35 and 14) however, outlet 14 is not provided on the adapter of Nakamura.
It is these features found in the claim, as they are claimed in the combination that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH J BARRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:30-17:30 ET.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/JEREMIAH J BARRON/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858