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 .
Response to Amendment
It is noted that the preliminary amendment fled 1 October 2024 did not provide the claims on a separate sheet of the amendment document as required in 37 C.F.R. 1.121:
C.F.R. 1.121(c)(1):
Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
C.F.R. 1.121(h):
Amendment sections. Each section of an amendment document (e.g., amendment to the claims, amendment to the specification, replacement drawings, and remarks) must begin on a separate sheet.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17, 18, 23, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Levesque et al. (US 2020/0400541 A1).
The applied reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 17, Levesque et al. discloses a device testing system (150; fig. 1C), comprising: a first plate (152) comprising a first surface configured to hold stationary a first portion (154) of a device under test (102); a second plate (104) comprising a second surface configured to hold a second portion (116) of the device under test (102), the second portion (116) of the device (102) coupled to and being foldable with respect to the first portion (154) with a first folding axis (126a); a third plate (106) comprising a third surface configured to hold a third portion (118) of the device under test (102), the third portion (118) of the device (102) coupled to and being foldable with respect to the first portion (154) with a second folding axis (126b); a first actuator (110) configured to rotate the second plate (104) about a first pivot axis configured based on the first folding axis (126a); and a second actuator configured to rotate the third plate (106) about a second pivot axis configured based on the second folding axis (multiple actuators 110 may be used to rotate plates 104 and 106; ¶ [0066]).
Regarding claim 18, Levesque et al. discloses wherein the first actuator (110) is configured to fold the second portion (116) of the device (102) toward a first side of the first portion (154) of the device (102), and the second actuator (110; ¶ [0066]) is configured to fold the third portion (118) of the device (102) toward the first side of the first portion (154) of the device (actuators 110 may fold sections 116 and 118 toward the same side of section 154; ¶ [0047]).
Regarding claim 23, Levesque et al. discloses wherein the first actuator (110) is configured to rotate the second plate (104) along a first predefined path conforming to a first folding radius of the second portion (116) of the device (102) with respect to the first portion (154) of the device (actuator 110 rotates plate 104 along a first path conforming to a folding radius of section 116 with respect to section 154; fig. 1C), and the second actuator (110; ¶ [0066]) is configured to rotate the third plate (106) along a second predefined path conforming to a second folding radius of the third portion (118) of the device with respect to the first portion (154) of the device (second actuator 110 rotates plate 106 along a second path conforming to a folding radius of section 118 with respect to section 154; fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 26, Levesque et al. discloses wherein the first actuator (110) is configured to fold the second portion (116) of the device (102) toward a first side of the first portion (154) of the device (102), and the second actuator (110; ¶ [0066]) is configured to fold the third portion (118) of the device (102) toward a second side of the first portion (154) of the device (sections 116 and 118 may be folded toward opposite sides of section 154; ¶ [0047]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-22, 24, and 25 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 prior art does not disclose or suggest “a load cell configured to measure first loads on the first plate while the first actuator moves the second plate and to measure second loads on the first plate while the second actuator moves the third plate” in combination with the remaining claim elements as recited in claims 19-22.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “the first actuator is coupled to the second plate via a first drive arm having a first slot extending radially from a first arm pivot axis of the first drive arm, and the first slot is configured to guide the second plate as the first actuator rotates the first drive arm; and the second actuator is coupled to the third plate via a second drive arm having a second slot extending radially from a second arm pivot axis of the second drive arm, and the second slot is configured to guide the second plate as the first actuator rotates the first drive arm” in combination with the remaining claim elements as recited in claim 24.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “a flexure configured to support the first plate, to limit a movement of the first plate in directions other than a direction in which a load cell is configured to measure loads, and to permit transfer of load from the device under test to the load cell, wherein the flexure is positioned laterally to the first plate with respect to corresponding paths of movement of the first and second drive arms” in combination with the remaining claim elements as recited in claim 25.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erika J. Villaluna whose telephone number is (571)272-8348. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/ERIKA J. VILLALUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights