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 Interpretation
According to MPEP 2112.02: Process Claims, it is noted that “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device” (emphasis added). It is also noted in that same MPEP section that “The Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s finding that "Donley inherently performs the function disclosed in the method claims on appeal when that device is used in ‘normal and usual operation’" and found that a prima facie case of anticipation was made out” (emphasis added). Id. at 138, 801 F.2d at 1326. It was up to applicant to prove that Donley's structure would not perform the claimed method when placed in ambient light.).”
With regard to claims 14-20, it is clearly seen that these claims are process claims which present a process of using the device for testing a voltage level in an electrical terminal cavity as claimed in claims 1-13. Therefore, the argument made against claims 1-13 also applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 14-20.
With regard to claims 2, 5 and 18, it is noted that the specification provides a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, but the term “substantially” is not further defined by the claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of Gabbey (U.S. Patent No. 12,504,442 B2).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Gabbey claims all that is claimed.
With regard to claim 1,
Application under Examination
Gabbey (US 12,504,442 B1)
Claim 1:
Claim 1:
A device for testing a voltage level in an electrical terminal cavity, the device comprising:
A device for testing a voltage level in an electrical terminal cavity, the device comprising:
a testing body;
a testing body;
a probe for contacting the electrical terminal cavity, the probe comprising:
a probe for contacting the electrical terminal cavity wherein the probe is conductive, the probe comprising:
a tip portion configured to contact the electrical terminal cavity, wherein the tip portion comprises a first cross-sectional area along a length of the tip portion;
a tip portion configured to contact the electrical terminal cavity, wherein the tip portion comprises a first cross-sectional area along a length of the tip portion, and wherein the first cross-sectional area is substantially constant along the length of the tip portion;
a base portion configured to connect the tip portion of the probe to the testing body, wherein the base portion comprises a second cross-sectional area along a length of the base portion, and wherein the first cross-sectional area is smaller than the second cross-sectional area; and
a base portion configured to connect the probe to the testing body, wherein the base portion comprises a second cross-sectional area along a length of the base portion, and wherein the second cross-sectional area is substantially constant along the length of the base portion; an intermediate portion extending from the tip portion to the base portion, wherein the intermediate portion comprises a third cross-sectional area along a length of the intermediate portion, wherein the third cross-sectional area is substantially constant along the length of the intermediate portion, wherein the first cross-sectional area is smaller than the third cross-sectional area, wherein the third cross-sectional area is smaller than the second cross-sectional area, and wherein the intermediate portion is concentric with the tip portion and the base portion; and
an axis extending between a center of the tip portion, a center of the base portion, and
an axis extending between a center of the tip portion, a center of the intermediate portion, a center of the base portion, and
a center of the testing body; and
a center of the testing body; and
a circuit disposed within the testing body, wherein the circuit is operatively coupled with the probe such that circuit is configured to sense the voltage level in the electrical terminal cavity.
a circuit disposed within the testing body, wherein the circuit is operatively coupled with the probe such that circuit is configured to sense the voltage level in the electrical terminal cavity, wherein the first cross-sectional area, the second cross-sectional area, and the third cross-sectional area each increase electrical connection surface area between the probe and the electrical terminal cavity.
Claim 2:
The device of claim 1, wherein the first cross-sectional area is substantially constant along the length of the tip portion, and wherein the second cross-sectional area is substantially constant along the length of the base portion.
Claim 3:
Claim 3:
The device of claim 1, wherein the first cross-sectional area has a rectangular shape, and wherein the second cross-sectional area has a rectangular shape.
The device of claim 1, wherein the first cross-sectional area has a rectangular shape, the second cross-sectional area has a rectangular shape, and the third cross-sectional area has a rectangular shape.
With regard to claims 4 and 5, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the tip portion and the base portion of the probe are contiguous” and “a width of the tip portion and a width of the base portion are substantially equal”) is just a mere desirable and exemplary choice that is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over Gabbey. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device for testing a voltage level in an electrical terminal cavity of Gabbey to make “the tip portion and the base portion of the probe contiguous” and “a width of the tip portion and a width of the base portion substantially equal” since such an arrangement is beneficial to eliminate structural weak points at the joint or bond line between the tip and the base, thereby drastically reducing the risk of snapping or bending under mechanical stress. A single-piece construction distributes stress evenly across the entire length of the probe, extending its operational lifespan. Such an implementation can significantly increase the effectiveness of cost-effective manufacturability and physical compactness with desirable levels of stability and reliability in the measurements.
With regard to claims 6-20, using a similar manner as those of claims 1-3 above, it
is clearly seen that Gabbey claims all that is claimed.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pham et al. (US 2021/0405088 A1).
Pham et al. teaches a probe device comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
540
1140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 1, 14 and 15, a device (FIGS. 1-3A, probe device 100a) for testing a voltage level (voltage levels or voltage values) in an electrical terminal cavity (any location on an electronic device to test, for example, a test location may be located behind obstructions), the device (FIGS. 1-3A, probe device 100a) comprising: a testing body (FIGS. 1-3A, main body 130); a probe (FIGS. 1-3A, probe body 140 and probe connector 150) for contacting the electrical terminal cavity (any location on an electronic device to test, for example, a test location may be located behind obstructions), the probe (FIGS. 1-3A, probe body 140 and probe connector 150) comprising: a tip portion (FIGS. 1-3A, conductive probe tip 152) configured to contact the electrical terminal cavity (any location on an electronic device to test, for example, a test location may be located behind obstructions), wherein the tip portion (FIGS. 1-3A, conductive probe tip 152) comprises a first cross-sectional area (FIGS. 1-3A, cross-sectional area of conductive probe tip 152) along a length of the tip portion (FIGS. 1-3A, conductive probe tip 152); a base portion (FIGS. 1-3A, probe body 140) configured to connect the tip portion (FIGS. 1-3A, conductive probe tip 152) the probe (FIGS. 1-3A, probe body 140 and probe connector 150) to the testing body (FIGS. 1-3A, main body 130), wherein the base portion (FIGS. 1-3A, probe body 140) comprises a second cross-sectional area (FIGS. 1-3A, cross-sectional area of probe body 140) along a length of the base portion (FIGS. 1-3A, probe body 140), wherein the first cross-sectional area (FIGS. 1-3A, cross-sectional area of conductive probe tip 152) is smaller than the second cross-sectional area (FIGS. 1-3A, cross-sectional area of probe body 140); and an axis (FIGS. 1-3A, main axis 172) extending between a center of the tip portion (FIGS. 1-3A, conductive probe tip 152), a center of the base portion (FIGS. 1-3A, probe body 140), and a center of the testing body (FIGS. 1-3A, main body 130); and a circuit (FIGS. 1-3A, internal circuitry of probe device 100a) disposed within the testing body (FIGS. 1-3A, main body 130), wherein the circuit (FIGS. 1-3A, internal circuitry of probe device 100a) is operatively coupled with the probe (FIGS. 1-3A, probe body 140 and probe connector 150) such that circuit (FIGS. 1-3A, internal circuitry of probe device 100a) is configured to sense the voltage level (voltage levels or voltage values) in the electrical terminal cavity (any location on an electronic device to test, for example, a test location may be located behind obstructions) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0039] and [0043]-[0060]).
With regard to claims 2 and 18, the first cross-sectional area (FIGS. 1-3A, cross-sectional area of conductive probe tip 152) is substantially constant along the length of the tip portion (FIGS. 1-3A, conductive probe tip 152), and wherein the second cross-sectional area (FIGS. 1-3A, cross-sectional area of probe body 140) is substantially constant along the length of the base portion (FIGS. 1-3A, probe body 140) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0039] and [0043]-[0060]).
With regard to claim 3, the first cross-sectional area (FIGS. 1-3A, cross-sectional area of conductive probe tip 152) has a rectangular shape (FIGS. 1-3A, left or bottom part of conductive probe tip 152), the second cross-sectional area (FIGS. 1-3A, cross-sectional area of probe body 140) has a rectangular shape(For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0039] and [0043]-[0060]).
With regard to claims 6 and 19, a contact surface of the tip portion (FIGS. 1-3A, conductive probe tip 152) of the probe (FIGS. 1-3A, probe body 140 and probe connector 150) is configured to make contact with the electrical terminal cavity (any location on an electronic device to test, for example, a test location may be located behind obstructions) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0039] and [0043]-[0060]).
With regard to claims 7 and 20, when engaged, the testing body (FIGS. 1-3A, main body 130) conducts an electrical current (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0039] and [0043]-[0060]).
With regard to claim 8, the testing body (FIGS. 1-3A, main body 130) is enclosed in an electrically-insulating layer (FIGS. 1-3A, non-conductive shell 139) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0039] and [0043]-[0060]).
With regard to claim 9, a user interface (FIGS. 1-3A, user interface 130a) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0039] and [0043]-[0060]).
With regard to claims 10 and 16, the user interface (FIGS. 1-3A, user interface 130a) is configured to display (FIGS. 1-3A, display 135) a measurement of the voltage level (voltage levels or voltage values) of the electrical terminal cavity (any location on an electronic device to test, for example, a test location may be located behind obstructions) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0039] and [0043]-[0060]).
With regard to claims 11 and 17, the user interface (FIGS. 1-3A, user interface 130a) is configured to display (FIGS. 1-3A, display 135) the measurement of the voltage level (voltage levels or voltage values) with at least three significant digits (FIG. 1) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0039] and [0043]-[0060]).
With regard to claim 12, a circuit protector (FIGS. 1-3A, breaker reset button 131) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0039] and [0043]-[0060]).
With regard to claim 13, the circuit protector (FIGS. 1-3A, breaker reset button 131) comprises a fuse (internal fuse or internal circuit breaker (not shown)) or a circuit breaker (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0039] and [0043]-[0060]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham et al.
Pham et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-20 including the tip portion (FIGS. 1-3A, conductive probe tip 152) and the base portion (FIGS. 1-3A, probe body 140), but it does not specifically disclose the following features:
The tip portion and the base portion of the probe are contiguous.
Aa width of the tip portion and a width of the base portion are substantially equal.
It is noted that:
With regard to claims 4 and 5, the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the tip portion and the base portion of the probe are contiguous” and “a width of the tip portion and a width of the base portion are substantially equal”) is just a mere desirable and exemplary choice that is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over Pham et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the probe device of Pham et al. to make “the tip portion and the base portion of the probe contiguous” and “a width of the tip portion and a width of the base portion substantially equal” since such an arrangement is beneficial to eliminate structural weak points at the joint or bond line between the tip and the base, thereby drastically reducing the risk of snapping or bending under mechanical stress. A single-piece construction distributes stress evenly across the entire length of the probe, extending its operational lifespan. Such an implementation can significantly increase the effectiveness of cost-effective manufacturability and physical compactness with desirable levels of stability and reliability in the measurements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s attention is invited to the followings whose inventions disclose similar devices.
Hoffman et al. (US 5,29,1124 A) teaches a portable tester for a high-voltage measuring apparatus which includes two electrically conductive probes for electrical coupling respectively to points in a high-voltage circuit between which the potential is to be measured.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2170. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS (7:00 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, LEE E. RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
