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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Zheng et al. (CN 209043555 U, hereafter, Zheng) and further in view of Feng et al. (CN 104889775 A, hereafter, Feng).
As per claim 1, Zheng teaches the following:
“A hold-down mechanism, comprising: a bearing member (beam 12);” fig 1;
“… at least two hold-down structures (second block 140), disposed apart on the bearing member,” figs 1 and 2; last para page 12;
“… wherein each of the hold-down structures has a hold-down face (second block 140),” fig 2; last para page 12;
“… the hold-down structure is configured to be movable (press-down cylinder 13) on the bearing member (beam 12) to adjust a distance between the hold-down face and the bearing member in a preset direction;” last para page 11; figs 2 and 3;
Zheng does not teach a locking structure.
However, Feng teaches the following:
“… and a locking structure (servo motor 201), used to restrict a moving operation of the hold-down structures.”, figs 4 to 6.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of filing to modify Zheng with Feng’s locking structure in order to stabilize the unit for testing.
As per claim 2, Zheng teaches the following:
“The hold-down mechanism according to claim 1, wherein each of the hold-down structures comprises an adjusting member (cylinder 14), and a pressing member (second block 140) connected to the adjusting member,” figs 2 and 3;
“… the hold-down face is disposed on the side of the pressing member facing away from the bearing member,” last para page 12;
“… the adjusting member (cylinder 14) is configured to be movable on the bearing member,” last para page 12, figs 2 and 3.
Zheng does not teach a locking structure.
However, Feng teaches the following:
“… and the locking structure (servo motor 201), is used to restrict a moving operation of the adjusting member.”, figs 4 to 6.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of filing to modify Zheng with Feng’s locking structure in order to stabilize the unit for testing.
As per claim 3, Zheng teaches the following:
“The hold-down mechanism according to claim 2, wherein the adjusting member (cylinder 14) is configured to be movable on the bearing member (beam 12) in the preset direction,” last para page 12; figs 2 and 3.
Zheng does not teach a locking structure.
However, Feng teaches the following:
‘… and the locking structure (servo motor 201) is used to lock the adjusting member onto the bearing member.”, figs 4 to 6.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of filing to modify Zheng with Feng’s locking structure in order to stabilize the unit for testing.
As per claim 4, Zheng teaches the following:
“The hold-down mechanism according to claim 3, wherein the bearing member (beam 12) is provided with through-holes corresponding to the hold-down structures (second block 140), and the adjusting member (cylinder 14) slidably penetrates the through-hole.”, fig 1-3.
As per claim 5, Zheng teaches the following:
“The hold-down mechanism according to claim 3, wherein a unit under test (shell) has matching regions corresponding one-to-one with the hold-down faces,” last para page 10.
“… and each of the adjusting members (cylinder 14) has a moving range greater than a height difference h between the matching region in the highest position (main body frame height) and the matching region in the lowest position (worktable set height).”, para 2 page 10; fig 2 and 3;
As per claim 6, Zheng teaches the following:
“The hold-down mechanism according to claim 3, wherein the pressing member (second block 140) is provided with a first guide portion (holes on beam 12),”
“… the bearing member (beam 12) is provided with a second guide portion (cylinder 14),”
“… and the first guide portion and the second guide portion are in guided fit in the preset direction.”, figs 1-3.
As per claim 7, Zheng teaches the following:
“The hold-down mechanism according to claim 6, wherein the first guide portion is a guide hole (holes in beam 12), and the second guide portion is a guide shaft (cylinder 14) penetrating the guide hole.”, figs 1-3.
As per claim 9, Zheng teaches the following:
“The hold-down mechanism according to claim 6, wherein at least two first guide portions are provided, and all the first guide portions are spaced around the adjusting member (cylinder 14).”, figs 2 and 3.
As per claim 11, Zheng teaches the following:
“An airtightness testing hold-down device, comprising: the hold-down mechanism according to claim 1;”, para 1 page 10;
“… and an actuator, drivingly connected to the bearing member and used to drive the bearing member to move towards or away from the unit under test in the preset direction.”, last para page 10.
As per claim 12, Zheng teaches the following:
“The airtightness testing hold-down device according to claim 11, wherein: the airtightness testing hold-down device further comprises a sensor and a controller,” para 3 and last para page 10;
“… and the unit under test has matching regions corresponding one-to-one with the hold-down faces (second block 140); and the sensor is configured to: when the bearing member (beam 12) moves until one of the hold-down faces comes into contact with the matching region in the lowest position on the unit under test, the sensor sends a trigger signal to the controller to control the actuator to stop working.”, last para page 10 and first para page 11.
As per claim 13, Zheng teaches the following:
“The airtightness testing hold-down device according to claim 12, further comprising: a limiting member (set height) disposed on the bearing member (beam 12); wherein when the bearing member moves until one of the hold-down faces comes into contact with the matching region in the lowest position on the unit under test, the sensor fits the limiting member in a sensing manner.”, last para page 10 and first para page 11.
As per claim 14, Zheng teaches the following:
“The airtightness testing hold-down device according to claim 11, further comprising: a holder (main body frame 1); wherein the actuator (pressure sensor) comprises a body and a drive shaft (cylinder 14) driven by the body to extend or retract, the body is mounted on the holder, and the drive shaft is connected to the bearing member (beam 12).”, figs 1-3; last para page 10 and first para page 11.
As per claim 15, Zheng teaches the following:
“An airtightness testing system, comprising: the airtightness testing hold-down device (cylinder 14, second block 140) according to claim 11; and an airtightness tester (pressure sensor, gas-injection device, and digital pressure gauge) used to acquire a pressure change value of the unit under test after inflation.”, last para page 10 and first para page 11.
As per claim 16, Zheng teaches the following:
“The airtightness testing system according to claim 15, further comprising: a support (main body frame 1); wherein the airtightness testing hold-down device is mounted on the support.”, figs 1-3.
As per claim 17, Zheng teaches the following:
“The airtightness testing system according to claim 15, further comprising: a carrying apparatus, the carrying apparatus (cradle 3) being used to carry the unit under test to be under the airtightness testing hold-down device.”, figs 1-3.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Zheng as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Feng as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Zhu et al. (CN 103170859 A, hereafter, Zhu).
As per claim 8, Zheng and Feng teach the hold-down mechanism.
Zheng nor Feng teach the linear bearing.
However, Zhu teaches the following:
“The hold-down mechanism according to claim 7, wherein a linear bearing (3-18) is inserted inside the guide hole, and the guide shaft penetrates an inner race of the linear bearing.”, fig 7;
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of filing to modify Zheng and Feng with Zhu’s linear bearing order to enable precision and constrains motion to one axis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 10 is allowable over the closest prior art references by Zheng et al. (CN 209043555 U, hereafter, Zheng) and further in view of Feng et al. (CN 104889775 A, hereafter, Feng).
As per claim 10, Zheng teaches the hold-down mechanism with adjusting members.
Zheng does not teach the locking structures.
Feng teaches the locking structure but not at least two of them.
Fan et al. (CN 119767236 A) teaches at least two locking structures However, it fails to teach the art before the effective filing date.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tessalie A. Caze-Cortes whose telephone number is (571)270-3235. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am to 4pm.
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 at 5712724107. 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.
/TESSALIE A. CAZE-CORTES/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights