DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Sheet
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/02/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specifications
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pages 4 and 5 reference the hydraulic jack, the jack tip, and the hydraulic jack pistons all as “(5).” It is unclear which of these structures is being referenced.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
(a) Drawings. There are two acceptable categories for presenting drawings in utility and design patent applications.
(1) Black ink. Black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings; or
(b) Photographs.—
(1) Black and white. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), auto- radiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specifically, as per MPEP 608.02.VII.B, any figures which utilize Grayscale drawings “must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs[Grayscale drawings] are reproducible in the printed patent.” It is deemed that figures 1 and 2 do not meet the above requirement for sufficient detail. It is recommended that the above drawings be reproduced to conform to the above requirement.
The drawings are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “GPS module,” “microcontroller,” “memory card module,” and the “system” which measures and cuts the electrical current must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “…and display it on the LCD.” It appears that the claim should instead recite, “…and display it on the LCD display.”
Claim 2 recites, “a reference plate” and “a display.” It is unclear if these limitations are intending to introduce a second “reference plate” or “display” other than that claimed in claim 1. For purposes of examination, these limitations will be interpreted as “the reference plate” and “the LCD display.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a case containing hardware.” However, the specification is silent regarding the term “hardware” and fails to reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor has possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. The term “hardware” is a broad generic term that may encompass a vast array of mechanical, electrical, or structural components (fasteners, tools, computer processors, hydraulic fittings…). However, the specification does not use these terms, nor does it describe a generic “hardware” component located within the case. Because the specification fails to support the broad scope of “hardware,” the applicant has not demonstrated possession of the full scope of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-4 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) due to their dependence upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(b)
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.
Claims 1-4 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the pistons,” “the distance,” “the current,” “the opening and closing distance,” “the equipment,” “the hydraulic jack tip,” and “the LCD” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites “a reference plate the moves with the hydraulic jack tip, positioned in front of the ultrasonic sensor to measure the distance, and display it on the LCD.” It is unclear as to what “it” is referring to, and therefore the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 2 recites the limitations "the equipment," "the distance," "the pre-established distance," "the electrical current," "the system current," "the operator," and "the piston" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "the microcontroller," “the readings,” "the equipment's," "the entire system," and "the electrical current" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the prestressing process" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (KR 101775627) in view of Prescott (US 5,624,237).
Regarding claim 1, Yun teaches an intelligent protector for stretching ropes with power cut-off and locator for a hydraulic jack (Described in the abstract and in ¶'s [0070] - [0078]. This is further illustrated in figures 4 and 7), comprising:
a motor set including a hydraulic jack (Figure 7, #550 - jack) and hydraulic pump (Figure 7, #580 - pump. Further described in ¶ [0070]);
a case containing hardware (Figure 7, #570);
an LCD display that shows the distance when the pistons are opening and closing (Figure 7, #560 - tension force display window. Further described in ¶'s [0070] & [0075]);
an ultrasonic sensor located on the hydraulic jack that measures the opening and closing distance of the equipment (Described in ¶ [0073] and illustrated in Figure 7, #540a & #540b);
a reference plate that moves with the hydraulic jack tip, positioned in front of the ultrasonic sensor to measure the distance, and display it on the LCD (Described in ¶ [0075] and illustrated in Figure 7).
Yun does not specifically teach a button that cuts the current when the distance limit is exceeded, requiring manual action to release the current.
Prescott teaches a button (Figure 4, #98) that cuts the current when the distance limit is exceeded, requiring manual action to release the current (Described in col 3, line 54 - col 4, line 7).
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 Yun to incorporate the teachings of Prescott to include a button for switching for controlling electrical power to the motor with the motivation of providing a structure for controlling the electrical power based on sensed conditions, as recognized by Prescott in col 3, line 54 – col 4, line 33.
Regarding claim 4, Yun further teaches wherein the protector is used in the stretching of ropes during the prestressing process (Described in ¶'s [0070] - [0078]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Prescott, and in further view of Carroll (US 5,353,014).
Regarding claim 2, Yun teaches wherein: the ultrasonic sensor installed on the hydraulic jack observes the displacement of a reference plate or any other reference installed on the jack tip (Described in ¶ [0073]).
Yun does not specifically teach the equipment shows the distance that the pistons have already opened on a display, lighting a green LED; once the operator exceeds the pre-established distance, a microcontroller sends a signal to a relay, cutting the electrical current, activating a buzzer, and lighting a red LED; a button is provided to release the system current, allowing the operator to advance or retract the piston.
Prescott teaches a button (Figure 4, #98) is provided to release the system current, allowing the operator to advance or retract the piston (Described in col 3, line 54 - col 4, line 7).
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 Yun to incorporate the teachings of Prescott to include a button for switching for controlling electrical power to the motor with the motivation of providing a structure for controlling the electrical power based on sensed conditions, as recognized by Prescott in col 3, line 54 – col 4, line 33.
Yun in view of Prescott does not specifically teach the equipment shows the distance that the pistons have already opened on a display, lighting a green LED; once the operator exceeds the pre-established distance, a microcontroller sends a signal to a relay, cutting the electrical current, activating a buzzer, and lighting a red LED.
Carroll teaches the equipment shows the distance that the pistons have already opened on a display, lighting a green LED (Described in col 3, line 56 - col 4, line 2); once the operator exceeds the pre-established distance, a microcontroller sends a signal to a relay, cutting the electrical current, activating a buzzer, and lighting a red LED (Described in col 4, lines 29-44).
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 Yun in view of Prescott to incorporate the teachings of Carroll to include the use of a green and red LED light with the motivation of providing a means for indicating to an operator a condition of the system, as recognized by Carroll in col 3, line 56 – col 4, line 2.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Prescott, and in further view of Dimino (US 5,918,180).
Regarding claim 3, Yun does not specifically teach a memory card module in the microcontroller that records the readings taken by the ultrasonic sensor; a GPS module located with the microcontroller that informs the equipment's location and records usage information and coordinates on a memory card; a programming language in the microcontroller that executes the entire system; a system that measures and cuts the electrical current from the hydraulic jack and hydraulic pump set.
Prescott teaches a system that measures and cuts the electrical current from the hydraulic jack and hydraulic pump set (Described in col 3, line 54 - col 4, line 7).
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 Yun to incorporate the teachings of Prescott to include a button for switching for controlling electrical power to the motor with the motivation of providing a structure for controlling the electrical power based on sensed conditions, as recognized by Prescott in col 3, line 54 – col 4, line 33.
Yun in view of Prescott does not specifically teach a memory card module in the microcontroller that records the readings taken by the ultrasonic sensor; a GPS module located with the microcontroller that informs the equipment's location and records usage information and coordinates on a memory card; a programming language in the microcontroller that executes the entire system.
Dimino teaches a memory card module (Figure 3, #58) in the microcontroller that records the readings taken by the ultrasonic sensor (Described in col 4, lines 44-59 and illustrated in Figure 3); a GPS module (Figure 1, #12) located with the microcontroller that informs the equipment's location and records usage information and coordinates on a memory card (Described in col 3, line 60 - col 4, line 43 and illustrated in figures 1 and 3); a programming language in the microcontroller that executes the entire system (Described in col 5, lines 37 - 52).
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 Yun in view of Prescott to incorporate the teachings of Dimino to include memory and a GPS module with the motivation of providing a means for determining position of a device, as recognized by Dimino in col 3, line 60 – col 4, line 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jirgal (US 2016/0123356 A1) and Sakuda (US 2015/0066312 A1) both teach relevant aspects of a hydraulic system with a feedback system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731