NON-FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,111,235 B1, to Regier et al. (from hereinafter “Regier Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a combination of claims from Regier patent anticipate the limitations found in the independent claim and the dependent claims of the instant application.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in claims 1-20 of the instant application, applicants claim a vibration testing system, comprising: a cantilevered vibration test fixture, comprising: a fixed portion; an unsupported region proximate the fixed portion; wherein a first mode natural frequency of the cantilevered vibration test fixture is based on a thickness of the unsupported region; and an accelerometer (Claim 8: a vibration measuring device) coupled to the unsupported region, wherein the accelerometer is configured to measure vibrations of a unit under test coupled to the cantilevered vibration test fixture (Claim 1 and 14), wherein a first mode natural frequency of the cantilevered vibration test fixture is adjustable (claim 8).
The Regier patent teaches a vibration testing fixture, comprising: a fixed end and an unsupported test region configured to receive a unit under test; a separating slot separating the fixed end from the unsupported test region, wherein a first mode natural frequency of the test fixture is based on a length of the separating slot; a mounting slot proximal to the separating slot and extending through the fixed end; wherein the mounting slot is configured to receive at least one fastener to couple the fixed end to a supporting structure, thereby cantilevering the test fixture (Claim 1), and an accelerometer mount for receiving at least one accelerometer, the accelerometer (Claim 6).
Although the scope of claims 1-20 of the Regier patent are very similar, the difference between the present claimed invention and the Regier patent is that the instant application utilizes “a first mode natural frequency of the cantilevered vibration test fixture is based on a thickness of the unsupported region” (claim 1) or a first mode natural frequency of the cantilevered vibration test fixture is adjustable (claim 8), wherein the Regier patent utilizes “a first mode natural frequency of the test fixture being based on a length of the separating slot.” Further, Regier patent requires “a mounting slot proximal to the separating slot and extending through the fixed end; wherein the mounting slot is configured to receive at least one fastener to couple the fixed end to a supporting structure” which is not required in the instant application.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the Regier patent as a general teaching to arrive at the instant invention because
Similar structure and technique are used in both arts for vibration testing. As to “the first mode natural frequency of the cantilevered vibration test fixture,” of the instant application being “based on a thickness of the unsupported region” or “adjustable” which is similar to that of Regier patent’s “based on a length of the separating slot”. As to, “a mounting slot proximal to the separating slot and extending through the fixed end; wherein the mounting slot is configured to receive at least one fastener to couple the fixed end to a supporting structure” in Regier patent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify or to eliminating the additional elements or limitations of claims 1 or 8 of Regier Patent to arrive at claims 1, 8 and 14 of the instant application because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that the remaining elements or limitations would perform the same functions as before to accomplish the goal of acoustically scanning a target. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Schnetker et al. (US 7,946,175 B2) teaches a vibration-fatigue life monitoring system for an electronic component comprising: a printed circuit board; a support mounted to said printed circuit board; and a multitude of MEMS elements, each one of said multitude of MEMS elements extends from said support in a cantilever manner generally normal to a vibration to be experienced by said printed circuit board, said multitude of MEMS elements form a continuum from a least-vibration-stress resistant element to a most-vibration-stress resistant element to determine an accumulated vibration stress fatigue in response to failure of at least one of said multitude of MEMS elements (Claim 1).
Jo et al. (US 2023/0324434 A1) teaches a method for measuring the characteristics of the surface of the object to be measured by means of a measuring apparatus for measuring the characteristics of the surface of the object to be measured by measuring an interaction between a tip and the surface of the object to be measured [Abstract].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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 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.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights