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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5, 7, 15, 19 and 26 remain withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-14, 16-18 and 20 depend from cancelled claim 2. Accordingly, these claims have been rendered so indefinite that no prior art rejection will be applied thereto at this time.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 22-25, 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schricker et al. (US 20110219888 A1, hereinafter Schricker) in view of Friedl (AT 9920 U1).
As to claim 1, Schricker teaches a force sensing apparatus (title; fig. 4) with bridge portion (e.g. element 12), comprising:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (CP2X)][AltContent: textbox (CP1X)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (CR2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (IR)][AltContent: textbox (OR)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (9X)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (8X)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (11X)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (10X)]
PNG
media_image1.png
602
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first case 3 comprising:
a first annular portion 10X (fig. 4 above);
a first bridge portion 13 connected to an outer periphery of the first annular portion 10X; and
an inner wall portion 8X (fig. 4 above) connected to an inner periphery of the first annular portion;
a second case 4 comprising:
a second annular portion 11X (fig. 4 above);
a second bridge portion 12 connected to an inner periphery of the second annular portion; and
an outer wall portion 9X (fig. 4 above) connected to an outer periphery of the second annular portion 11X;
wherein the second case disposed on the first case along an axial direction (vertical in fig. 4) to form a space (containing at least sensitive elements 5), a stiffness of the second annular portion along the axial direction is greater than a stiffness of the second bridge portion along the axial direction (fig. 4 shows that the second annular portion 11X is thicker than the second bridge portion 12, and para. 19 teaches that element 12 is a thin membrane); and
a force sensing module (comprising at least elements 5, 5 – para. 19) disposed in the space.
Schricker teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein a top surface of the first bridge portion contacts a bottom surface of the outer wall portion, and a top surface of the inner wall portion contacts a bottom surface of the second bridge portion.
Friedl teaches a force sensor comprising membranes 20, 20 welded in a vertically overlapped manner with respective walls 15-16 (fig. 1 and ¶44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Schricker such that the thin membranes (12-13 of Schricker) are welded with their respective walls in a vertically overlapped manner as taught by Friedl since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing membranes welded to walls for another for the predictable result that force is still successfully detected.
Schricker as modified teaches wherein a top surface of the first bridge portion 13 (Schricker) contacts a bottom surface of the outer wall portion 9X (Schricker), and a top surface of the inner wall portion 8X (Schricker) contacts a bottom surface of the second bridge portion 12 (Schricker).
As to claim 3, Schricker teaches wherein a stiffness of the first annular portion 10X along the axial direction is greater than a stiffness of the first bridge portion 13 along the axial direction (fig. 4 shows that the first annular portion 10X is thicker than the first bridge portion 13, and para. 19 teaches that element 13 is a thin membrane).
As to claim 4, Schricker teaches wherein a thickness of the first annular portion is greater than a thickness of the first bridge portion 13 (fig. 4 shows that the first annular portion 10X is thicker than the first bridge portion 13, and para. 19 teaches that element 13 is a thin membrane).
As to claim 6, Schricker teaches wherein a thickness of the second annular portion is greater than a thickness of the second bridge portion (fig. 4 shows that the second annular portion 11X is thicker than the second bridge portion 12, and para. 19 teaches that element 12 is a thin membrane).
As to claim 22, Schricker teaches a force sensing apparatus with bridge portion (e.g., element 12) comprising:
a first case 3 comprising:
a first annular portion 10X (fig. 4 above);
a first bridge portion 13 connected to an outer periphery of the first annular portion; and
an inner wall portion 8X (fig. 4 above) connected to an inner periphery of the first annular portion;
a second case 4 comprising:
a second annular portion 11X (fig. 4 above);
a second bridge portion 12 connected to an inner periphery of the second annular portion; and
an outer wall portion 9X (fig. 4 above) connected to an outer periphery of the second annular portion;
wherein the second case 4 disposed on the first case 3 along an axial direction to form a space (occupied by at least layer 5), an outer recess OR (fig. 4 above) is located at the first bridge portion 13 and an inner recess IR (fig. 4 above) is located at the second bridge portion 12; and
a force sensing module (comprising at least elements 5) disposed in the space.
Schricker teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein a top surface of the first bridge portion contacts a bottom surface of the outer wall portion, and a top surface of the inner wall portion contacts a bottom surface of the second bridge portion.
Friedl teaches a force sensor comprising membranes 20, 20 welded in a vertically overlapped manner with respective walls 15-16 (fig. 1 and ¶44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Schricker such that the thin membranes (12-13 of Schricker) are welded with their respective walls in a vertically overlapped manner as taught by Friedl since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing membranes welded to walls for another for the predictable result that force is still successfully detected.
Schricker as modified teaches wherein a top surface of the first bridge portion 13 (Schricker) contacts a bottom surface of the outer wall portion 9X (Schricker), and a top surface of the inner wall portion 8X (Schricker) contacts a bottom surface of the second bridge portion 12 (Schricker).
As to claim 23, Schricker teaches wherein the outer wall portion, the first annular portion, and the first bridge portion define the outer recess OR.
As to claim 24, Schricker teaches wherein the inner wall portion and the second bridge portion define the inner recess IR.
As to claim 25, Schricker teaches wherein the second case 4 further comprises a connecting portion CP2X (fig. 4 above), the outer wall portion 9X is connected to the outer periphery of the second annular portion 11X via the connecting portion, and the second annular portion, the connecting portion, and the outer wall portion define a case recess CR2 (fig. 4 above).
As to claim 28, Schricker teaches an inner connecting component (a weld - ¶23), wherein the inner connecting component connects a side surface of an inner periphery of the second bridge portion 12 and the top surface of the inner wall portion 8X (by way of the second bridge portion being welded to the inner wall portion).
As to claim 29, Schricker teaches an outer connecting component (a weld - ¶23), wherein the outer connecting component connects a side surface of an outer periphery of the first bridge portion 13 and the bottom surface of the outer wall portion 9X (by way of the first bridge portion being welded to the outer wall portion).
Claim(s) 10 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schricker in view of Friedl as applied respectively to claims 1 and 22 above and further in view of Schricker et al. (WO 2019028488 A1, hereinafter Schricker3).
As to claims 10 and 27, Schricker teaches wherein the force sensing module comprises a plurality of piezoelectric layers 5 (¶24).
Schricker as modified does not teach wherein the force sensing module consists of a plurality of electrically conductive layers and the plurality of piezoelectric layers 5, the plurality of electrically conductive layers and the plurality of piezoelectric layers are alternatively stacked along the axial direction, one of the plurality of electrically conductive layers is located at a highest layer, and another one of the plurality of electrically conductive layers is located at a lowest layer.
Schricker3 teaches a force sensing module (fig. 2) consisting of a plurality of electrically conductive layers 16 (electrode sheets between piezoelectric layers 2 - ¶41) and a plurality of piezoelectric layers 2, the plurality of electrically conductive layers and the plurality of piezoelectric layers are alternatively stacked along the axial direction, one of the plurality of electrically conductive layers is located at a highest layer, and another one of the plurality of electrically conductive layers is located at a lowest layer (see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Schricker as modified to use a force sensing module consisting of a plurality of electrically conductive layers and the plurality of piezoelectric layers, the plurality of electrically conductive layers and the plurality of piezoelectric layers are alternatively stacked along the axial direction, one of the plurality of electrically conductive layers is located at a highest layer, and another one of the plurality of electrically conductive layers is located at a lowest layer, as taught by Schricker3, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method implementing a force sensing module for another for the predictable result that force is still successfully sensed.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schricker in view of Friedl and Schricker3 as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Fujishiro (JP 58202853 A).
As to claim 11, Schricker as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein a hardness of each of the plurality of electrically conductive layers is greater than a hardness of the first annular portion and greater than a hardness of the second annular portion.
Fujishiro teaches a pressure sensor (title) comprising electrically conductive layers (14 and 14, see figs. 3-4), a first casing (lower housing 15 – fig. 3) and a second casing (upper housing 15 – fig. 3), wherein a hardness of each of the plurality of electrically conductive layers (made of a hard metal, such as steel – in the translation, see the last paragraph of pg. 2 and the first twenty lines of pg. 3) is greater than a hardness of the first casing 15 and greater than a hardness of the second casing 15 (it is noted that, in the translation, lines 13-16 of pg. 3 teach that the casings 15, 15 are made of a soft metal such as copper).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Schricker as modified such that the first and second casings are made of a soft metal and wherein the upper and lower conductive layers that are internally disposed with respect to the casings are formed of a hard metal such as stainless steel, as taught by Fujishiro, so as to provide protection to the piezoelectric elements from non-uniform/abnormal pressure (in the translation of Fujishiro, see the last paragraph of pg. 2 and the first twenty lines of pg. 3).
Schricker as modified teaches wherein a hardness of each of the plurality of electrically conductive layers (being relatively hard stainless steel layers 14 of Fujishiro) is greater than a hardness of the first annular portion (made of relatively soft copper in light of Fujishiro) and greater than a hardness of the second annular portion (made of relatively soft copper in light of Fujishiro).
If Applicant argues that the hardness of each of the electrically conductive layers is not greater than a hardness of each of the annular portions, such an alleged difference between the claimed invention and prior art would have been obvious through routine experimentation, as explained next.
The claimed hardness of the conductive layers is recited as a range (i.e. higher than the hardnesses of the annular portions). It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). In this case, Fujishiro teaches that the hardness of the stainless steel conductive layers evenly distributes the pressure applied to the piezoelectric elements, which protects the piezoelectric elements from abnormal pressure (in the translation of Fujishiro, see the last paragraph of pg. 2 and lines 1-20 of pg. 3). Accordingly, Fujishiro teaches that the hardness of the conductive layers is a result-effective variable. Additionally, there is no persuasive evidence of record that the claimed range of hardness of the conductive layers is critical.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Schricker as modified such that the hardnesses of the conductive layers is in a range higher than the hardnesses of the annular portions since such a modification would have been obvious through routine experimentation for the benefit of optimizing and/or increasing the protection of the piezoelectric elements.
As to claim 12, Schricker teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein a stiffness of each of the plurality of electrically conductive layers along the axial direction is greater than a stiffness of the first annular portion along the axial direction and greater than the stiffness of the second annular portion along the axial direction.
Fujishiro teaches a pressure sensor (title) comprising electrically conductive layers (14 and 14, see figs. 3-4), a first casing (lower housing 15 – fig. 3) and a second casing (upper housing 15 – fig. 3), wherein a hardness of each of the plurality of electrically conductive layers (made of a hard metal, such as steel – in the translation, see the last paragraph of pg. 2 and the first twenty lines of pg. 3) is greater than a hardness of the first casing 15 and greater than a hardness of the second casing 15 (it is noted that, in the translation, lines 13-16 of pg. 3 teach that the casings 15, 15 are made of a soft metal such as copper).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Schricker as modified such that the first and second casings are made of a soft metal and wherein the upper and lower conductive layers that are internally disposed with respect to the casings are formed of a hard metal such as stainless steel, as taught by Fujishiro, so as to provide protection to the piezoelectric elements from non-uniform/abnormal pressure (in the translation of Fujishiro, see the last paragraph of pg. 2 and the first twenty lines of pg. 3).
Schricker as modified teaches wherein a stiffness of each of the plurality of electrically conductive layers along the axial direction is greater than a stiffness of the first annular portion along the axial direction and greater than the stiffness of the second annular portion along the axial direction (in light of Fujishiro’s teachings).
If Applicant argues that the stiffness of each of the plurality of electrically conductive layers along the axial direction is not greater than a stiffness of the first annular portion along the axial direction and not greater than the stiffness of the second annular portion along the axial direction, such an alleged difference between the claimed invention and prior art would have been obvious through routine experimentation, as explained next.
The claimed stiffness of the conductive layers is recited as a range (i.e. higher than the stiffness of the annular portions). It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). In this case, Fujishiro teaches that the stiffness of the stainless steel conductive layers evenly distributes the pressure applied to the piezoelectric elements (in the translation of Fujishiro, see at least the last paragraph of pg. 2, which teaches that a hard metal plate resists “plastic deformation” from “strong external pressure” to improve “pressure resistance and output stability by uniformizing the pressure applied to the piezoelectric body”; accordingly, the stiffness of the hard metal plate allows it to resist the plastic deformation in order to provide the aforementioned benefits), which protects the piezoelectric elements from abnormal pressure (in the translation of Fujishiro, see the last paragraph of pg. 2 and lines 1-20 of pg. 3). Accordingly, Fujishiro teaches that the stiffness of the conductive layers is a result-effective variable. Additionally, there is no persuasive evidence of record that the claimed range of stiffness of the conductive layers is critical.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Schricker as modified such that the stiffness of the conductive layers is in a range higher than the stiffness of the annular portions since such a modification would have been obvious through routine experimentation for the benefit of optimizing and/or increasing the protection of the piezoelectric elements.
Claim(s) 21 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schricker in view of Friedl as applied respectively to claims 1 and 22 above and further in view of Takeuchi (US 4524625 A) and Arons et al. (US 2636134 A, hereinafter Arons).
As to claims 21 and 30, Schricker as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except an inner insulating layer and an outer insulating layer, wherein the inner insulating layer is disposed between the force sensing module and the inner wall portion, and the outer insulating layer is disposed between the force sensing module and the outer wall portion.
Takeuchi teaches a pressure sensor (title) comprising case elements 21-24 made of metal (col. 5 lines 46-47), piezoelectric elements 25-26 and an inner insulation layer 29 for providing insulation between an electrode 27 and the metal inner wall portion 23.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Schricker as modified such that the first and second cases are metal, and wherein there is an inner insulation layer providing insulation between the electrode and the steel inner wall portion, as taught by Takeuchi, for the benefit that the metal of the cases has good durability.
Regarding the outer insulating layer,
Arons teaches a pressure sensor (title) comprising at least a set of four layers 10, 12, 14, 16 of piezoelectric material (i.e. tourmaline, which is piezoelectric – see the paragraph bridging cols. 2-3) and an outer insulation layer 25 for preventing a short circuit between adjacent discs (see the paragraph bridging cols. 1-2 and col. 4 at lines 7-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Schricker as modified such that the piezoelectric stack of the sensor is provided as a set of four layers of piezoelectric material coated at the peripheral edges with an outer insulation layer as taught by Arons so as to beneficially provide a sensitive portion in which short circuiting is reduced between adjacent discs, and/or since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing a stack of piezoelectric layers for another for the predictable result that force is still successfully detected.
Schricker as modified teaches an inner insulating layer 29 (Takeuchi) and an outer insulating layer 25 (Arons), wherein the inner insulating layer is disposed between the force sensing module and the inner wall portion, and the outer insulating layer is disposed between the force sensing module and the outer wall portion.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schricker et al. under a second interpretation (US 20110219888 A1, hereinafter Schricker2) in view of Friedl (AT 9920 U1).
As to claim 1, Schricker2 teaches a force sensing apparatus (title; fig. 6 and ¶26) with bridge portion (e.g. element 12), comprising:
[AltContent: textbox (9X2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (CP2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (11X2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (CP1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (8X2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (10X2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
324
579
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a first case 8X2, 10X2, CP1 (fig. 6 above) comprising:
a first annular portion 10X;
a first bridge portion 13 connected to an outer periphery of the first annular portion 10X2; and
an inner wall portion 8X2 connected to an inner periphery of the first annular portion;
a second case 9X2, 11X2, CP2 (fig. 6 above) comprising:
a second annular portion 11X2;
a second bridge portion 12 connected to an inner periphery of the second annular portion; and
an outer wall portion 9X connected to an outer periphery of the second annular portion 11X;
wherein the second case disposed on the first case along an axial direction (vertical in fig. 6) to form a space (containing at least sensitive elements 5), a stiffness of the second annular portion along the axial direction is greater than a stiffness of the second bridge portion along the axial direction (fig. 6 shows that the second annular portion 11X2 is thicker than the second bridge portion 12, and para. 19 teaches that element 12 is a thin membrane); and
a force sensing module (comprising at least elements 5, 5 – para. 19) disposed in the space.
Schricker2 teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein a top surface of the first bridge portion contacts a bottom surface of the outer wall portion, and a top surface of the inner wall portion contacts a bottom surface of the second bridge portion.
Friedl teaches a force sensor comprising membranes 20, 20 welded in a vertically overlapped manner with respective walls 15-16 (fig. 1 and ¶44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Schricker2 such that the thin membranes (12-13 of Schricker2) are welded with their respective walls in a vertically overlapped manner as taught by Friedl since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing membranes welded to walls for another for the predictable result that force is still successfully detected.
Schricker2 as modified teaches wherein a top surface of the first bridge portion 13 (Schricker2) contacts a bottom surface of the outer wall portion 9X2 (Schricker2), and a top surface of the inner wall portion 8X2 (Schricker2) contacts a bottom surface of the second bridge portion 12 (Schricker2).
As to claim 8, Schricker2 teaches wherein the second case further comprises a second connecting portion CP2, the outer wall portion is connected to the outer periphery of the second annular portion via the second connecting portion, and the stiffness of the second annular portion along the axial direction is greater than a stiffness of the second connecting portion along the axial direction (due to the difference in thickness shown in fig. 6).
As to claim 9, Schricker2 teaches wherein the first case further comprises a first connecting portion CP1, the inner wall portion is connected to the inner periphery of the first annular portion via the first connecting portion, and a stiffness of the first annular portion along the axial direction is greater than a stiffness of the first connecting portion along the axial direction (due to the difference in thickness shown in fig. 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 9 that the 112b rejections of claims 14 and18 have been overcome.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s cancellation of claim 2 has caused new 112b rejections of claims 14 and 18, as detailed above.
On pg. 10, Applicant argues “In accordance with Applicant's understanding, the membrane element (17) in FIG. 1 of Friedl does not disclose any component equivalent to the outer wall portion of the second case of this application. Therefore, Friedl cannot provide the teaching of "a top surface of the first bridge portion contacting a bottom surface of the outer wall portion".”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The outer wall portion of the second case is already taught by the primary reference. The features of “a top surface of the first bridge portion contacting a bottom surface of the outer wall portion” are taught as a result of the combination.
On pg. 11 Applicant argues “Furthermore, based on FIG. 1 and paragraph [0044] of Friedl. there is no evidence to clearly demonstrate that the thin membrane flanges (20) are "welded in a vertically overlapped manner" with the respective walls (15, 16). Respectfully, it appears that the teachings of Friedl do not provide a clear basis for the assertion that the thin membrane flanges (20) are welded in a vertically overlapped manner. Specifically, the reference does not expressly or inherently disclose a vertically overlapped welding relationship between the flanges and the walls.
According to MPEP 2141(III), "Office personnel must establish a factual basis to support the allegation of obviousness". Furthermore, as noted in MPEP 2144.03, any rejection must be based on a "reasoned analysis" supported by factual evidence, and cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements. Since Friedl fails to explicitly or even inherently disclose the specific "vertically overlapped" welding configuration, the Examiner has not met the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. FIG. 1 and paragraph [0044] of Friedl clearly teach that the thin membrane flanges (20) are "welded in a vertically overlapped manner" with the respective walls (15, 16).
On pg. 11 Applicant argues “In addition, as described in paragraphs [0031] and [0033] of this application, the contact configuration in the amended claims 1 and 22 of this application allows the bridge portion to slide. Specifically, the Examiner appears to equate the fixed welding configuration in Schricker and Friedl with the contact configuration in the amended claims 1 and 22 of this application. However, because a welding configuration is stationary, it cannot achieve the sliding allowance required by this application. Thus, the comparison of the Examiner overlooks this functional difference, and Schricker and Friedl fail to teach the sliding allowance disclosed in the amended claims 1 and 22 of this application.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the contact configuration in the amended claims 1 and 22 of this application that “allows the bridge portion to slide,” and “the sliding allowance disclosed in the amended claims 1 and 22 of this application”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
Applicant argues on pgs. 11-13 that “from the corresponding relationship in Friedl. A person having ordinary skill in the art would find no motivation to combine Schricker and Friedl, as the structural configurations thereof are significantly distinct.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Both references teach force sensors with force sensing elements, upon which force is applied by using membrane elements welded to adjacent side walls. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the manner of welding membrane elements in Friedl would have been obvious to apply to Schricker.
Applicant argues on pgs. 13-14 that the forces applied in Friedl and Schricker are different types, which allegedly makes it unobvious to combine the two references.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Both references teach applying force to the force-sensitive elements in the axial direction, by allowing relative motion using membrane elements. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the references.
Applicant argues on pg. 14 that
“If the welding method of Friedl (membranes 20 welded in a vertically overlapped manner with respective walls 15-16) were to be applied to Schricker, it would significantly increase manufacturing difficulty. Specifically, because the welding material would be sandwiched between the upper and lower surfaces of the two components, the welding process becomes difficult to execute. This would frequently lead to poor weld quality, such as voids (non-wetting), excessive welding material or insufficient welding material.
Such poor welding quality would cause the structural stability of the pressure transmission elements (10, 11) in Schricker to be decreased. Consequently, when subjected to an asymmetric force, the force transmitted to the piezoelectric sensing elements would become non-uniformly distributed. This result is opposed to the intended effect of Schricker, thereby teaching away from the proposed combination.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant failed to provide persuasive evidence of “…it would significantly increase manufacturing difficulty. Specifically, because the welding material would be sandwiched between the upper and lower surfaces of the two components, the welding process becomes difficult to execute. This would frequently lead to poor weld quality, such as voids (non-wetting), excessive welding material or insufficient welding material.
Such poor welding quality would cause the structural stability of the pressure transmission elements (10, 11) in Schricker to be decreased. Consequently, when subjected to an asymmetric force, the force transmitted to the piezoelectric sensing elements would become non-uniformly distributed. This result is opposed to the intended effect of Schricker, thereby teaching away from the proposed combination.”
Mere attorney argument does not replace evidence where evidence is necessary. See MPEP 2145(I).
Applicant argues on pgs. 14-15 that
“In the amended claims 1 and 22 of this application, the contact configuration allows the bridge portion to slide relative to the inner wall and outer walls (as described in paragraphs [0031] and [0033] of this application). Consequently, the stiffness along the axial direction of the first case (11) and the second case (12) of this application is not significantly affected by poor weld quality (as described in paragraphs [0034]-[0035] of this application). This ensures that the force transmitted to the piezoelectric layers remains uniformly distributed (as described in paragraph [0035] of this application). Such a technical advantage represents an unexpected effect of this application that cannot be achieved or suggested by the combination of Schricker and Friedl.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the contact configuration allows the bridge portion to slide relative to the inner wall and outer walls,” “poor weld quality “ and “the force transmitted to the piezoelectric layers remains uniformly distributed”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
Additionally, Applicant fails to articulate why such features would be unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues on pg. 15 that “Accordingly, in view of the above, it is believed that the amended independent claims 1 and 22 are patentable over Schricker in view of Friedl and are in condition for immediate allowance. Since claims 3-4, 6, 8-14, 16-18 and 20-21 depend directly or indirectly on the amended claim 1, and claims 23-25, and 27-30 depend directly or indirectly on the amended claim 22, these claims are also believed to be allowable for the same reasons set forth above in connection with the amended claims 1 and 22.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive since all the pending elected claims are properly rejected.
As to claim 28, Applicant argues on pg. 18 that “Schricker and Friedl fail to teach or suggest the feature of the amended claims 13 and 28, where the "inner connecting component" are exclusively located at the side surface of an inner periphery of the second bridge portion and the top surface of the inner wall portion as described above. Therefore, there is no motivation to combine Schricker and Friedl.” and
“surface (S4) of the inner wall portion, which are also substantially parallel. Thus, a combination of Schricker and Friedl would not result in the claimed feature where the connecting components connect the surfaces that are non-parallel.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the "inner connecting component" are exclusively located at the side surface of an inner periphery of the second bridge portion and the top surface of the inner wall portion” and “connecting components connect the surfaces that are non-parallel”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). Nevertheless, the prior art connecting components at least indirectly connect the claimed surfaces.
On pg. 20, Applicant argues “Furthermore, even if one were to combine Schricker and Friedl, the combination cannot achieve the unique technical effects of the present claims. The technical effect of the claimed welding site configuration is to ensure that the piezoelectric elements are subjected to a uniform force without fracturing, even in the event of poor welding quality.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “poor welding quality” and “ensure that the piezoelectric elements are subjected to a uniform force without fracturing, even in the event of poor welding quality”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
Additionally, Applicant has failed provide persuasive evidence that the combination of prior art would result in poor weld quality. Mere attorney argument does not replace evidence where evidence is necessary. See MPEP 2145(I).
On pg. 20, Applicant argues “force without fracturing, even in the event of poor welding quality. In the combination of Schricker and Friedl, the welding site would still be positioned between the lower surface of the bridge portion and the upper surface of the inner wall portion. If a solder joint exists between these two surfaces and the welding quality is poor, the piezoelectric elements would be subjected to a non- uniform force, leading to stress concentration and subsequent fracturing of the piezoelectric elements.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant failed to provide persuasive evidence of “the welding site would still be positioned between the lower surface of the bridge portion and the upper surface of the inner wall portion. If a solder joint exists between these two surfaces and the welding quality is poor, the piezoelectric elements would be subjected to a non- uniform force, leading to stress concentration and subsequent fracturing of the piezoelectric elements.” Applicant also failed to provide persuasive evidence showing that the prior art combination results in poor welding quality. Mere attorney argument does not replace evidence where evidence is necessary. See MPEP 2145(I).
As to claim 29, Applicant argues on pg. 21 that “Schricker and Friedl fail to teach or suggest the feature of the amended claims 17 and 29, where the "outer connecting component" are exclusively located at the side surface of an outer periphery of the first bridge portion and the bottom surface of the outer wall portion as described above. Therefore, there is no motivation to combine Schricker and Friedl.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the "outer connecting component" are exclusively located at the side surface of an outer periphery of the first bridge portion and the bottom surface of the outer wall portion) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
Applicant argues on pg. 21 that “In Friedl, the welding site is located between the lower surface (S3) of the bridge portion (20) and the upper surface (S4) of the inner wall portion, which are also substantially parallel. Thus, a combination of Schricker and Friedl would not result in the claimed feature where the connecting components connect the surfaces that are non-parallel.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant failed to provide persuasive evidence showing that, in the prior art combination, “the welding site is located between the lower surface (S3) of the bridge portion (20) and the upper surface (S4) of the inner wall portion.” Mere attorney argument does not replace evidence where evidence is necessary. See MPEP 2145(I).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the connecting components connect the surfaces that are non-parallel) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). Nevertheless, the prior art connecting components at least indirectly connect the claimed surfaces.
Applicant argues on pg. 23 that “Furthermore, even if one were to combine Schricker and Friedl, the combination cannot achieve the unique technical effects of the present claims. The technical effect of the claimed welding site configuration is to ensure that the piezoelectric elements are subjected to a uniform force without fracturing, even in the event of poor welding quality.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., ensure that the piezoelectric elements are subjected to a uniform force without fracturing, even in the event of poor welding quality) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
Applicant argues on pg. 23 that “In the combination of Schricker and Friedl, the welding site would still be positioned between the lower surface of the bridge portion and the upper surface of the inner wall portion. If a solder joint exists between these two surfaces and the welding quality is poor, the piezoelectric elements would be subjected to a non- uniform force, leading to stress concentration and subsequent fracturing of the piezoelectric elements.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant failed to provide persuasive evidence of “In the combination of Schricker and Friedl, the welding site would still be positioned between the lower surface of the bridge portion and the upper surface of the inner wall portion. If a solder joint exists between these two surfaces and the welding quality is poor, the piezoelectric elements would be subjected to a non- uniform force, leading to stress concentration and subsequent fracturing of the piezoelectric elements.” Mere attorney argument does not replace evidence where evidence is necessary. See MPEP 2145(I).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejections and the rejections of claims 8-10 and 27 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) for rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 13-14, 16-18 and 20 have been considered but are moot since there are currently no prior art rejections for these claims.
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 RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights