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
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of the present application claiming priority and benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(a-d) to European Patent Application No. EP 23192673.4 filed 08/22/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (“IDS”) filed on 08/21/2024 have been reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. 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).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word "means" (or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word "means" (or "step for") are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word "means" (or "step for") are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “vibration generator for subjecting”, “image processing device for superposing”, and “image reproduction device for reproducing” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “aparatus” is misspelled and should read “apparatus”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15 and 16 are objected to, due to an improper dependency. Claims 15 and 16 should depend from claim 9, not from claim 14 as recited. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets claims 15 and 16 to depend from claim 9.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. (EP 3875891 A1 - IDS), in view of Takarada (US 20050201600 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Maruyama teaches, “An aparatus for capturing changes in position of at least one component mounted in an assembly, wherein the apparatus comprises: at least one vibration generator for subjecting the assembly to vibration movements;” (Maruyama Para. [0041] discloses; “Here, the predetermined external load may be, for example, wind pressure produced by a moving object such as a vehicle or a train as the moving object passes, sound emitted from a sound source, vibrations produced by a device such as a vibration generator, or the like.”) “at least one image capturing device for recording images of the same partial or total view of the assembly, in which the at least one component is mounted, before and after the assembly has been subjected to vibration movements;” (Maruyama, Para. [0050] discloses, “Obtainer 10 obtains at least one image captured of the plurality of sound insulation plates 1 (see FIG. 1). Note that from the standpoint of improving the inspection accuracy, the image may be an image captured during the time including a time in which the predetermined external load is acting on the plurality of sound insulation plates 1. To be more specific, the image may be an image including at least one of a period during which an external load is acting on the plurality of sound insulation plates 1, and a period before/after that period, in which an external load is not acting on the plurality of sound insulation plates 1.”) “assembly was subjected to vibration movements;” (Takarada, Para. [0035] discloses; “a mask image creation unit for creating a mask image that shows areas where the imaging targets are present from the position reference image for which the first vibration detection unit has detected no vibrations; and a second vibration detection unit for overlay-displaying the mask image on the respective luminance reference images, detecting whether or not the imaging targets are present outside the existing areas of the respective imaging targets, and judging whether or not vibrations have occurred in the respective imaging targets during imaging the imaging target by the luminance reference image creation unit on the basis of the detected result.”) “and an image reproduction device for reproducing the superimposed images with visual highlighting of one or more components that have either undergone changes in position or have not undergone changes in position.” (Takarada, Para. [0038] discloses; “Therefore, it can be detected whether or not a vibration occurred when the silhouettes of the imaging targets were imaged using the obtained position reference image” Examiner interprets the created silhouettes with the luminated images create highlights since there is a difference in lighting, and thus would show difference in positions.)
Maruyama and Takarada are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging objects that have undergone vibrational testing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maruyama to incorporate the teachings of Takarada in order to overlay the before and after images to create highlights of components that have changed positions. One would have been motivated to combine the previously described apparatus of Maruyama with the teachings of Takarada to create an easy way for a user to view the components that have changed position. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Maruyama and Takarada to obtain the above specified limitations.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Maruyama and Takarada teaches, “The apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising at least one illuminating device for illuminating the partial or total view of the assembly displayed by the image capturing device.” (Takarada, Para. [0008] discloses; “The luminance reference imaging unit 640 includes an excitation light source 61.3, an objective lens 605, a z-axis driving unit 612, a dichroic mirror 607, a filter wheel 614 which holds plural bandpass filters 608 each passing only a predetermined wavelength band, a filter wheel driving unit 615 which rotatably drives the filter wheel 614, an imaging lens 609, and a CCD camera 610.”) The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Maruyama and Takarada references in the rejection of claim 1, apply to claim 4 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the apparatus of claim 4 is met by Maruyama and Takarada.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Maruyama and Takarada teaches, “The apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the illumination performed by the illuminating device is adjusted in such a way that during superposition of the images, which is carried out by the image processing device and reproduced by the image reproduction device, a black background is created, against which only the image areas that have either undergone changes in position or undergone no changes in position, are highlighted visually as bright image areas.” (Takarada, Para. [0035] discloses; “a position reference image creation unit for applying reference light to plural imaging targets each having the same shape, and creating silhouettes of the imaging targets, thereby to obtain a position reference image utilized for obtaining positions at which the respective imaging targets are present;” and “a mask image creation unit for creating a mask image that shows areas where the imaging targets are present from the position reference image for which the first vibration detection unit has detected no vibrations; and a second vibration detection unit for overlay-displaying the mask image on the respective luminance reference images, detecting whether or not the imaging targets are present outside the existing areas of the respective imaging targets, and judging whether or not vibrations have occurred in the respective imaging targets during imaging the imaging target by the luminance reference image creation unit on the basis of the detected result.”) The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Maruyama and Takarada references in the rejection of claim 1, apply to claim 5 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the apparatus of claim 5 is met by Maruyama and Takarada.
Claim 9 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the apparatus recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding apparatus claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Maruyama and Takarada references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al., in view of Takarada, in further view of Nomura et al. (JP 3068547 U).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Maruyama and Takarada does not explicitly teach, “The apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a microscope, wherein the image capturing device is provided in place of a microscope eyepiece or immediately behind a microscope eyepiece to record the magnified images generated by the microscope.” Since the combination of Maruyama and Takarada does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Nomura in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Nomura teaches, “” (Nomura, Page 2, Para. [0004] discloses; “A groove formed in the fixing means is attached to the camera lens, and the insertion means is inserted into an eyepiece mounting opening provided in the microscope, so that the camera lens and the microscope are connected to each other. Are connected. According to this invention, the camera lens can be connected to the eyepiece lens mounting hole provided in the microscope.” Examiner interprets this disclosure to teach an image capturing device immediately behind a microscope eyepiece.)
Maruyama, Takarada, and Nomura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Maruyama and Takarada to incorporate the teachings of Nomura in order to allow the imaging device to get the same view as a microscope. One would have been motivated to combine the previously described apparatus of Maruyama and Takarada with the teachings of Nomura to apply this apparatus to the field of microscopes. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Maruyama, Takarada, and Nomura to obtain the above specified limitations.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al., in view of Takarada, in further view of Nomura et al., and still in view of Kondo et al. (“Sample Vibration Technique for HTS SQUID Microscope”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Maruyama, Takarada, and Nomura does not explicitly teach, “The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the microscope has a carrier unit for the assembly, and wherein the carrier unit is coupled to the vibration generator mechanically, electrically or electromechanically, or the vibration generator is integrated in the carrier unit.” Since the combination of Maruyama, Takarada, and Nomura does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Kondo in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Kondo teaches, “The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the microscope has a carrier unit for the assembly, and wherein the carrier unit is coupled to the vibration generator mechanically, electrically or electromechanically, or the vibration generator is integrated in the carrier unit.” (Kondo, Section 2 discloses; “Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the SSM with sample vibration mechanism. The sample stage was made of a plastic plate. A piezo device was mounted on the sample stage and was driven by 20 V peak-to-peak AC voltage at 380 Hz. The SQUID output was connected to a lock-in amplifier giving a differential magnetic field image.” Figure 1 also shows a carrier unit (or sample stage) paired with a vibration generator.)
Maruyama, Takarada, Nomura, and Kondo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Maruyama, Takarada, and Nomura to incorporate the teachings of Kondo in order to couple the carrier unit with the vibration generator. One would have been motivated to combine the previously described apparatus of Maruyama, Takarada, and Nomura with the teachings of Kondo to ensure only the assembly is being vibrated. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Maruyama, Takarada, Nomura, and Kondo to obtain the above specified limitations.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al., in view of Takarada, in further view of Kondo et al. (“Sample Vibration Technique for HTS SQUID Microscope”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Maruyama and Takarada does not explicitly teach, “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the vibration generator is embodied as a mechanical oscillator, magnetoinductive oscillator, pneumatic oscillator, piezoelectric transducer or electroacoustic transducer.” Since the combination of Maruyama and Takarada does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Kondo in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Kondo teaches, “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the vibration generator is embodied as a mechanical oscillator, magnetoinductive oscillator, pneumatic oscillator, piezoelectric transducer or electroacoustic transducer.” (Kondo, Abstract discloses; “The sample stage was vibrated perpendicular to the plane of the SQUID with a frequency of 380 Hz by using a piezo device.”)
Maruyama, Takarada, and Kondo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Maruyama and Takarada to incorporate the teachings of Kondo in order to specify the vibration generator as a piezoelectric transducer. One would have been motivated to combine the previously described apparatus of Maruyama and Takarada with the teachings of Kondo to be apply to control the vibrations being applied. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Maruyama, Takarada, and Kondo to obtain the above specified limitations.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al., in view of Takarada, in further view of Kong et al. (“Image Registration-Based Bolt Loosening Detection of Steel Joints”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Maruyama and Takarada does not explicitly teach, “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the image capturing device is embodied as a camera, in particular high-resolution digital camera, and the camera is movable in particular to adjust the desired view”. Since the combination of Maruyama and Takarada does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Kong in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Kong teaches, “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the image capturing device is embodied as a camera, in particular high-resolution digital camera, and the camera is movable in particular to adjust the desired view.” (Kong, Abstract discloses; “In this study, we propose a vision-based non-contact bolt loosening detection method that uses a consumer-grade digital camera.” Consumer-grade is considered to be high-resolution. Kong, Section 5.2 discloses; “Significant changes of camera poses (e.g., the first input image is taken from the front view of the monitored structure while the second input image is taken from the side view) would cause failure of the feature-based image registrations, leading to extensive misalignments (i.e., registration errors).” Examiner interprets this disclosure to teach the camera being movable.)
Maruyama, Takarada, and Kong are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Maruyama and Takarada to incorporate the teachings of Kong in order to have high quality images and adjust the field of view. One would have been motivated to combine the previously described apparatus of Maruyama and Takarada with the teachings of Kong to allow the user to see very small position changes. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Maruyama, Takarada, and Kong to obtain the above specified limitations.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Maruyama, Takarada, and Kong teaches, “The method according to claim 9, wherein the at least one component visually highlighted in the reproduced superposed images is marked in the assembly, and the at least one marked component subsequently undergoes a post-processing step.” (Kong, Figure 1; shows the process of marking the highlighted component that changed positions from vibration. Additionally, Kong, Section 6 discloses; “The results of the proposed method are presented in a way for easy interpretation, such that direct actionable decisions can be made for conducting condition-based maintenance procedures, such as tightening or replacing the loosened bolts, to ensure the structural integrity.” Examiner interprets the tightening or replacing to be post-processing.) The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Maruyama, Takarada, and Kong references in the rejection of claim 7, apply to claim 10 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method of claim 10 is met by Maruyama, Takarada, and Kong.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al., in view of Takarada, in further view of Aoi (US 20180249117 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Maruyama and Takarada does not explicitly teach, “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the image reproduction device is embodied as a screen, in particular a high-resolution display”. Since the combination of Maruyama and Takarada does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Aoi in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Aoi teaches, “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the image reproduction device is embodied as a screen, in particular a high-resolution display” (Aoi, Para. [0073] discloses; “The display image formation unit 35 overlays the high-resolution image 120B based on the image data on the low-resolution image 120A as a background and updates the display image with the image thus overlaid. Thus, on the screen of the display unit 38, the image corresponding to the observation range after the movement by the observer's operation is switched from the low-resolution image to the high-resolution image (see FIGS. 6(c), 6(d) and 6(e)).”)
Maruyama, Takarada, and Aoi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Maruyama and Takarada to incorporate the teachings of Aoi in order to have the reproduced images displayed in high-resolution. One would have been motivated to combine the previously described apparatus of Maruyama and Takarada with the teachings of Aoi to allow the user to see very small position changes displayed on a screen. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Maruyama, Takarada, and Aoi to obtain the above specified limitations.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al., in view of Takarada, in further view of Xie et al. (CN 217425937 U), and still in view of Ning (CN 214230162 U).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Maruyama and Takarada does not explicitly teach, “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the assembly is a watchmakers' artefact, in particular a wristwatch, more particularly a crown device for a wristwatch, and the at least one component is a decorative element, in particular a jewel, more particularly a gemstone, and wherein the decorative element is retained in the watchmakers' artefact by multiple, in particular four, claws.” Since the combination of Maruyama and Takarada does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Xie in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Xie teaches, “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the assembly is a watchmakers' artefact, in particular a wristwatch, more particularly a crown device for a wristwatch, and the at least one component is a decorative element, in particular a jewel, more particularly a gemstone” (Xie, Background, Para. 1 discloses; “More and more watch products on the market will be embedded gemstone the watch crown to satisfy the needs of high-end customers.”) “
Maruyama, Takarada, and Xie are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Maruyama and Takarada to incorporate the teachings of Xie in order to choose a watch with a gemstone in the crown as a design choice. One would have been motivated to combine the previously described apparatus of Maruyama and Takarada with the teachings of Xie to make the watch look more appealing and then test that watch under vibration. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Maruyama, Takarada, and Xie to obtain the above specified limitations.
Further regarding claim 11, the combination of Maruyama, Takarada, and Xie does not explicitly teach, “and wherein the decorative element is retained in the watchmakers' artefact by multiple, in particular four, claws”. Since the combination of Maruyama, Takarada, and Xie does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Ning in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Ning teaches, “and wherein the decorative element is retained in the watchmakers' artefact by multiple, in particular four, claws” (Ning, Abstract discloses; “The utility model claims a four-jaw rabbet structure of gemstone, comprising a base; a first U-shaped claw and a second U-shaped claw; the second U-shaped claw is set between the base and the first U-shaped claw” Figure 1 of Ning shows a gemstone retained by 4 claws. Examiner interprets that this retainment method would be obvious and simply a design choice.).
Maruyama, Takarada, Xie, and Ning are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Maruyama, Takarada, and Xie to incorporate the teachings of Ning in order to choose a watch with a gemstone in the crown held by 4 claws as a design choice. One would have been motivated to combine the previously described apparatus of Maruyama, Takarada, and Xie with the teachings of Ning to make the watch look more appealing and then test that watch under vibration. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Maruyama, Takarada, Xie, and Ning to obtain the above specified limitations.
Claim 14 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the apparatus recited in Claim 11. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding apparatus claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Maruyama, Takarada, Xie, and Ning references, presented in rejection of Claim 11, apply to this claim.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al., in view of Takarada, in further view of Yakushiji Shunsuke (JP 2010122114 A).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Maruyama and Takarada does not explicitly teach, “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the assembly is an electrical or electronic assembly, in particular an assembled printed circuit board, and the at least one component is an electrical or electronic component, in particular a component mounted on a printed circuit board surface.” Since the combination of Maruyama and Takarada does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Shunsuke in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Shunsuke teaches, “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the assembly is an electrical or electronic assembly, in particular an assembled printed circuit board, and the at least one component is an electrical or electronic component, in particular a component mounted on a printed circuit board surface.” (Shunsuke, Page 1, Para. 3 discloses; “A control unit such as an air conditioner is configured by a board in which electronic components such as an integrated circuit such as a CPU, a RAM, and a ROM, a resistor, and a capacitor are mounted on the surface of a printed circuit board (substrate) on which electronic circuits are printed and wired.” In this disclosure, Shunsuke describes an example of a circuit. This disclosure is in the context of measuring vibration tests and vibration fatigue on electrical components, which is the same context as the instant application. It would be obvious to combine Shunsuke with the apparatus of Maruyama and Takarada.)
Maruyama, Takarada, and Shunsuke are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Maruyama and Takarada to incorporate the teachings of Shunsuke in order to have the assembly be a circuit with electrical components. One would have been motivated to combine the previously described apparatus of Maruyama and Takarada with the teachings of Shunsuke to allow the user to use this apparatus to vibrationally test circuits. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Maruyama, Takarada, and Shunsuke to obtain the above specified limitations.
Claim 15 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the apparatus recited in Claim 12. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding apparatus claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Maruyama, Takarada, and Shunsuke references, presented in rejection of Claim 12, apply to this claim.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al., in view of Takarada, in further view of Hartl et al. (US 20230089260 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Maruyama and Takarada does not explicitly teach, “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the assembly is an antifriction bearing and the at least one component is a rolling element of the antifriction bearing.” Since the combination of Maruyama and Takarada does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Hartl in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Hartl teaches, “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the assembly is an antifriction bearing and the at least one component is a rolling element of the antifriction bearing” (Hartl, Para. [0028] discloses; “The roller bearings—i.e. the bearings in which the strand-guiding roller is mounted—are usually anti-friction bearings, for example ball bearings or roller bearings.”)
Maruyama, Takarada, and Hartl are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Maruyama and Takarada to incorporate the teachings of Hartl in order to have the assembly be an antifriction bearing with a rolling element. One would have been motivated to combine the previously described apparatus of Maruyama and Takarada with the teachings of Hartl to allow the user to use this apparatus to vibrationally test antifriction bearings. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Maruyama, Takarada, and Hartl to obtain the above specified limitations.
Claim 16 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the apparatus recited in Claim 13. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding apparatus claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Maruyama, Takarada, and Hartl references, presented in rejection of Claim 13, apply to this claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M. OAKES whose telephone number is (571)272-9379. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/JUSTIN M OAKES/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/Siamak Harandi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights