DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Subhash et al. (US 2022/0244149 A1; hereinafter “Subhash”).
Subhash teaches:
1. A pressure bar testing device 100 comprising (See figs. 1A, 1B, reproduced below):
a millipede bar having a plurality of bar segments joined at alternate ends with 180 degree bend junctions in a serpentine pattern forming a continuous path for wave propagation, wherein the plurality of bar segments comprise a central primary bar (103) surrounded by two groupings of secondary bars (106a, 109a, 112a, 115a and 106b, 109a, 112a, 115a),
wherein the central primary bar (103) has an impact-end and an opposite end that connects to adjacent secondary bars (106, 109, 112, 115) with 180 degree bend junctions, wherein the adjacent secondary bars (106, 109, 112, 115) belong to the two groupings of secondary bars (106a, 109a, 112a, 115a and 106b, 109a, 112a, 115a).
PNG
media_image1.png
416
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
934
840
media_image2.png
Greyscale
2. The pressure bar testing device of claim 1, wherein the central primary bar and the secondary bars have a square cross section (as seen at least in fig. 1B).
3. The pressure bar testing device of claim 2, wherein a cross sectional area of individual secondary bars is equal to half of a cross sectional area of the central primary bar (as seen at least in fig. 1B).
4. The pressure bar testing device of claim 1, wherein the secondary bars are arranged in parallel to one another (as seen in fig. 1A and/or fig. 1B).
5. The pressure bar testing device of claim 1, wherein a plurality of the secondary bars are oriented such that bend junctions (170) of the plurality of the secondary bars (106, 109, 112, 115) orient in two orthogonal planes (as is evident from at least in fig. 1B).
6. The pressure bar testing device of claim 5, further comprising roller supports at a plurality of bend junctions (170) that apply a clamping force to the plurality of bend junctions 170 (as is evident from figs. 1A and 1B).
7. The pressure bar testing device of claim 5, wherein the pressure bar testing device 100 comprises an incident bar (103) in a compact split Hopkinson pressure bar testing system, a transmission bar (106) in the compact split Hopkinson pressure bar testing system, or a striker bar (Fig. 1B above) in the compact split Hopkinson pressure bar testing system.
8. The pressure bar testing device of claim 5, wherein the pressure bar testing device 100 comprises an incident bar (103) in a compact split Hopkinson pressure bar testing system, a transmission bar (106) in the compact split Hopkinson pressure bar testing system, and a striker bar (Fig. 1B above) in the compact split Hopkinson pressure bar testing system.
9. The pressure bar testing device of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of clamps (173) applied to a plurality of the 180 degree bend junctions (Pars. 0031-0034).
10. The pressure bar testing device of claim 9, further comprising a plurality of strain gauges 121 (Fig. 1A) positioned on the central primary bar, a secondary bar that is adjacent to the central primary bar, and one of the secondary bars that is farthest in distance from the central primary bar (as seen in at least fig. 1A).
15 (essentially equivalent to claims 1 and 10).
A method (Par. 0066) comprising:
joining a plurality of bar segments together at alternate ends with 180 degree bend junctions in a serpentine pattern to form a continuous path for wave propagation, wherein the plurality of bar segments comprise a central primary bar (103) surrounded by two groupings of secondary bars (106a, 109a, 112a, 115a and 106b, 109a, 112a, 115a),
wherein the central primary bar (103) has an impact-end and an opposite end that connects to adjacent secondary bars (106, 109, 112, 115) with 180 degree bend junctions, wherein the adjacent secondary bars (106, 109, 112, 115) belong to the two groupings of secondary bars (106a, 109a, 112a, 115a and 106b, 109a, 112a, 115a);
striking the central primary bar 103 (by means of a striker bar shown in fig. 1B above) to generate a stress wave that propagates through the plurality of bar segments (as illustrated in fig. 1B); and
measuring the propagating stress wave (by means of a plurality of strain gauges 121 shown in fig. 1A) at one or more locations within the plurality of bar segments.
16 (essentially equivalent to claim 4).
The method of claim 15, wherein the secondary bars are arranged in parallel to one another (as seen in figs. 1A and/or 1B).
17 (essentially equivalent to claim 5).
The method of claim 15, wherein a plurality of the second bars (106, 109, 112, 115) are oriented such that bend junctions (170) of the plurality of the second bars (106, 109, 112, 115) orient in two orthogonal planes (as is evident from at least in fig. 1B).
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.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subhash.
11. Subhash teaches the pressure bar testing device of claim 1, but is silent about: wherein the central primary bar (103) has a width of approximately 8 mm and individual secondary bars (106, 109, 112, 115) have a width of approximately 4 mm.
However, it has been held that optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation is an obvious variation of a known structure, thus uninventive and unpatentable. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As for the present case, it appears that the central primary bar (103) may have a width of any dimension based a specific specimen to be tested using the testing device (as is in a case of a conventional split-Hopkinson pressure bar), such a width may be but not limited to approximately 8 mm, so as to best test such a specific specimen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have the central primary bar (103) have a width of any dimension based a specific specimen to be tested using the testing device, such a width may be but not limited to approximately 8 mm, so as to best test such a specific specimen. Consequently, the individual secondary bars (106, 109, 112, 115) may have a width of approximately 4 mm (= 1/2 of the width of the central primary bar 103 as discussed above).
13. Subhash as modified teaches the pressure bar testing device of claim 11, but is silent about: wherein each of the central primary bar (103) and the second bars (106, 109, 112, 115) is separated from one another by approximately 0.2 mm.
However, as discussed above, it has been held that optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation is an obvious variation of a known structure, thus uninventive and unpatentable. As for the present case, it appears that each of the central primary bar (103) and the second bars (106, 109, 112, 115) may be separated from one another by any distance, including but not limited to approximately 0.2 mm, based on routine experimentation, so as to best achieve test results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have each of the central primary bar (103) and the second bars (106, 109, 112, 115) separated from one another by any distance, including but not limited to approximately 0.2 mm, based on routine experimentation, so as to best achieve test results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subhash in view of Whittington et al. (US 9,863,859 B2; hereinafter “Whittington”).
Subhash teaches the pressure bar testing device of claim 1, but is silent about: wherein the central primary bar (103) and the second bars (106, 109, 112, 115) comprise steel bars.
Whittington teaches the pressure bar testing device (10) which applies engineering principles of a split-Hopkinson pressure bar to test a specimen (as in in the case of Subhash pressure bar testing device 100 which also applies engineering principles of a split-Hopkinson pressure bar to test a specimen; Pars. 0016, 0020), wherein a central primary bar (12) and the second bars (14, 16) comprise steel bars (Fig. 2, reproduced below; Col. 4, lines 6-64).
PNG
media_image3.png
290
728
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to apply Whittington teaching to Subhash device by having the central primary bar (103) and the second bars (106, 109, 112, 115) comprise steel bars, in order to apply engineering principles of a split-Hopkinson pressure bar to test a specimen, for example.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 18-20 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. The following would be a statement for indication of an allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 14, prior art of record doesn’t teach, suggest, or render obvious the total combination of the recited features, including the following allowable subject matter: “…wherein individual lengths of the secondary bars are not uniform.”
With respect to claim 18, prior art of record doesn’t teach, suggest, or render obvious the total combination of the recited features, including the following allowable subject matter (which is essentially equivalent to the allowable subject matter for claim 14): “…wherein individual lengths of the secondary bars are not uniform.”
With respect to claim 19, prior art of record doesn’t teach, suggest, or render obvious the total combination of the recited features, including the following allowable subject matter (See application’s fig. 8 for example illustration):
“…wherein a first serpentine mechanical waveguide formed of the plurality of bar segments is used an incident bar within a compact split Hopkinson pressure bar testing system, the method further comprising:
using a second serpentine mechanical waveguide as a striker bar within the compact split Hopkinson pressure bar testing system to strike the central primary bar of the first serpentine mechanical waveguide;
using a third serpentine mechanical waveguide as a transmission bar within the compact split Hopkinson pressure bar testing system; and
positioning a specimen between the incident bar and the transmission bar.”
(Claim 20 is dependent on claim 19.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nguyen (Wyn) Q. Ha whose telephone number is (571) 272-2863, email: nguyenq.ha@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4:30 pm (Eastern Time).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/Nguyen Q. Ha/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 June 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights