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 Objections
As to claim 3: The claim is objected to because it includes a reference character which is not enclosed within parentheses (see line 11 of the claim regarding “groove 132”).
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
As to claim 2: Line 2 of the claim refers to “the mobile phone” but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the instant claim and in parent claim 1. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained at this time because it is unclear whether said mobile phone is intended to be a feature of solely claim 2 or also a feature of claim 1. For example, a possible correction could be to amend claim 2 to instead recite --a mobile phone-- but it is unclear whether such a mobile phone could also be construed as being equated with “a device” such as claimed in claim 1.
Because the scope of the claim could not be ascertained at this time, a proper and complete prior art search for the subject matter of claim 2 could not be carried out. The examiner recommends either explaining in remarks how Applicant believes the scope of the claim to be definite, preferably by providing evidence from Applicant’s disclosure, and/or amending the claim so as to obviate the above noted issues. In the event that Applicant’s remarks and/or amendments obviate the above rejection, said rejection would be withdrawn and a prior art search for the claimed subject matter of claim 2 would carried out at that time.
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)(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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. US PG-PUB 2016/0208210 A1 (hereafter Kim).
As to claim 1: Kim discloses a tester stand (see figs. 1 and 7) comprising:
a body (200; see fig. 1) having a predetermined height (see fig. 1), and a chamber task area (see the groove portions within the indicated examiner’s marked up fig. 1 below) and a device task area (see the groove portions within the indicated examiner’s marked up fig. 1 below) each formed in a groove shape engraved in an upper surface of the body (see fig. 1 and ¶ 26);
a chamber seating portion (300; see fig. 1 and ¶ 26) formed by protruding from a bottom surface of the chamber task area and in which the chamber is placed (see fig. 1);
a device seating portion (400; see fig. 1 and ¶ 26) having a device insertion groove formed in a bottom surface of the device task area so that a part of the test is seated therein (see the groove formed in the indicated device task area), and having a downward fastening insertion groove on the bottom surface of the device insertion groove (630; see fig. 7 and ¶ 38); and
a height adjustment portion (see fig. 7) fitted into the fastening insertion groove (see ¶ 38) so that a support plate (610; see fig. 7) is positioned on the bottom surface of the device insertion groove (see fig. 7; the support plate 610 is positioned at the bottom of 630 as depicted), wherein when an external force is applied, the support plate descends to press against the bottom surface, and when the external force is removed, the support plate rises to return to an initial position thereof (see ¶ 38 and 39).
PNG
media_image1.png
932
1100
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 3: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a tester stand comprising a fastening rod protruding downward from a lower surface of the support plate and inserted into the fastening groove; and (emphasis added) an elastic body fitted onto the fastening rod and inserted into the fastening insertion groove, wherein the elastic body contracts to generate elasticity when external force is applied, whereas the elastic body raises the support plate with the elasticity when the external force is removed, when considered in combination with the other limitations of the instant claim and those of parent claim 1.
In particular, while Kim discloses an elastic body (200; see fig. 7 and ¶ 37-38), the elastic body therein does not appear to be disclosed as being fitted onto a fastening rod that is protruding downward from a lower surface of a support plate and which is inserted into a fastening groove, all of which is required by the limitations recited in claim 3.
As to claim 4: The claim depends directly from claim 3 and accordingly is also 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 at least by virtue of its dependency.
As to claim 5: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a chamber seating portion that comprises a chamber seating area formed by protruding from the bottom surface of the chamber task area and (emphasis added) having a shape identical to an outer shape of the chamber; and a fixing frame formed by protruding along an edge of the chamber seating area to a predetermined height, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1.
As to claims 6 and 7: Each of said claims depend directly from claim 5 and accordingly each is also 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 at least by virtue of their respective dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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 at 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 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights