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
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 10, line 2, “a liquid” should be changed to --the liquid--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 and 9 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.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear as to whether or not the claimed configuration of the floatable platform “to minimize off-target forces and/or sample vibration during application of unidirectional tension” requires certain method steps to manipulate the floatable platform, additional structural limitations to modify the floatable platform, or if it is an inherent capability of the floatable platform structure already recited in claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 2, the claim fails to further limit claim 1 because the system of claim 1 already comprises a force sensor assembly and/or a deformable sample.
Regarding claim 9, the claim fails to further limit claim 1, because the claim appears to be reciting structural capabilities of the floatable platform from claim 1, without further reciting any additional structure.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 11-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art reference, Nalbach et al. (US 2023/0221228 A1) (hereinafter Nalbach), teaches a mechanical testing system comprising: a container [15] configured for holding a liquid [14], the container including a container-sample attachment for [16, 17] attachment to a first side of a deformable sample [2]; and a platform [4] configured to be disposed within the container, wherein the platform includes a first attachment [13] configured for attachment to a second side of the deformable sample, and a second attachment opposite the first attachment along an axial direction, the second attachment being configured for attachment to a force sensor assembly [3], wherein tension or compression applied to the deformable sample along the axial direction is measurable by the force sensor assembly (Para [0050-0058], see Figs. 1-7). The prior art fails to teach or provide motivation for wherein the platform is a floatable platform configured to float when a liquid is placed within the container, in combination with the rest of the limitations found in the claim.
Regarding claims 3-6, 8, and 11-19, they are dependent on claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the closest prior art reference Nalbach teaches a method for mechanically testing a deformable sample [2], the method comprising mounting a first end of the deformable sample to a container-sample attachment [16, 17] within a container [15] that holds a liquid [14] in which the deformable sample is submerged; mounting a second end of the deformable sample to a platform [4], applying unidirectional tension to the platform and therefore to the deformable sample, and measuring a force applied to the deformable sample while the deformable sample is submerged (Para [0050-0058], see Figs. 1-7). The prior art fails to teach wherein the platform is a floatable platform configured to float upon the liquid within the container, in combination with the rest of the limitations found in the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Greenway et al. (US 12,195,705 B2) - Immersed tensile testing of a deformable sample
Gu et al. (US 2019/0339180 A1) – Uniaxial tensile testing of a floating sample
Hwang et al. (WO 2014/081109 A1) – Uniaxial tensile testing of a floating sample under an imaging unit
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/DAVID Z HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights