Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/281,398

LOAD CELL

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 11, 2023
Examiner
DAVIS-HOLLINGTON, OCTAVIA L
Art Unit
2855
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Dywidag-Systems International GmbH
OA Round
2 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
955 granted / 1121 resolved
+17.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
1165
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
46.8%
+6.8% vs TC avg
§102
40.2%
+0.2% vs TC avg
§112
8.8%
-31.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1121 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTIONAcknowledgment is made of applicant’s amendment filed 12/23/25.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 § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutsay (3,365,689) in view of Ramming (4,823,618). Regarding claim 1, Kutsay discloses an apparatus comprising an annular base unit 20, an axial height of said annular base unit being smaller than a diameter of said annular base unit, said annular base unit having a plurality of mounting portions 23, and a plurality of strain gages G1, G2, G5, G6, said plurality of strain gages being located in the plurality of mounting portions, wherein said annular base unit comprises a plurality of sections having a Young's modulus different from the Young's modulus of the material of the base unit (See Figs. 2, 3 and 13, See Col. 2, lines 63 - 72, Col. 3, lines 1 - 26, Col. 4, lines 73 - 75 and Col. 5, lines 1 - 10). Kutsay fails to disclose that the plurality of strain gages is attached to a circumference of the base unit. However, Ramming discloses an apparatus comprising strain gages (not shown) attached at a circumference of a base unit 64 (See Fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kutsay according to the teachings of Ramming for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device provides a simplified method of manufacturing a force-moment sensing unit which is substantially easier to manufacture on conventional machine tools (See Ramming, Col. 1, lines 21 – 27). Regarding claim 2, in Kutsay, at least some sections of said plurality of sections are formed by holes 27 - 30 provided in said annular base unit (See Fig. 13, See Col. 4, lines 73 - 75 and Col. 5, lines 1 - 10). Regarding claim 3, in Kutsay, at least some of said holes extend in an axial direction of said annular base unit (See Fig. 13). Regarding claim 4, in Kutsay, at least some of said holes are through holes opening into both axial surfaces of the base unit (See Fig. 13). Regarding claim 5, in Kutsay, said holes are evenly distributed along a circumferential direction of said annular base unit (See Fig. 13). Regarding claim 6, in Kutsay, at least some of said holes have a circular cross-section (See Fig. 13). Regarding claim 7, in Kutsay, said annular base unit has a circumferential groove formed in at least one of an outer circumferential wall and an inner circumferential wall thereof, and said plurality of mounting portions and said plurality of strain gages is located in said circumferential groove (See Figs. 1 - 3). Regarding claim 8, in Kutsay, a center point of at least some of said holes is located on a line extending in the middle between an inner circumferential surface and an outer circumferential surface of the base unit (See Fig. 13). Regarding claim 9, in Kutsay, said annular base unit is made of a corrosion-resisting material including metal (See Col. 2, lines 63 - 66). Regarding claim 10, in Kutsay, said strain gages are mounted to be sensitive to strain exerted in an axial direction of said annular base unit (See Figs. 3 and 5 - 8). Regarding claim 11, in Kutsay, said strain gages are connected in a Wheatstone bridge configuration (See Fig. 9, See Col. 5, lines 1 - 9). Regarding claim 12, in Kutsay, additional strain gages are provided and are mounted to be insensitive to strain exerted in an axial direction of said annular base unit (See Fig. 9, See Col. 3, lines 2 - 23). Regarding claim 13, in Kutsay, at least some of said strain gages are thin film strain gages (See Figs. 5 - 8). Regarding claim 14, in Kutsay, the load cell includes a transducer connected to said strain gages and a transmitter for transmitting data received from said transducer via a wireless network (See Col. 3, lines 63 - 75 and Col. 4, lines 1 24). Regarding claim 15, in Kutsay, the strain gages are located on the load cell such that they are accessible and replaceable while load is still applied to the load cell from an attached structure (See Col. 3, lines 14 – 23). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, on Pg. 6, lines 16 – 25, with respect to these claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. After further consideration, it is the Examiner’s position that Ramming discloses strain gages (not shown) attached at a circumference of a base unit 64 (See Fig. 5). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Watson et al. (4,094,192) disclose a method and apparatus for six degree of freedom force sensing.7. 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 OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. 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. /OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 3/20/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 11, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 23, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 21, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584808
TORQUE SENSOR ELEMENT AND TORQUE SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571694
SENSOR DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING A RELATIVE ANGULAR POSITION BETWEEN SHAFT HALVES OF A ROTARY SHAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12553699
INSPECTION METHOD, MANUFACTURING METHOD AND INSPECTION SYSTEM OF DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12553783
MAGNETOELASTIC TORQUE SENSOR WITH EXTENDED COMPENSATION FOR INTERFERENCE FIELDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12551978
METHOD FOR DETERMINING A PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION OF A MOLDING TOOL DEVICE AS WELL AS RESHAPING APPARATUS AND COMPOSITE SHEET METAL COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+5.4%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1121 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month