FIRST NON-FINAL REJECTION
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 11 recites the limitation "the camera" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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(s) 1, 6-7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Canning et al. U.S. Patent 3,129,584.
With respect to claim 1, Canning teaches a hollow enclosure (interpreted as the enclosure of the force transmission assembly 20, figure 3) having side walls and an enclosed upper surface (the cylinder wall 40, cap 45, and pressure face 53 make up the enclosure, figure 3); a rigid base (interpreted as pressure face 53 of the block 44, figure 3) attached to a lower end of the hollow enclosure (figure 3), the rigid base allowing for the passage of light therethrough (the passage 55 in the block is interpreted as allowing for light to pass therethrough when the cap 58 is removed, figure 3), the rigid base and hollow enclosure defining an interior space (interpreted as the interior space of the assembly 20, figure 3); a piston (piston 70 and piston rod 71) disposed within the interior space and moveably secured to the hollow enclosure (piston 70 and piston rod 71 is slidably mounted in a bushing sleeve 72 which is affixed in the cap 45, figure 3); and a flexible bladder (fluid filled diaphragm or sack 50) disposed between a lower surface of the piston and an upper surface of the rigid base (the diaphragm is disposed between the piston 70 and piston rod 71 and the pressure face 53 of the block 44, figure 3).
With respect to claim 6, Canning teaches wherein the color of a lower surface of the piston is a first color (the color of the piston 70 depicted in figure 3 is interpreted to be a “first color”), and the color of the bladder is a second color (the color of the fluid filled diaphragm or sack 50 depicted in figure 3 is interpreted as a different “second color” ), and the first and second colors are contrasting colors (the depicted colors appear to contrast, figure 3).
With respect to claim 7, Canning teaches wherein the bladder is attached to a lower surface of the piston at a north pole of the bladder (the fluid filled diaphragm or sack 50 is pressed against the piston, col. 3 lines 12-16, figure 3), and the bladder is attached to the rigid base at a south pole of the bladder (the diaphragm is retained in position by pressure of a face 53 of the block 44 when the latter is screwed into position on the cylinder and the bead 51 provides a fluid seal for the diaphragm in the cylinder, col. 2 lines 51-55, figure 3).
With respect to claim 9, Canning teaches wherein the bladder is an elastic spheroid (the shape of the fluid filled diaphragm or sack 50 is spheroidal, figure 3).
With respect to claim 10, Canning teaches wherein the bladder is filled with one of a non-compressible liquid and air (fluid filled diaphragm or sack 50).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canning et al. U.S. Patent 3,129,584 in view Price GB 2051271.
With respect to claim 2, Canning teaches a single spring 77 position between the piston 70 and the cap 45 of the assembly 20 but fails to teach wherein a plurality of springs, each of which is connected between the piston and the hollow enclosure.
Price teaches a housing 1 with a bore 2 closed at its forward end by a plug 3 and accommodating a piston 4 having a peripheral recess 5 defined axially between piston seals 6, 7 and communicating with a radial passage 8 in the piston 4 as well as with a reservoir port 9 in the housing 1, where the ports 9 of the two master cylinders may be connected to a common reservoir or respective reservoirs, an actuating push rod 10 enters the rear end of the housing for acting directly on the piston 4 which has an axial bore 11 connected to the radial passage 8, and where communication between the bore 11 and passage 8 is controlled by a valve assembly comprising a body 12 carrying a seal 13 and the body 12 is urged rearwardly in a direction to close the valve by a spring 14 acting between a shoulder on the body and a washer 15 held in abutment with the forward end of the piston 4 by the piston return spring 16 (page 1 lines 109-128, figures 1-2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the assembly of Canning with an additional spring connected to the piston as taught by Price in order to provide a more reliable piston return by having additional springs.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canning et al. U.S. Patent 3,129,584 in view Alspach et al. U.S. Patent 12,304,088.
With respect to claim 11, Canning teaches the claimed invention except a computer connected to a (the) camera.
Alspach teaches a system and method for calibrating deformable sensors are disclosed. In one embodiment, a method of calibrating a deformable sensor includes capturing image data (image sensors 150 connected to a computer 800) of the deformable sensor using an external image sensor (abstract, figures 11 and 16).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Canning a provide a camera connected to a computer as taught by Alspach in order to provide a more accurate measuring device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 8 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regard to claims 12 and 18, the closest found prior art, Canning et al. U.S. Patent 3,129,584 and Rohaly et al. U.S. Patent 12,332,046, discloses the closest found prior art of record. However, Canning and Rohaly fails to encompass all the limitations of the claimed subject matter. Further, the claimed subject matter is not obvious when looking at the closest found prior art of record separately or in combination with each other.
Canning and Rohaly fails to teach a hollow enclosure having side walls and an enclosed upper surface; a rigid base attached to a lower end of the hollow enclosure, the rigid base allowing for the passage of light therethrough, the rigid base and hollow enclosure defining an interior space; a piston disposed within the interior space and moveably secured to the hollow enclosure by a plurality of springs; a flexible bladder disposed between a lower surface of the piston and an upper surface of the rigid base; and a camera disposed beneath the rigid base and including a camera lens aimed upwardly toward the rigid base to view the bladder through the rigid base.
Canning and Rohaly also fail to teach a hollow enclosure having side walls and an enclosed upper surface; a rigid base attached to a lower end of the hollow enclosure, the rigid base allowing for the passage of light therethrough, the rigid base and hollow enclosure defining an interior space; a piston moveably disposed within the interior space; a plurality of side springs, each of which is connected between the piston and the side walls of the hollow enclosure; an upper spring connected between an upper surface of the piston and the enclosed upper surface of the hollow enclosure; a flexible bladder disposed between a lower surface of the piston and an upper surface of the rigid base; and a camera disposed beneath the rigid base and including a camera lens aimed upwardly toward the rigid base to view the bladder through the rigid base.
Thereby, the claims are found allowable over the found prior art of record as the examiner can find no teaches of above claimed subject matter, nor reasons within the found prior art of record on its own or in combination with each other to combine the elements of the references to fully encompass the claimed subject matter.
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 FREDDIE KIRKLAND III whose telephone number is (571)272-2232. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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 (571) 272-4107. 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.
FREDDIE KIRKLAND III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/Freddie Kirkland III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 12/9/2025