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.
Claim 2 is 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. In claim 2, reference is made to “aperture” and the only aperture defined in the specification is aperture 12 which does not appear to be the aperture being described in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-209559376U, see translation, see translation. As to claim 1, CN-209559376 discloses a micropressure sensor including a first “cup”(round plate 1) having a first and second end (top and bottom of plate 1) , a cylindrical side wall (around cavity 4), an end wall is formed by an “arch” having an inner surface (opposite convex block 2) and an opposite outer surface (convex block 2) and a strain wafer (strain gauge 5) disposed on the inner surface of the end wall wherein the endwall of the first cup is formed by the arch having an inner surface (plate 1 inner concave surface around cavity 7) and an opposite outer surface (having convex block 2), note the fig. 1 and 2 depiction showing cylindrical shape and translation. Further, it is noted that CN-209559376 does not define a wafer, per se. However, given the depictions of figs. 1 and 2 showing the strain gauge in the form of a rectangle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have designated the strain gauge 5 as a strain wafer since it is in the shape of a wafer. As to claim 2, as best understood, note the aperture 6 found in the side wall with a pair of edges as found in the cross section of fig. 1 near reference numeral 6. As to claim 4, note the convex bump 2 outer surface of the end wall.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jp-2001272295A-(Kato et al), see translation in view of CN-104364625 and CN202956233. As to claim 1, Kato et al discloses a pressure measuring sensor including a first cup (container 20) having a first/second end (top and bottom end), a cylindrical side wall (cylindrical stage 22) extending therebetween, and an end wall (diaphragm 21) including an inner surface (first surface 21b) and an outer surface (21a) disposed at the first end of the first cup, wherein the end wall of the first cup is formed by an arch (arch formed by stage 22 and diaphragm 21) having an inner surface and an opposite outer surface, and a strain wafer (strain detector 23) disposed on the inner surface of the end wall a first “cup” (container 20) which can be further arched as in fig. 5 with protective layer 26, see figs and translation. Further, it is noted that Kato et al lack a teaching for a strain wafer, per se. However, given the depiction of the strain detector 23 in the form of a block, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have designated the strain detector as a wafer as a matter of design choice. It is also noted that the inner and outer surfaces are not recited as being “concave” or “convex”. In related prior art devices, CN-104364625 discloses a similar force sensor with a cup shaped shell 3 and sensor plate 1 and further defines a concave part 31, see fig. 1/translation and CN202956233 discloses a stress sensor including cup 1 as in fig. 1 and further indicates that the outer bottom surface in a convex surface, see translation. Therefore, given the known teachings of CN-104364625 and CN202956233 of defining inner and outer surfaces of cups as convex and concave, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have indicated that the inner surface of the Kato et al container as concave and the outer surface as convex since their surfaces are known to be designated as convex and concave in the prior art. As to claim 2, as best understood, note the depiction of fig. 7 showing parallel side edges (flanges 25) forming “apertures” in the side wall 22 with fixing material 30 in the apertures. As to claim 4, note the outer surface of the container cup can be designated as a convex surface. As to claim 5, it appears that the first cup can be received in the aperture (opening 14). Further, to have received the cup 20 slidably appears to have been a matter of design choice as a mode for inserting. As to claim 6, note the outer diameter of cup 20 appears to be substantially the same as the opening 14, note fig. 4. As to claim 7, note the second cup (container 50/60) is received in a central bore (opening 54) with sidewall (container body 51). Further, to have received the cup 20 slidably appears to have been a matter of design choice as a mode for inserting. As to claim 8, note the slots formed by flanges 25 which have parallel side edges at inner wall 14a.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 8 are rejected under Germanton-US Pub 2005/0241415 in view of CN-104364625 and CN202956233. As to claim 1, Germanton disclose a load sensor plate including a first cup (load sensor plate 100) including a first and second end (top and bottom in fig. 2), cylindrical side walls (wall 102/106), and an end wall (flexure beam 112 with arched corners) having an inner and outer surface and a strain wafer (piezoresistive elements 400) on the outer surface of the end wall, see figures 1-5 and par[027] et seq. Further, it is noted that elements 400 are not defined as strain wafers, per se. However, piezoresistive elements are known for measuring strain and their shape appears in the form of a wafer such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have designated the elements 400 as strain wafers. It is also noted that the inner and outer surfaces are not recited as being concave or convex. In related prior art devices, CN-104364625 discloses a similar force sensor with a cup shaped shell 3 and sensor plate 1 and further defines a concave part 31, see fig. 1/translation and CN202956233 discloses a stress sensor including cup 1 as in fig. 1 and further indicates that the outer bottom surface in a convex surface, see translation. Therefore, given the known teachings of CN-104364625 and CN202956233 of defining inner and outer surfaces of cups as convex and concave, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have indicated that the inner surface of the Germanton load sensor plate 100 container as concave and the outer surface as convex since their surfaces are known to be designated as convex and concave in the prior art. As to claim 2, as best understood, the end wall of the cup includes apertures (openings 110) with a side wall defined by edges, see fig. 2 cross section. As to claim 4, note the outer corners and the top surface appear to be in the form of a convex surface. As to claims 8 and 17, note the parallel slots (openings 110) with parallel side walls as in fig. 1 and 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2 and 4-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASHMIYA FAYYAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571)272-2160. 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.
NF
Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/N.S.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN/SPE, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights