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 .
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-20 were originally filed.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
INITIAL REMARKS
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION - The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the Applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claim 1, Applicant recites the limitation, “an elongated opening formed therethrough…” (emphasis added), which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. In particular, such limitation is not defined by the claim, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of its scope. In the interest of compact prosecution and for the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret this limitation as any opening.
Re claims 2-7, Applicant recites limitations respectively dependent from claim 1, but that fail to cure the deficiencies discussed in the rejection above. Accordingly, claims 2-7 are rejected based at least on the same reasons applied to claim 1.
Re claims 8-20, Applicant recites limitations that suffer from the same or substantially the same deficiencies as discussed above with regard to their corresponding claims 1-7. Accordingly, claims 8-20 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as their corresponding claims 1-7, respectively.
Further re claim 3, Applicant recites “wherein the region is at least 10%, 20%, 25%, or 30% of a length…” It is unclear the purpose and therefore the scope of the mathematical redundancy presented here (i.e., 20% is at least 10%, thus no further description is necessary, etc…)
Further re claim 10, Applicant recites limitations that suffer from the same or substantially the same deficiencies as discussed above with regard to claim 3. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saketi et al., US20180178393, (“SAKETI”).
Re claim 1, SAKETI discloses an inspection device for measuring micro spring tension, the inspection device comprising:
a guideway [0040];
a slidable plate slidably positioned within the guideway and having an elongated opening formed therethrough, wherein the slidable plate is configured to slide back and forth along a single axis of movement [0040];
a load cell fixed relative to the guideway and extending through the elongated opening of the linearly slidable plate [0028-0032];
a slide spring attachment fixed to the linearly slidable plate [0040];
a load cell spring attachment fixed to the load cell and spaced a distance away from the slide spring attachment such that opposing ends of the micro spring are attachable between the slide spring attachment and the load cell spring attachment [0040-0041];
a sensor sensing movement along the single axis of the linearly slidable plate [0061]; and
one or more processors configured for receiving load output from the load cell and distance output from the sensor and outputting at least one of a load associated with the load output and a distance associated with the distance output to a user interface or an external system [Fig.9 and associated text]
Re claim 2, SAKETI discloses the device of claim 1, as shown above. SAKETI further discloses wherein the slidable plate is selectively moveable along the single axis by a slide position fine adjustment mechanism [0008]
Re claim 3, SAKETI discloses the device of claim 1, as shown above. SAKETI further discloses wherein the load cell is located through the elongated opening in a middle region of the elongated opening, wherein the middle region is at least 10%, 20%, 25%, or 30% of a length of the elongated opening away from opposing ends of the elongated opening [Fig.1 and associated text]
Re claim 4, SAKETI discloses the device of claim 1, as shown above. SAKETI further discloses wherein at least one of the guideway and the slidable plate is steel [0005]
Re claim 5, SAKETI discloses the device of claim 1, as shown above. SAKETI further discloses wherein clearance between the guideway and opposing front and back faces of the slidable plate is 0.0001 inches to 0.0002 inches and clearance between the guideway and opposing side edges of the slidable plate is 0.0001 inches to 0.0002 inches [Fig.1 and associated text]
Re claim 6, SAKETI discloses the device of claim 1, as shown above. SAKETI further discloses wherein at least one of the slide spring attachment and the load cell spring attachment is a hook selectively oriented between at least two different rotational orientations [0009]
Re claim 7, SAKETI discloses the device of claim 1, as shown above. SAKETI further discloses further comprising a micro spring having opposing ends formed into hooks or loops, wherein the opposing ends are attached to the slide spring attachment and the load cell spring attachment respectively [0009]
Re claims 8-20, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of their corresponding claims 1-7. Accordingly, claims 8-20 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as their corresponding claims 1-7.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART
The Examiner would like to make Applicant aware of prior art references, not relied upon in this action, but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
WO2019241824A1, Huf et al. – portable load cell with spring mechanism
US9651464, Salzbrenner et al. – spring performance tester for miniature springs
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is 571-272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855
Prosecution Insights