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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1149 filed 07/14/2023 & 12/17/2024. These IDS have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6-13 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.
Regarding claim 6, the line 4 limitation “the first strain gauge of the front surface strain sensor” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 4 on which this claim depends recites in lines 10-12 “a first strain gauge and a second strain gauge, the first strain gauge being arranged at a site deformed into a recessed shape in a state in which the strain generating part is elastically deformed when the load is received by the load receiving portion” and also recites in line 16-17 “ a front surface strain sensor arranged on a front surface of the strain generating part”. It is not specified that the front surface strain sensor has a first and second strain gauge nor is it clear whether or not the first strain gauge of the front surface is the same first strain gauge already recited in claim 4 lines 10-12. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is assuming the two recitations of a “first strain gauge” need not be the same strain gauge since one is associated with the manner of deformation and the other is associated with the surface on which it resides.
Also, the lines 4-5 limitation “the second strain gauge of the front surface strain sensor” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 4 on which this claim depends recites in lines 10-15 “a first strain gauge and a second strain gauge…the second strain gauge being arranged at a site deformed into a projected shape in a state in which the strain generating part is elastically deformed when the load is received by the load receiving portion” and also recites in lines 16-17 “a front surface strain sensor arranged on a front surface of the strain generating part”. It is not specified that the front surface strain sensor has a first and second strain gauge nor is it clear whether or not the second strain gauge of the front surface is the same second strain gauge already recited in claim 4 lines 10-15. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is assuming the two recitations of a “second strain gauge” need not be the same strain gauge since one is associated with the manner of deformation and the other is associated with the surface on which it resides.
Also, the line 5 limitation “the first strain gauge of the back surface strain sensor” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 4 on which this claim depends recites in lines 10-12 “a first strain gauge and a second strain gauge, the first strain gauge being arranged at a site deformed into a recessed shape in a state in which the strain generating part is elastically deformed when the load is received by the load receiving portion” and also recites in lines 17-18 “ a back surface strain sensor arranged on a back surface of the strain generating part”. It is not specified that the back surface strain sensor has a first and second strain gauge nor is it clear whether or not the first strain gauge of the back surface is the same first strain gauge already recited in claim 4 lines 10-12. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is assuming the two recitations of a “first strain gauge” need not be the same strain gauge since one is associated with the manner of deformation and the other is associated with the surface on which it resides.
Also, the lines 5-6 limitation “the second strain gauge of the back surface strain sensor” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 4 on which this claim depends recites in lines 10-15 “a first strain gauge and a second strain gauge…the second strain gauge being arranged at a site deformed into a projected shape in a state in which the strain generating part is elastically deformed when the load is received by the load receiving portion” and also recites in lines 17-18 “a back surface strain sensor arranged on a back surface of the strain generating part”. It is not specified that the back surface strain sensor has a first and second strain gauge nor is it clear whether or not the second strain gauge of the back surface is the same second strain gauge already recited in claim 4 lines 10-15. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is assuming the two recitations of a “second strain gauge” need not be the same strain gauge since one is associated with the manner of deformation and the other is associated with the surface on which it resides.
Claims 8, 10, and 12 inherit the deficiencies of claim 6 and are likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 7, the line 4 limitation “the first strain gauge of the front surface strain sensor” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 4 on which this claim depends recites in lines 10-12 “a first strain gauge and a second strain gauge, the first strain gauge being arranged at a site deformed into a recessed shape in a state in which the strain generating part is elastically deformed when the load is received by the load receiving portion” and also recites in line 16-17 “ a front surface strain sensor arranged on a front surface of the strain generating part”. It is not specified that the front surface strain sensor has a first and second strain gauge nor is it clear whether or not the first strain gauge of the front surface is the same first strain gauge already recited in claim 4 lines 10-12. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is assuming the two recitations of a “first strain gauge” need not be the same strain gauge since one is associated with the manner of deformation and the other is associated with the surface on which it resides.
Also, the lines 4-5 limitation “the second strain gauge of the front surface strain sensor” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 4 on which this claim depends recites in lines 10-15 “a first strain gauge and a second strain gauge…the second strain gauge being arranged at a site deformed into a projected shape in a state in which the strain generating part is elastically deformed when the load is received by the load receiving portion” and also recites in lines 16-17 “a front surface strain sensor arranged on a front surface of the strain generating part”. It is not specified that the front surface strain sensor has a first and second strain gauge nor is it clear whether or not the second strain gauge of the front surface is the same second strain gauge already recited in claim 4 lines 10-15. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is assuming the two recitations of a “second strain gauge” need not be the same strain gauge since one is associated with the manner of deformation and the other is associated with the surface on which it resides.
Also, the line 5 limitation “the first strain gauge of the back surface strain sensor” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 4 on which this claim depends recites in lines 10-12 “a first strain gauge and a second strain gauge, the first strain gauge being arranged at a site deformed into a recessed shape in a state in which the strain generating part is elastically deformed when the load is received by the load receiving portion” and also recites in lines 17-18 “ a back surface strain sensor arranged on a back surface of the strain generating part”. It is not specified that the back surface strain sensor has a first and second strain gauge nor is it clear whether or not the first strain gauge of the back surface is the same first strain gauge already recited in claim 4 lines 10-12. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is assuming the two recitations of a “first strain gauge” need not be the same strain gauge since one is associated with the manner of deformation and the other is associated with the surface on which it resides.
Also, the lines 5-6 limitation “the second strain gauge of the back surface strain sensor” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 4 on which this claim depends recites in lines 10-15 “a first strain gauge and a second strain gauge…the second strain gauge being arranged at a site deformed into a projected shape in a state in which the strain generating part is elastically deformed when the load is received by the load receiving portion” and also recites in lines 17-18 “a back surface strain sensor arranged on a back surface of the strain generating part”. It is not specified that the back surface strain sensor has a first and second strain gauge nor is it clear whether or not the second strain gauge of the back surface is the same second strain gauge already recited in claim 4 lines 10-15. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is assuming the two recitations of a “second strain gauge” need not be the same strain gauge since one is associated with the manner of deformation and the other is associated with the surface on which it resides.
Claims 9, 11, and 13 inherit the deficiencies of claim 7 and are likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 8, the line 3 limitation “the second strain gauge of the front surface strain sensor” lacks antecedent basis for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Also, the line 4 limitation “the second strain gauge” is unclear. Is this “the second strain gauge of the front surface strain sensor” as recited in line 2? Or the “second strain gauge” as originally defined in claim 4, lines 10-15?
Also, the line 5 limitation “the first strain gauge of the front surface strain sensor” lacks antecedent basis for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Also, the line 6 limitation “the first strain gauge” is unclear. Is this “the first strain gauge of the front surface strain sensor” as recited in line 5? Or the “first strain gauge” as originally recited in claim 4, lines 10-12?
Also the line 7 and 9 limitation “the first strain gauge of the back surface strain sensor” lacks antecedent basis for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Also, the line 8 and 10 limitation “the first strain gauge” is unclear. Is this “the first strain gauge of the front surface sensor” as recited in line 5? “The first strain gauge of the back surface sensor” as recited in 7? Or “the first strain gauge” as originally recited in claim 4, lines 10-12?
Regarding claim 9, the line 3 limitation “the second strain gauge of the front surface strain sensor” lacks antecedent basis for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Also, the line 4 limitation “the second strain gauge” is unclear. Is this “the second strain gauge of the front surface strain sensor” as recited in line 2? Or the “second strain gauge” as originally defined in claim 4, lines 10-15?
Also, the line 5 limitation “the first strain gauge of the front surface strain sensor” lacks antecedent basis for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Also, the line 6 limitation “the first strain gauge” is unclear. Is this “the first strain gauge of the front surface strain sensor” as recited in line 5? Or the “first strain gauge” as originally recited in claim 4, lines 10-12?
Also the line 7 and 9 limitation “the first strain gauge of the back surface strain sensor” lacks antecedent basis for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Also, the line 8 and 10 limitation “the first strain gauge” is unclear. Is this “the first strain gauge of the front surface sensor” as recited in line 5? “The first strain gauge of the back surface sensor” as recited in 7? Or “the first strain gauge” as originally recited in claim 4, lines 10-12?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Angel (USPN 5,510,581).
Regarding claim 1, Angel discloses a scale (see e.g. figure 5, col. 6, lines 35-41) comprising a case base (figure 5:22) (col. 6, lines 44-46), a case cover (figure 5:26) arranged on the case base (22), the case cover (26) being configured such that a load is applied to the case cover (26) (col. 6, lines 52-57), a plurality of strain generating bodies (figure 5: 23) configured to support the case cover (26) on the case base (22) (col. 6, lines 35-47), the strain generating bodies (23) each having a strain generating part (figure 1: 2), the strain generating part (2) being configured to be elastically deformed by receiving the load applied to the case cover (26) (col. 4, lines 61-64), and a strain sensor (8, 9, 10, 11) provided on the strain generating part (2) of each of the strain generating bodies (23), the strain sensor (8, 9, 10, 11) being configured to give a resistance value varied in accordance with tension and compression due to deformation of the strain generating part (2) (col. 5, lines 4-20), wherein the strain sensor (8, 9, 10, 11) comprises a first strain gauge (9, 11) and a second strain gauge (8, 10), the first strain gauge (9, 11) being arranged at a site deformed into a recessed shape in a state in which the strain generating part (2) is elastically deformed, and the second strain gauge (8, 10) being arranged at a site deformed into a projected shape in a state in which the strain generating part (2) is elastically deformed (col. 5, lines 31-50, see figure 2A which corresponds to figure 4 of the instant application), and in a mutually adjacent pair among the strain generating bodies (23), the strain sensor (8, 9, 10, 11) of the strain generating body (23) serving as a first partner of the pair is arranged on a front surface of the strain generating part (2), and the strain sensor (8, 9, 10, 11) of the strain generating body (23) serving as a second partner of the pair is arranged on a back surface of the strain generating part (2) (col. 5, lines 4-30).
Regarding claim 2, Angel discloses the strain generating bodies (23) are arranged at four locations (col. 6, lines 36-56, see figure 5), in the strain generating body (23) serving as the first partner of the mutually adjacent pair among the strain generating bodies (23), the strain sensor (8, 9, 10, 11) is arranged on the front surface of the strain generating part (2), and in the strain generating body (23) serving as the second partner of the mutually adjacent pair among the strain generating bodies (23), the strain sensor (8, 9, 10, 11) is arranged on the back surface of the strain generating part (2) (col. 5, lines 4-31).
Regarding claim 3, Angel discloses the strain sensor (8, 9, 10, 11) comprises a first contact terminal connected to a first end of the first strain gauge (9, 11), a second contact terminal connected to a first end of the second strain gauge (8, 10), and a third contact terminal connected to a second end of the first strain gauge (9, 11) and a second end of the second strain gauge (8, 10) (no reference numeral, see contact terminals in figure 4).
Regarding claim 4, Angel discloses a strain generating body (figure 5: 23) (col. 6, lines 35-47) comprising a load receiving portion (figure 1: 1) configured to receive a load (col. 4, lines 61-64), a fixing portion (figure 1: 3) fixed to an attachment target (figure 1: 15) (col. 4, lines 61-64), a strain generating part (figure 1: 2) configured to join the load receiving portion (1) with the fixing portion (3), the strain generating part (2) being configured to be elastically deformed due to displacement of the load receiving portion (1) (col. 5, lines 4-8), and a strain sensor (8, 9, 10, 11) provided on the strain generating part (2), the strain sensor (8, 9, 10, 11) being configured to give a resistance value varied in accordance with tension and compression due to the elastic deformation of the strain generating part (2) (col. 5, lines 4-20), wherein the strain sensor (8, 9, 10, 11) includes a first strain gauge (9, 11) and a second strain gauge (8, 10), the first strain gauge (9, 11) being arranged at a site deformed into a recessed shape in a state in which the strain generating part (2) is elastically deformed when the load is received by the load receiving portion (1), and the second strain gauge (8, 10) being arranged at a site deformed into a projected shape in a state in which the strain generating part (2) is elastically deformed when the load is received by the load receiving portion (1) (col. 5, lines 31-50, see figure 2A which corresponds to figure 4 of the instant application), and the strain sensor (8, 9, 10, 11) includes a front surface strain sensor arranged on a front surface of the strain generating part (2) and a back surface strain sensor arranged on a back surface of the strain generating part (2) (col. 5, lines 4-31).
Regarding claim 5, Angel discloses strain sensor (8, 9, 10, 11) is provided with a first contact terminal connected to a first end of the first strain gauge (9, 11), a second contact terminal connected to a second end of the first strain gauge (9, 11), a third contact terminal connected to a first end of the second strain gauge (8, 10), and a fourth contact terminal connected to a second end of the second strain gauge (8, 10) (no reference numeral, see contact terminals in figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Angel discloses a load cell comprising the strain generating body (23) according to claim 4 and wiring forming an Wheatstone bridge circuit by connecting, in the strain generating body (2), the first strain gauge of the front surface strain sensor, the second strain gauge of the front surface strain sensor, the first strain gauge of the back surface strain sensor, and the second strain gauge of the back surface strain sensor (Examiner notes that although it is unclear which strain gauges Applicant intends to designate as first and second gauges for front and back strain sensors, the cited passage notes that strain gauges 8, 9, 10, and 11 are on the front and the back of the load plate thus meeting the claim limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation, see col. 5, lines 4-31).
Regarding claim 7, Angel discloses a load cell comprising the strain generating body (23) according to claim 5 and wiring forming an Wheatstone bridge circuit by connecting, in the strain generating body, the first strain gauge of the front surface strain sensor, the second strain gauge of the front surface strain sensor, the first strain gauge of the back surface strain sensor, and the second strain gauge of the back surface strain sensor (Examiner notes that although it is unclear which strain gauges Applicant intends to designate as first and second gauges for front and back strain sensors, the cited passage notes that strain gauges 8, 9, 10, and 11 are on the front and the back of the load plate thus meeting the claim limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation, see col. 4, lines 4-31).
Regarding claim 14, Angel discloses in figure 5 a scale comprising the strain generating body (23) according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above, col. 6, lines 35-41), a case cover (26) supported by the load receiving portion (1) of the strain generating body (23) and a case base (22) configured to support (via foot 20) the fixing portion (3) of the strain generating body (23) (col. 6, lines 35-57).
Regarding claim 15, Angel discloses in figure 5 a scale comprising the strain generating body (23) according to claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5), a case cover (26) supported by the load receiving portion (1) of the strain generating body (23), and a case base (22) configured to support (via foot 20) the fixing portion (3) of the strain generating body (23) (col. 6, lines 35-57).
Regarding claim 16, Angel discloses the case cover (26) has a rectangular shape, and the strain generating body (23) is arranged on each of four corners of the case cover (26) (see figure 5, col. 6, lines 35-57).
Regarding claim 17, Angel discloses the case cover (26) has a rectangular shape, and the strain generating body (23) is arranged on each of four corners of the case cover (26) (see figure 5, col. 6, lines 35-57).
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.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angel.
Regarding claim 8, Angel discloses the Wheatstone bridge circuit is provided with a first arm on which the second strain gauge of the front surface strain sensor is arranged, the second strain gauge being subjected to a compressive force at a lower level a second arm on which the first strain gauge of the front surface strain sensor is arranged, the first strain gauge being subjected to a tensile force at a higher level a third arm on which the first strain gauge of the back surface strain sensor is arranged, the first strain gauge being subjected to a compressive force at a higher level, and a fourth arm on which the first strain gauge of the back surface strain sensor is arranged, the first strain gauge being subjected to a tensile force at a lower level, wherein a connection part between the first arm and the fourth arm, and a connection part between the second arm and the third arm form an input terminal of the Wheatstone bridge circuit (Examiner notes that although it is unclear which strain gauges Applicant intends to designate as first and second gauges for front and back strain sensors respectively, the cited passage notes that strain gauges 8, 9, 10, and 11 are on the front and the back of the load plate thus meeting the claim limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation, see col. 4, lines 4-31, while figure 2A shows the relative compressive and tensile forces experiences by each strain gauge. Furthermore while Angel does not specify which arms make up each branch of the Wheatstone bridge, the designation first, second, third and fourth arms are arbitrary).
Angel is silent to a connection part between the third arm and the fourth arm, and a connection part between the first arm and the second arm form an output terminal of the Wheatstone bridge circuit.
However, which arms one chooses to connect to form the output terminal is well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art. Given there are only a small number of places to form a connection, a skilled artisan could easily conceive of connecting the first and second arm to form the output terminal. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to form the output terminal between the third and fourth arm and the first and second arm for the purpose of simplifying the wiring so that the wires are not crossed or any longer than they need to be to avoid unnecessary wear and tear or malfunction.
Regarding claim 9, Angel discloses the Wheatstone bridge circuit is provided with a first arm on which the second strain gauge of the front surface strain sensor is arranged, the second strain gauge being subjected to a compressive force at a lower level; a second arm on which the first strain gauge of the front surface strain sensor is arranged, the first strain gauge being subjected to a tensile force at a higher level, a third arm on which the first strain gauge of the back surface strain sensor is arranged, the first strain gauge being subjected to a compressive force at a higher level, and a fourth arm on which the first strain gauge of the back surface strain sensor is arranged, the first strain gauge being subjected to a tensile force at a lower level, wherein a connection part between the first arm and the fourth arm, and a connection part between the second arm and the third arm form an input terminal of the Wheatstone bridge circuit (Examiner notes that although it is unclear which strain gauges Applicant intends to designate as first and second gauges for front and back strain sensors respectively, the cited passage notes that strain gauges 8, 9, 10, and 11 are on the front and the back of the load plate thus meeting the claim limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation, see col. 4, lines 4-31, while figure 2A shows the relative compressive and tensile forces experiences by each strain gauge. Furthermore while Angel does not specify which arms make up each branch of the Wheatstone bridge, the designation first, second, third and fourth arms are arbitrary).
Angel is silent to a connection part between the third arm and the fourth arm, and a connection part between the first arm and the second arm form an output terminal of the Wheatstone bridge circuit.
However, which arms one chooses to connect to form the output terminal is well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art. Given there are only a small number of places to form a connection, a skilled artisan could easily conceive of connecting the first and second arm to form the output terminal. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to form the output terminal between the third and fourth arm and the first and second arm for the purpose of simplifying the wiring so that the wires are not crossed or any longer than they need to be to avoid unnecessary wear and tear or malfunction.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angel in view of Toms (US 2010/0200307).
Regarding claim 10, Angel discloses in figure 5 a plurality of the strain generating bodies (23) (col. 6, lines 36-48).
Angel does not explicitly Wheatstone bridge circuits formed of the respective strain generating bodies are connected in parallel.
However, how one chooses to connect the circuits is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art. Given there are only a small number of ways of connecting Wheatstone bridges in a scale, a skilled artisan could easily conceive of connecting them in parallel. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007).
Toms specifically teaches connecting a plurality of Wheatstone bridges in parallel (¶ [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to connect Angel’s Wheatstone bridges in parallel as taught by Toms for the purpose of detecting smaller variations in resistance, providing a higher fidelity reading, allowing for the averaging of forces and the cancellation of undesired effects,
allowing for the removal of one bridge without preventing the others from functioning,
and facilitating straightforward calculation of the equivalent load and resistance, aiding in the design of load-sharing systems.
Regarding claim 11, Angel discloses in figure 5 a plurality of the strain generating bodies (23) (col. 6, lines 36-48).
Angel does not explicitly Wheatstone bridge circuits formed of the respective strain generating bodies are connected in parallel.
However, how one chooses to connect the circuits is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art. Given there are only a small number of ways of connecting Wheatstone bridges in a scale, a skilled artisan could easily conceive of connecting them in parallel. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007).
Toms specifically teaches connecting a plurality of Wheatstone bridges in parallel (¶ [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to connect Angel’s Wheatstone bridges in parallel as taught by Toms for the purpose of detecting smaller variations in resistance, providing a higher fidelity reading, allowing for the averaging of forces and the cancellation of undesired effects,
allowing for the removal of one bridge without preventing the others from functioning,
and facilitating straightforward calculation of the equivalent load and resistance, aiding in the design of load-sharing systems.
Regarding claim 12, Angel discloses in figure 5 a plurality of the strain generating bodies (23) (col. 6, lines 36-48).
Angel does not explicitly Wheatstone bridge circuits formed of the respective strain generating bodies are connected in parallel.
However, how one chooses to connect the circuits is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art. Given there are only a small number of ways of connecting Wheatstone bridges in a scale, a skilled artisan could easily conceive of connecting them in parallel. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007).
Toms specifically teaches connecting a plurality of Wheatstone bridges in parallel (¶ [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to connect Angel’s Wheatstone bridges in parallel as taught by Toms for the purpose of detecting smaller variations in resistance, providing a higher fidelity reading, allowing for the averaging of forces and the cancellation of undesired effects,
allowing for the removal of one bridge without preventing the others from functioning,
and facilitating straightforward calculation of the equivalent load and resistance, aiding in the design of load-sharing systems.
Regarding claim 13, Angel discloses in figure 5 a plurality of the strain generating bodies (23) (col. 6, lines 36-48).
Angel does not explicitly Wheatstone bridge circuits formed of the respective strain generating bodies are connected in parallel.
However, how one chooses to connect the circuits is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art. Given there are only a small number of ways of connecting Wheatstone bridges in a scale, a skilled artisan could easily conceive of connecting them in parallel. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007).
Toms specifically teaches connecting a plurality of Wheatstone bridges in parallel (¶ [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to connect Angel’s Wheatstone bridges in parallel as taught by Toms for the purpose of detecting smaller variations in resistance, providing a higher fidelity reading, allowing for the averaging of forces and the cancellation of undesired effects,
allowing for the removal of one bridge without preventing the others from functioning,
and facilitating straightforward calculation of the equivalent load and resistance, aiding in the design of load-sharing systems.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPN 4,979,580 discloses a strain generating body as claimed with strain gauges on both sides of the strain generating body.
The remaining cited references represent the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is (571)270-5914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863