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 § 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, 13, 20, 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rahav et al. (U.S. 20230038841, hereafter referred to as Rahav).
Regarding claim 1, Rahav teaches a transducer structure comprising: at least one mechanical restraint (582, see figure 5A; step 1304, see figure 13), the at least one mechanical restraint being shaped to receive a transducer (see para. 0103; step 1306, see figure 13) such that the at least one mechanical restraint at least partially limits the positioning of the transducer on the transducer structure, wherein the at least one mechanical restraint pins at least a portion of the transducer in at least two degrees of freedom when the transducer is positioned on the transducer structure (see figure 4B).
Regarding claim 13, Rahav further teaches the use of an adhesive which based on at least para. 0072 would be placed in the region of the recessed surface 590 in order to fix strain gauges 160 to the beam element 120.
Regarding claim 20, Rahav further teaches wherein the transducer is flexible such that the transducer is conformable to a curved surface (see figure 4A).
Regarding claim 23, Rahav teaches a method of adhering a transducer to a transducer structure, the transducer structure having at least one mechanical restraint, the method comprising: applying an adhesive to a region of the transducer structure (see para. 0037); and positioning a portion of the transducer in the region such that the at least one mechanical restraint 582 pins at least a portion of the transducer in at least two degrees of freedom.
Regarding claim 27, Rahav further teaches a plurality of mechanical restraints (582, 584).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feng et al. (CN 106442723, hereafter referred to as Feng).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Feng teaches a transducer structure comprising: at least one mechanical restraint (see figure 4), the at least one mechanical restraint being shaped to receive a transducer 1 such that the at least one mechanical restraint at least partially limits the positioning of the transducer on the transducer structure, wherein the at least one mechanical restraint pins at least a portion of the transducer in at least two degrees of freedom when the transducer is positioned on the transducer structure (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 4, Feng further teaches wherein the mechanical restraint includes an elongate member (see figure 4; the area is not labeled however it is located between transducer 1 and acoustic wave unit 2).
Regarding claim 6, Feng further teaches wherein the at least one mechanical restraint includes at least one corner that restrains the transducer in a cartesian plane and a rotational plane (the recess is the shape of an octagon so there are restraints in a cartesian plane and a rotational plane).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Feng further teaches wherein the at least one mechanical restraint is positioned on a first surface and the transducer extends parallel the first surface when positioned on the transducer structure (see figure 4); wherein the at least one mechanical restraint pins the transducer in a plurality of degrees of freedom along the first surface when the transducer is positioned on the transducer structure (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 17, Feng further teaches wherein the transducer structure 1 is a monolithic structure (see figure 3a).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Feng further teaches wherein the at least one mechanical restraint is matingly shaped to receive the transducer such that the shape of the at least one mechanical restraint substantially limits the positioning of the transducer on the transducer structure (see figure 4); and wherein the at least one mechanical restraint surrounds at least a portion of a perimeter of the transducer when the transducer is positioned on the transducer structure (see figure 4).
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) 7-9, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng.
Regarding claim 7-9, Feng further teaches wherein the at least one mechanical restraint includes a groove having a plurality of walls extending from a base (recess that receives transducer 1, see figure 4).
However, Feng does not explicitly teach that the groove has a groove height extending from the base to a top of each wall in the plurality of walls; wherein the groove height is greater than a thickness of the transducer; or wherein the groove height is variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Feng since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 21, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Feng since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 23 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Rahav.
Feng teaches a transducer structure comprising: at least one mechanical restraint (see figure 4), the at least one mechanical restraint being shaped to receive a transducer 1 such that the at least one mechanical restraint at least partially limits the positioning of the transducer on the transducer structure, wherein the at least one mechanical restraint pins at least a portion of the transducer in at least two degrees of freedom when the transducer is positioned on the transducer structure (see figure 4).
However, Feng does not explicitly teach the use of an adhesive to attach the transducer to its corresponding structure.
Rahav teach the use of adhesives to attach a strain gauge to a corresponding structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Feng with the teaching of Rahav in order to provide a secure attachment means.
Regarding claim 29, Feng further teaches wherein the mechanical restraint includes an elongate member (see figure 4; the area is not labeled however it is located between transducer 1 and acoustic wave unit 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 12, 14-16, 22, 24-26, 28, 30 and 31 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMEL E WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-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 (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.
/JAMEL E WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855