DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02 April 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 29 April 2026 is acknowledged and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 7,423,511 to Nakasone et al. (hereinafter referred to as Nakasone).
With regards to claim 1, Nakasone discloses a force sensor module (see fig. 1, 5, etc.) comprising:
a force sensor (strain generating element 3, holder 100, sensor plate 13, IC chip 12, circuit board 11);
a first connection part (screw section 9) configured to directly or indirectly connect the force sensor and a first object (as per col. 9, ll. 16-20);
a second connection part (screw section 23) configured to directly or indirectly connect the force sensor and a second object (as per col. 9, ll. 16-20),
the force sensor module being configured to be disposed between the second object and the first object (see fig. 1),
the first connection part being connected with a fixing part (holder 100) of the force sensor (see fig. 1), the second connection part being connected with a force receiver (sensor plate 13) of the force sensor (via the walls 20, 15; see fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
599
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for the limitations that the first connection part being configured to directly or indirectly connect the force sensor and a drive section, the drive section supported by a support member and configured to drive a claw part of a robot hand by translating in a direction orthogonal to a central axis of the robot hand, and the second connection part being configured to directly or indirectly connect the force sensor and the claw part, the force sensor module being configured to be disposed between the claw part and the drive section (simply put, that the first object is a particular drive section of a machine and the second object is a claw part of a robot hand), how the force sensor module is interfaced with elements not part of the force sensor module is a recitation of intended use. The first and second connection parts of Nakasone can be connected to any desired objects to measure forces applied thereby/thereon. The instant claim is an apparatus claim, and an apparatus claim is to cover what a device is, not how a device is to be used. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987). The aforementioned limitations relating to the intended use of the claimed force sensor module do not define positive limitations on the apparatus itself, and have accordingly not been given patentable weight. As the applied reference teaches all the structural limitations of the force sensor module itself, it anticipates the claim.
With regards to claim 2, Nakasone discloses the force sensor module according to claim 1. Claim 2 further limits the drive section (drive section causes the force sensor and the claw part to integrally turn or translate). However, as noted above, the drive section is not part of the claimed force sensor module because it's inclusion in the claims is a recitation of an intended use of the force sensor module. The language of claim 2 accordingly does not serve to limit the force sensor module, and Nakasone still anticipates all claimed structure of the force sensor module.
With regards to claim 3, Nakasone discloses the force sensor module according to claim 1. Nakasone further discloses the first connection part, the force sensor, and the second connection part being positioned in this order in a linear manner (see fig. 1).
With regards to claim 4, Nakasone discloses the force sensor module according to claim 1.
Nakasone further discloses an engagement section (walls 15, 20) engaging the first connection part and the second connection part (see fig. 1).
With regards to claim 5, Nakasone discloses the force sensor module according to claim 1.
Nakasone further discloses a standardized input/output terminal unit (connector 30) including a standardized input terminal to the force sensor and a standardized output terminal from the force sensor (col. 8, ll. 25-35).
With regards to claim 6, Nakasone discloses the force sensor module according to claim 1.
Nakasone further discloses the first connection part having a groove provided on a side surface thereof (see the threads of screw section 9 in fig. 1, etc.). As for "the language the groove and an opening which is provided in a chuck to be connected with the first connection part are fixed to each other by a lock bar," how the groove is interfaced with an element not part of the force sensor module is a recitation of intended use. The instant claim is an apparatus claim, and an apparatus claim is to cover what a device is, not how a device is to be used. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987). The aforementioned limitations relating to the intended use of the claimed apparatus do not define positive limitations on the apparatus itself, and have accordingly not been given patentable weight.
With regards to claim 7, Nakasone discloses the force sensor module according to claim 1.
Nakasone further discloses, between the fixing part and the second connection part, a gap (see space 21) As for the language "for causing the fixing part and the second connection part to serve as a deformation reducing part for the force receiver," this is a recitation of intended use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987). This "for …" limitation relates to an intended function of the gap and does not define a positive structural limitation on the apparatus itself, and have accordingly has not been given patentable weight. As the applied reference teaches all of the structural limitations in this claim, including at least the presence of "a gap between the fixing part and the second connection part," the reference anticipates the claim).
With regards to claim 8, Nakasone discloses the force sensor module according to claim 1.
Nakasone further discloses an engagement section (walls 15, 20) engaging the first connection part and the second connection part to restrict relative movement of the first connection part and the second connection part (as is clear from fig. 1, these elements are mated together and thus have restricted movement relative to one another).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakasone as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of CN 106030268 to Weng et a. (hereinafter referred to as Went; cited by applicant).
With regards to claim 9, Nakasone discloses the force sensor module according to claim 4. However, Nakasone does not disclose the engagement section being a hole into which a knock pin is to be inserted, and is provided in each of the first connection part and the second connection part.
Nevertheless, in fig. 1-4, Went teaches the feature of attaching top and bottom portions of a force sensor to one another by providing corresponding holes in each portion, and inserting a pin through the holes. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly connect the two major parts of the force sensor module of Nakasone via an engagement section comprising a hole into which a knock pin is to be inserted, such a hole being provided in each of the first connection part and the second connection part. This would simply provide a known specific configuration for connecting the housings of Nakasone for the purpose of detecting force torque, and nothing about the operation of the module of Nakasone would be change. The result of this combination would thus be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and this combination accordingly amounts to no more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Split whose telephone number is (571)270-1524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 3:30.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/JS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights