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 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 2-3 and 8-9 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. The aforementioned claims are indefinite for failing to define the metes and bounds of the term load as it applies to the claimed value of grams. The specification is absent any teaching of the force or acceleration required to suggest a value of load. Respectfully, the claimed ranges are merely in terms of mass, which on its own does not represent a load value, which is interpreted as a force value. The specification states [0030] that the load value can either be expressed in terms of grams or Newtons. However, these terms would not represent equivalent values, as Newtons denote force and grams denote mass. For the purposes of further examination, the ranges will be interpretated as the mass component of a force acting on the object under test.
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, 4, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Breinlinger USPG Pub. No.: US 2008/0100312.
Regarding Claim 1, Breinlinger teaches a load control probe device (see figure 2, in which 216 controls probe device 234), comprising:
a probe module (figure 2, 234);
a load sensor connected to the probe module, and configured to measure load data of the probe module along a first direction (see [0038] in which load sensor is 224); and
a controller connected to the probe module and the load sensor, pre-storing a load setting value, and configured to control the probe module to move along the first direction while simultaneously determining whether the load data meets the load setting value (see [0065] in which the threshold load is prestored in the apparatus memory and probe movement occurs on the basis of this threshold being met), and to stop the probe module from moving along the first direction and to start to control the probe module to perform signal detection when determining that the load data meets the load setting value (as discussed in [0048] and [0065]).
Regarding Claim 7, the device as recited in claim 1 is specific to this method and thus it must perform the method. The method is intrinsic to the apparatus because the recited method steps will be performed during normal operation of the apparatus. Therefore, Claim 7 is also rejected.
Regarding Claim 4, Breinlinger teaches the load control probe device according to claim 1, wherein the probe module comprises a plurality of probes, the load data comprises a plurality of load values of the plurality of probes, and the controller is configured to stop the probe module from moving along the first direction and to start to control the probe module to perform signal detection when an average value of the plurality of load values reaches the load setting value (discussed in [0048] and [0065]).
Regarding Claim 10, Breinlinger teaches the load control method according to claim 7, wherein the probe module comprises a plurality of probes, the load data comprises a plurality of load values of the plurality of probes, and determining whether the load data meets the load setting value comprises determining whether an average value of the plurality of load values reaches the load setting value (discussed in [0048] and [0065]).
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) 2-3 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breinlinger USPG Pub. No.: US 2008/0100312 in view of Charlton et al. US Patent No.: 5,659,256.
Regarding Claims 2 and 8, Breinlinger teaches the load control probe device according to claim 1, but is silent in teaching wherein the load setting value is between 10 grams and 35 grams. However, Charlton teaches wherein the load setting value is between 10 grams and 35 grams (see Charlton col.10, lns.1-15 in which this range is met). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Breinlinger with those of Charlton in order to get adequate surface to surface contact (as detailed in Charlton col.10, lns.1-15 which demonstrates that such a load value would be optimal for the load setting taught in Breinlinger).
Regarding Claims 3 and 9, Breinlinger and Charlton teach the load control probe device according to claim 2, wherein the load setting value is between 15 grams and 27 grams (see Charlton col.10, lns.1-15).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breinlinger USPG Pub. No.: US 2008/0100312 in view of Inomata US Patent No.: 7,688,096.
Regarding Claim 5, Breinlinger teaches the load control probe device according to claim 1, but is silent in explicitly teaching wherein the controller is further configured to display the load data. However, Inomata teaches wherein the controller is further configured to display the load data (see Inomata col.4, lns.26-44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Breinlinger with those of Inomata in order to alert a user of load values (as discussed in Inomata col.4, lns.26-44).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breinlinger USPG Pub. No.: US 2008/0100312 in view of Mok USPG Pub. No.: 2010/0213960.
Regarding Claim 6, Breinlinger teaches he load control probe device according to claim 1, wherein the probe module comprises a high-frequency probe head. However, Mok teaches wherein the probe module comprises a high-frequency probe head (see Mok [0107]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Breinlinger with those of Mok in order to simplify the processing associated with measuring the test signals (as discussed in Mok [0107]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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 A HARRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights