DETAILED ACTION
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 § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 1-3 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2021106680 to Takatsuji (citations to English translation in US 20220242020).
Regarding Claim 1, Takatsuji discloses a resin molded article (Figs. 1-5, resin molded component (case 1) and inspection pin 4; ¶¶ [0030]-[00035], [0041]-[0056]) comprising: a beam-shaped portion connected to the resin molded article and rising from a bottom of the resin molded article (Figs. 1-5, flat plate holding portion 31 connected to resin storage portion 9 at the root of the inspection pin 4; ¶¶ [0030]-[00035], [0041]-[0056]), the beam-shaped portion having: one end as a root portion connected to the bottom of the resin molded article (Figs. 1-5, flat plate holding portion 31 connected to resin storage portion 9 at the root of the inspection pin 4; ¶¶ [0030]-[00035], [0041]-[0056]); and another end as a free end plastically deformable or breakable (Figs. 1-5, bendable/breakable flat plate holding portion 31; ¶¶ [0030]-[00035], [0041]-[0056]).
Regarding Claim 2, Takatsuji discloses a restricting portion to restrict a deformation amount of the free end of the beam-shaped portion (Figs. 1-5, resin storage portion 9 at root of inspection pin 4; ¶¶ [0030]-[00035], [0041]-[0056]).
Regarding Claim 3, Takatsuji discloses the restricting portion extends in a first direction in which the beam-shaped portion rises, the restricting portion has a gap with the beam-shaped portion in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and the free end of the beam-shaped portion deforms in the second direction (Figs. 1-5 and 9, resin storage portion 9 at root of inspection pin 4 with bottom portion 41 of the recess 40 extending in second direction; ¶¶ [0030]-[00035], [0041]-[0062]).
Regarding Claims 7-8, the method of the claims appears to be met by the operation of the device of claims 1-3.
Regarding Claim 9, Takatsuji discloses a determining method comprising: applying a force to a free end of a beam-shaped portion of a resin molded article (Figs. 1-5, applying load 33 to flat plate holding portion 31 of the inspection pin 4; ¶¶ [0030]-[00035], [0041]-[0056]); breaking the free end of the beam-shaped portion by applying the force (Figs. 1-5, applying load 33 to flat plate holding portion 31 of the inspection pin 4 until broken; ¶¶ [0030]-[00035], [0041]-[0056]); and obtaining a magnitude of the force applied to the free end of the beam-shaped portion at a break the free end (Figs. 1-5, applying load 33 to flat plate holding portion 31 of the inspection pin 4 until broken; ¶¶ [0030]-[00035], [0041]-[0056], Table 1).
Claim(s) 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatsuji.
Regarding Claim 6, Takatsuji discloses the resin molded article according to claim 1, but does not disclose the beam-shaped portion includes multiple beam-shaped portions, and the multiple beam-shaped portions have same length and thickness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Takatsuji by providing the beam-shaped portion includes multiple beam-shaped portions, and the multiple beam-shaped portions have same length and thickness in order to provide for greater accuracy through redundancy. See MPEP 2144.04.VI.B. Duplication of Parts - In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Regarding Claim 6, Takatsuji discloses the determining method according to claim 9, but does not disclose forming the beam-shaped portion including multiple beam-shaped portions having same length and thickness; breaking one of the multiple beam-shaped portions among the multiple beam-shaped portions; and counting a number of the beam-shaped portion broken among the multiple beam-shaped portions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Takatsuji by providing forming the beam-shaped portion including multiple beam-shaped portions having same length and thickness; breaking one of the multiple beam-shaped portions among the multiple beam-shaped portions; and counting a number of the beam-shaped portion broken among the multiple beam-shaped portions. See MPEP 2144.04.VI.B. Duplication of Parts - In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J BOLDUC whose telephone number is (571)270-1602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10am-6pm.
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, Walter Lindsay, Jr. can be reached at (571) 272-1672. 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.
/DAVID J BOLDUC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights