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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2 and 4-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention I and III-VII, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/14/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of invention II in the reply filed on 07/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden, and distinctness between inventions I-V. This is not found persuasive because applicant has failed to elaborated in any manner why there would be no serious burden or how the invention are not distinct. In contrast the examiner specifically pointed out how each invention has a materially different design or mode of operation. Further how a serious burden is established via sperate status in the art (different classification) further each invention clearly requires different search queries due to the divergent subject matter. As such since applicant has failed to argue against either of the two reasonings for the restriction in a detailed manner, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 and 3 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.
The term “partially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “partially” 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 the scope of the invention. The lack of clarity stems from any disclosure be it written, or in the figures that would enable or allow for the calibration ball to be located inside the housing. Even if the ball 130 were to rest in opening 112, based on the form shown in the figures the ball would not seem to be in any way within the housing, further the system does not appear to be designed in such a manner that would provide or desire for the ball 130 to pass through opening 112. As such it is unclear what amount of the calibration ball is partially within and outside of the housing with the limitation “partially located outside”. For examination purposes the examiner is interpreting that the calibration ball is located outside of the housing as is consistent with all the provided figures. Claim 3 is likewise rejected for its dependency on instant claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hammond (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0369977 A1).
As to claim 1, Hammond discloses and shows in figure 3, a measuring device, comprising:
a housing (36), having an inner space (volume enclosed by housing 36 explicitly shown in figure 3) ([0046], ll. 1-5);
a movable component (34 and 40), movably disposed in the inner space ([0047], ll. 1-10);
a calibration ball (32), disposed on an end of the movable component (explicitly shown in figure 3) and at least partially located outside the housing (also explicitly shown in figure 3) ([0047], ll. 1-10); and
a sensing switch (46 and 48), disposed in the inner space and configured to detect a movement of the movable component relative to the housing ([0048], ll. 14-18; the examiner notes that applicant explicitly defines the “sensing switch” as “Note that the disclosure is not limited by the type of the sensing switch. In other embodiments, the sensing switch may be an optical ruler, a laser rangefinder or any type of position sensor that can detect the movement of the movable component relative to the housing.” in [0020] of the instant specification, as such the linear transducer of the prior art is clearly within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “any type of position sensor”).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond in view of Yoshizumi et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2009/0299692 A1).
As to claim 3, Hammond does not explicitly disclose a measuring device, further comprising at least one magnet disposed in the inner space and configured to attract the movable component.
However, Yoshizumi does disclose and show in figure 3 and in ([0040]) the basic concept of using magnets (38 and 39) inside an inner space (i.e. housing shown in figure 3) in a similar probe type design to stabilize the position of said probe/shaft (35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hammond with a measuring device, further comprising at least one magnet disposed in the inner space and configured to attract the movable component in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency and expected results, in using a basic magnetic based design one can properly stabilize a moving member in a predictable manner and reduce potential friction forces and wear and tear relative to a more physical support structure as used in Hammond.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/Michael P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights