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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. See MPEP 2304.01(c).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 1 and subspecies 1A, I, and “a” in the reply filed on 8/14/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 5, 7, 15, 19 and 26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/14/25.
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 14 and 18 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.
Claim 14 recites wherein the inner connecting component (16) allows the inner periphery (122b) of the second bridge portion and the top surface (113a) of the inner wall portion to be completely connected to each other.”
As shown in at least fig. 3, inner connecting component 16 only connects the inner periphery 122b to a partial section of 113a.
Accordingly, an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. See MPEP 2163(I)(A).
Claim 18 recites “wherein the outer connecting component allows the outer periphery of the first bridge portion and the bottom surface of the outer wall portion to be completely connected to each other.”
As shown in at least fig. 3, the outer connecting component 17 only connects the outer periphery 112b to a partial section of the bottom surface 123a.
Accordingly, an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. See MPEP 2163(I)(A).
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.
Claims 8, 14, 18 and 25 are 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.
Claim 8 recites “a second connecting portion” even though no first connecting portion was previously recited. Accordingly, it is unclear how there can be a second connecting portion without a first connecting portion.
Claim 14 recites wherein the inner connecting component (16) allows the inner periphery (122b) of the second bridge portion and the top surface (113a) of the inner wall portion to be completely connected to each other.”
As shown in at least fig. 3, inner connecting component 16 only connects the inner periphery 122b to a partial section of 113a.
Accordingly, it is unclear how the connection is complete. For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted that the connecting component provides a complete or direct connection.
Claim 18 is indefinite for substantially similar reasons regarding the claimed outer connecting component 17 (see fig. 3). For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted that the outer connecting component provides a complete or direct connection.
Claim 25 is indefinite for substantially the same reasons as claim 8.
Additionally, claim 25 recites a “second case recess,” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim and makes the claim indefinite since it is unclear how there is a second case recess when no first case recess has been recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-4, 6, 22-25 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Schricker et al. (US 20110219888 A1, hereinafter Schricker).
As to claim 1, Schricker teaches a force sensing apparatus (title; fig. 4) with bridge portion (e.g. element 12), comprising:
[AltContent: textbox (CR2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (IR)][AltContent: textbox (OR)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (CP2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (9X)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (8X)][AltContent: textbox (CP1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (11X)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (10X)][AltContent: ]
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.
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.
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 second connecting portion CP2 (fig. 4 above), the outer wall portion 9X is connected to the outer periphery of the second annular portion 11X via the second connecting portion, and the second annular portion, the second connecting portion, and the outer wall portion define a second 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 an inner periphery of the second bridge portion 12 and the top surface of the inner wall portion 8X.
As to claim 29, Schricker teaches an outer connecting component (a weld - ¶23), wherein the outer connecting component connects an outer periphery of the first bridge portion 13 and the bottom surface of the outer wall portion 9X.
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) 2, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schricker in view of Friedl (AT 9920 U1).
As to claim 2, 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 claims 13, Schricker teaches an inner connecting component (a weld - ¶23), wherein the inner connecting component connects an inner periphery of the second bridge portion 12 and the top surface of the inner wall portion 8X.
As to claims 17, Schricker teaches an outer connecting component (a weld - ¶23), wherein the outer connecting component connects an outer periphery of the first bridge portion 13 and the bottom surface of the outer wall portion 9X.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schricker in view of Baumgartner et al. (US 20100058875 A1, hereinafter Baumgartner).
As to claim 8, Schricker teaches wherein the second case 4 further comprises a second connecting portion CP2 (fig. 4 above), the outer wall portion is connected to the outer periphery of the second annular portion via the second connecting portion (see fig. 4 above).
Schricker does not teach wherein 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.
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (S)]
PNG
media_image2.png
268
340
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Baumgartner teaches a force sensor (fig. 3) comprising a first case 2 and a second case 4, wherein each of the first and second cases has a thickened portion contacting the sensitive portion S.
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 first and second cases have a thickened portion in contact with the sensitive portion as taught by Baumgartner since such a modification would be a mere change in the shapes of the cases for the predictable result that force is still successfully detected.
Schricker as modified teaches wherein 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 thickened portion of the second annular portion in light of Baumgartner’s teachings).
As to claim 9, Schricker teaches wherein the first case further comprises a first connecting portion CP1 (fig. 4 above), the inner wall portion 8X is connected to the inner periphery of the first annular portion 10X via the first connecting portion.
Schricker does not teach wherein 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.
Baumgartner teaches a force sensor (fig. 3) comprising a first case 2 and a second case 4, wherein each of the first and second cases has a thickened portion contacting the sensitive portion S.
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 first and second cases have a thickened portion in contact with the sensitive portion as taught by Baumgartner since such a modification would be a mere change in the shapes of the cases for the predictable result that force is still successfully detected.
Schricker as modified teaches wherein 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 thickened portion of the first annular portion in light of Baumgartner’s teachings).
Claim(s) 10 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schricker in view of Rocha et al. (US 4546658 A, hereinafter Rocha).
As to claims 10 and 27, Schricker teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the force sensing module comprises a plurality of electrically conductive layers and a 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.
Rocha teaches a force sensor (title) wherein a force sensing module (comprising at least piezoelectric elements 11-12 and electrodes 16a-b, 18a-b) comprises a plurality of electrically conductive layers 16a-b, 18b and a plurality of piezoelectric layers 11-12, the plurality of electrically conductive layers and the plurality of piezoelectric layers are alternatively stacked along the axial direction, one 16a of the plurality of electrically conductive layers is located at a highest layer, and another one 18b of the plurality of electrically conductive layers is located at a lowest layer (note that col. 3 line 35 – col. 4 line 31 teaches how the device operates, wherein a force applied to the sensor causes a compliant layer 14 transfers vibrations from element 11 to element 12 based on the amount of force).
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 to be configured to use a compliant layer between piezoelectric layers that are sandwiched between electrodes, wherein vibrations from one piezoelectric layer is transferred through the compliant layer as a function of applied force, as taught by Rocha for the benefit that the sensor is reliable and inexpensive, and/or the sensor is capable of directly measuring static, as well as dynamic, force (in Rocha, see col. 1 line 30 – col. 2 line 6), and/or since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of detecting force for another for the predictable result that force is still successfully detected.
Schricker as modified teaches wherein the force sensing module comprises a plurality of electrically conductive layers 16a, 18b (Rocha) and a plurality of piezoelectric layers 11-12 (Rocha), the plurality of electrically conductive layers and the plurality of piezoelectric layers are alternatively stacked (substantially alternatively stacked) along the axial direction, one 16a (Rocha) of the plurality of electrically conductive layers is located at a highest layer, and another one 18b (Rocha) of the plurality of electrically conductive layers is located at a lowest layer.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schricker in view of Rocha as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Fujishiro (JP 58202853 A).
As to claim 11, Schricker 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) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schricker in view of Friedl as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Motoyama (US 20090308168 A1).
As to claim 14, Schricker teaches wherein the inner connecting component allows the inner periphery of the second bridge portion and the top surface of the inner wall portion to be connected to each other (fig. 4 and ¶23).
Schricker does not teach that the connection is a complete connection.
Motoyama teaches pressure sensor (title) comprising a membrane 70 (see ¶91 and figs. 1A-2B) welded in a continuous ring-like manner and vertically overlapping the wall (of sleeve 22) it is welded to.
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 in a continuous ring-like manner and vertically overlapped with their respective walls as taught by Motoyama 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 the connection strength provided by the welding is maximized.
Schricker as modified teaches wherein the connection is a complete connection (due to the ring-like weld taught by Motoyama).
As to claim 16, Schricker teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the inner connecting component is not disposed between the bottom surface of the second bridge portion and the top surface of the inner wall portion.
Motoyama teaches pressure sensor (title) comprising a membrane 70 (see ¶91 and figs. 1A-2B) welded in a continuous ring-like manner and vertically overlapping the wall (of sleeve 22) it is welded to, wherein the connecting component 79, formed by welding, is not disposed (i.e. substantially not disposed) between the bottom surface of the membrane and the top surface of wall portion 22, to which the membrane is welded.
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 in a continuous ring-like manner and vertically overlapped with their respective walls, wherein the respective connecting components are not between the abutting surfaces of the membranes and the respective walls to which they are welded, as taught by Motoyama 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 the connection strength provided by the welding is maximized (at least from the continuous, ring-manner of Motoyama’s welding).
Schricker as modified teaches wherein the inner connecting component is not disposed (substantially not disposed) between the bottom surface of the second bridge portion and the top surface of the inner wall portion (in light of Motoyama’s teachings).
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schricker in view of Friedl as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Motoyama (US 20090308168 A1).
As to claim 18, Schricker teaches wherein the outer connecting component allows the outer periphery of the first bridge portion and the bottom surface of the outer wall portion to be connected to each other.
Schricker does not teach wherein the connection is complete.
Motoyama teaches pressure sensor (title) comprising a membrane 70 (see ¶91 and figs. 1A-2B) welded in a continuous ring-like manner and vertically overlapping the wall (of sleeve 22) it is welded to.
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 in a continuous ring-like manner and vertically overlapped with their respective walls as taught by Motoyama 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 the connection strength provided by the welding is maximized.
Schricker as modified teaches wherein the connection is a complete connection (due to the ring-like weld taught by Motoyama).
As to claim 20, Schricker teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the outer connecting component is not disposed between the top surface of the first bridge portion and the bottom surface of the outer wall portion.
Motoyama teaches pressure sensor (title) comprising a membrane 70 (see ¶91 and figs. 1A-2B) welded in a continuous ring-like manner and vertically overlapping the wall (of sleeve 22) it is welded to, wherein the connecting component 79, formed by welding, is not disposed (i.e. substantially not disposed) between the bottom surface of the membrane and the top surface of wall portion 22, to which the membrane is welded.
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 in a continuous ring-like manner and vertically overlapped with their respective walls, wherein the respective connecting components are not between the abutting surfaces of the membranes and the respective walls to which they are welded, as taught by Motoyama 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 the connection strength provided by the welding is maximized (at least from the continuous, ring-manner of Motoyama’s welding).
Schricker as modified teaches wherein the outer connecting component is not disposed (substantially not disposed) between the top surface of the first bridge portion and the bottom surface of the outer wall portion (in light of Motoyama’s teachings).
Claim(s) 21 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schricker in view of Takeuchi (US 4524625 A) and Arons et al. (US 2636134 A, hereinafter Arons).
As to claims 21 and 30, Schricker 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 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4430899 A teaches an inner insulation layer 26
US 4499394 A teaches a hard metal plate 43 on the outside of a sensor for providing protection to the sensor
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